Retirement Age in Organizations - Research Proposal Example

Running Head: Proposal on HR Proposal on HR [Institute’s Proposal on Retirement Age in Organizations Introduction Since the start of the 20th century, human resource management has strongly evolved as a distinct field of study. For the last century, the focus on intellectual or human capital has been increasing. Human Resource Managers are expected to recruit and select the best possible available talent, invest heavily in training them all the skills and tasks, provide them with the most effective benefits and ensure employee motivation, participation and satisfaction at all times (Adams, pp. 219-241, 2006). Companies are paying so much attention towards these activities that for many companies the biggest chunk of their cost is represented by the above-mentioned Human Resource functions (Sargeant, pp. 151-153, 2003). Earlier this year, the British government took a decision that holds immense importance for many employers and it has heated a new debate in the corporate sector. “The government has decided that it will scrap the Default Retirement Age (DRA) in 2011” (Mcvittie, Mckinlay & Widdicombe, pp. 595-612, 2003). It means that from October 2011, employees aging 65 and more would not find it mandatory to retire instead they will have an option for the same. Quite understandably, this decision appeared after years of struggle by Age UK and many others (Mcvittie, Mckinlay & Widdicombe, pp. 595-612, 2003). Moreover, the government indicated that this decision had become inevitable in light of the changing economic and demographic factors. One can easily sense that this change would have a profound effect on employers and would make things different and troublesome for human resource managers. Research Statement Therefore, this research would aim at finding the impact of scraping of the retirement age on the management of HR in Organisations. The research would try to look the impact of this decision on all the stakeholders, highlight the most weighty effects and try to make a conclusion that whether is negative or positive in general. Aims and Objectives As mentioned earlier this research would aim at predicating the possible influence of this step on various stakeholders, specifically associated with retail organizations. More specifically, this paper would try to explore and examine Effects of scrapping the DRA on people who are close to their retiring age Implications of scrapping the DRA for employers in terms of their costs, productivity and efficiency Effects of the same on the labor market as a whole and upcoming generation Effects on the governmental budgets and costs. What factors forced the governments to take this decision and its background Preliminary Literature Review Informed audience is well aware of the fact that this discussion is not new and voices regarding amendments in the retirement plans were being heard sine the past couple of decades. However, it was during the mid years of this decade that this discussion gained attraction and attention of many critics and experts. As mentioned earlier that the government has taken this decision in light of the changing demographic and economic situations in the country (Skirbekk, pp. 133-153, 2004). Due to the miracles of technology and medicine, people are now living longer and healthier lives. Moreover, due to the turbulent economic times and current saving habits of people, retirement of these workers would mean that in form of pensions and other benefits they would increase the burden on the state (Raghuram, London & Larsen, pp. 738-753, 2001). Additionally, important here to note is that these baby boomers are not even willing to retire and research indicates that 9 out of 10 people above the age of 65 do not want to retire. Official statistics reveal that more than 0.9 million people aged more than 65 are still working and around 0.35 million of those are working at full time jobs (Torrington, Hall & Taylor, pp. 78-79, 2008). Furthermore, Britains Equality and Human Rights Commission calculated that this move would indirectly inject more than 15 billion pounds in the economy. This explains why some critics want this DRA get pushed until the 70 mark by 2030 (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 293, 2009). Retirement of these people mean that a lower level of spending by them and lesser taxes, however, the reverse is needed to pull this government out of the economy. Furthermore, by allowing their employers to keep them, they are allowing the employers to get benefits from the enormous wealth of experience that these people posses (Mcvittie, Mckinlay & Widdicombe, pp. 595-612, 2003). However, there are critics that have welcomed this decision at all. The economy is in downturn and in a recession where the unemployment rates are already high. Keeping the older people on their jobs would mean blocking the possible employment opportunities for the new comers in the market (Kloep & Hendry, pp. 569-593, 2006). Then again, there is a counter argument to this. If older people are working then they are generating more wealth for themselves, which would in turn boost the economy by increased spending levels and the same would result in higher levels of investment to create new jobs (Dychtwald, Erickson Morison, pp. 48-53, 2004). These critics argue that the job market is not one-goes and another one-comes scenario. Moreover, important here is to note the fact that by the end of the next decade, more than half of the British population would turn 50 and the number of new workers that are joining the workforce are already declining (Griffin & Moorhead, pp. 293, 2009). Quite clearly, life would become even more troublesome for employers and especially human resource mangers. They will now face to issues that previously did not exist, for example, training of the older employees, dealing with them differently than others, providing them with critical illness cover and many other legal and staffing issues (Robbins & Judge, pp. 89, 2010). In addition, personnel planning would become a difficult process for managers since now they do not that when exactly will there staff step down (Han & Moen, pp. 191-236, 1999). Employment lawyers have also sensed that this is going to create for more for them in form of more workplace disputes. Most employers are always very keen to say goodbye to their older workers and find younger replacements for them (Adams, pp. 219-241, 2006). There are many reasons for the same. Firstly, with growing age the marginal productivity of employers keep on decreasing, however, considering, their experience, respect, and position they enjoy much more benefits than any new workers would get by doing the same amount of work (Vickerstaff, Cox & Keen, pp. 271-287, 2003). Methodology The research would be mainly conducted through reliable and authentic secondary sources. Authors have organizational behavior, human resource management, employee relations, staffing practices and others have discussed this topic in considerable detail, which would definitely be helpful in looking at this problem with new perspectives. Since this is not a recent debate, therefore, many journals have devoted some fine articles examining the pros and cons of the issue that would be worth considering in form of primary research. Despite the fact that this debate has been going on for the past 20 years or so but only the most recent data would become a part of the research. Limitations of Research Quite understandably, this research this research would have its foundations on various assumptions and predictions. Moreover, due to the absence of primary research and any similar event in the recent history to refer, the research would be able to predict anything with total authority. References Adams, S. I. (2006). “Age discrimination legislation and the employment of older workers.” Labour Economics, 11, 219-241. Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T. & Morison, B. (2004). “It’s Time to Retire Retirement.” Harvard Business Review. March 2004, 48-53. Griffin, Ricky W. & Moorhead, Gregory. (2009). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Cengage Learning. Han, S.-K. & Moen, P. (1999). “Clocking out: Temporal patterning of retirement.” American Journal of Sociology, 105, 191-236. Kloep, M. & Hendry, I. B. (2006). “Pathways into retirement.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 569-593. Mcvittie, C., Mckinlay, A., & Widdicombe, S. (2003). “Committed to (un)equal opportunities: "New ageism" and the older worker.” British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 595-612. Raghuram, S., London, M. & Larsen, H. H. (2001). “Flexible employment practices in Europe: country versus culture.” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 12, 738-753 Robbins, Stephen P., & Judge, Timothy A. (2010). Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Sargeant, M. (2003). “Mandatory retirement age and age discrimination.” Employee Relations, 26, 2003, 151-166. Skirbekk, V. (2004). “Age and individual productivity: a literature survey.” Vienna Yearbook of Population Research, 133-153. Torrington, Derek, Hall, Laura, & Taylor, Stephen. (2008). Human Resource Management. Financial Times Prentice Hall. Vickerstaff, S. A., Cox, J. & Keen, I. (2003). “Employers and the management of retirement.” Social Policy & Administration, 37, 271-287. Read More