The Impact of Preretirement Programs on the Retirement Experience 1

Transcription

1 Journal of Gerontology Vol. 36, No. 2, The Impact of Preretirement Programs on the Retirement Experience 1 Francis D. Glamser, PhD 2 In an attempt to provide evidence on the impact of preretirement programs on the retirement experience of participants a longitudinal design was employed. Two experimental groups and a control group were used to evaluate a comprehensive group discussion program and an individual briefing program. Questionnaire data were collected prior to program initiation and again six years later. Over 80 male industrial workers participated throughout the project. Now age 65 or over they have been retired an average of 3.7 years. Posttest data indicate no significant effect upon the retirement experience by either program. No substantive differences with the control group were noted in length of adjustment period, accuracy of expectations, level of preparation, life satisfaction, attitude toward retirement, or job deprivation. It was concluded that the impact of preretirement programs may be of short duration and of primary value in the preretirement phase. Key Terms: Preretirement programs, Retirement, Retirement counseling, Retirement education, Retirement preparation. RERETIREMENT programs have been P in existence for nearly 30 years (Hunter, 1965). Such programs are designed to ease the transition to retirement and to minimize problems which may be encountered. They were thought to be necessary because of the importance of the worker role as a source of identity and status (Donahue et al., 1960; Friedmann&Havighurst, 1954;Maddox, 1966; Miller, 1965). The loss of this role was seen as a potential source of a number of pathological results for the retiree. More recent research suggests that the importance of work has been overrated as a factor in retirement adjustment (Atchley, 1976; Glamser, 1976; Goudy et al., 1975; Simpson et al., 1966a). The most important factors in retirement adjustment are health and finances, and few retirees actually miss their job (Atchley, 1976; Ward, 1979). In spite of the changing views of gerontologists with respect to retirement, there has been a recent substantial growth in the prevalence of retirement preparation programs. In addition to meeting the needs of workers, such programs are thought to be advantageous to 'Revision of a paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting of the Gerontological Society, Washington, DC, Nov., This research was supported in part by a North Texas State Univ. faculty research grant. 2 Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology, Univ. of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS employers in that they may promote better employee relations and encourage early retirement of highly paid workers. The recent legal prohibition of mandatory retirement prior to age 70 makes this latter consideration doubly important. Preretirement programs are known by many names: retirement planning, preretirement education, preretirement counseling, and preparation for retirement. These programs have either an individual or group approach. The individual approach features one or more briefings with the prospective retiree during which he or she is advised of pension benefits, social security regulations, and general retirement information. This method is the most common in industry and is usually handled by a company personnel manager. The group method is more comprehensive and is most likely to be employed by large organizations where there are a number of older workers at a given time. This approach may include group discussions, role playing, lectures, printed material, and/or audio-visual materials in order to provide a broad coverage of retirement issues and to deal with the feelings and concerns of the participants. It is important to note, however, that probably no more than 15 of large companies provide a comprehensive preretirement program (O'Meara, 1977). 244

2 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS 245 In view of the growing interest in retirement preparation, it is surprising that there is little meaningful evidence on the long-term effectiveness of such programs. While there have been numerous research reports seeking to evaluate preretirement programs, most fail to provide a definitive test because of methodological problems (Charles, 1971; Hunter, 1957, 1968; Mack, 1958). To differing extents most studies suffer one or more of the following deficiencies: no control group, self-selected samples (volunteers), and/or immediate measurement of results. One study attempted to overcome these problems by employing an experimental design with randomly assigned groups and a 4 week delay subsequent to program completion prior to the posttest (Glamser & DeJong, 1975). Among the workers studied the group discussion method was effective in increasing knowledge of retirement issues. Participants felt better prepared for retirement and evidenced less uncertainty about the future. They also exhibited an increase in retirement preparation activities and plans. However, because the participants had not retired, no conclusions as to the actual retirement experience were possible. A similar but more sophisticated study is that of Tiberi et al., (1978). Over 500 older workers volunteered to participate in one of four preretirement education programs each of which involved a different model of retirement preparation. The models were identified as: (1) facilitated interaction; (2) semistructured stimulus discussion; (3) presentation audience; and (4) individual resource. Participants, including members of a control group, completed questionnaires prior to program initiation and three months subsequent to program completion. The data suggest that the type of preretirement program employed is an important factor in behavioral, informational, and attitudinal outcomes. The facilitated interaction and stimulus discussion models were most effective in the area of behavioral change, while the facilitated interaction and presentation audience models were most effective with respect to informational change. While attitudinal change was minimal (as has been the case in other studies), two of the models, presentation audience and individual resource, appear to have had a negative effect on retirement attitudes. The authors conclude that a program which does not provide specific processes to deal with the feelings and apprehensions of the preretiree may be counterproductive. An important study which deals with actual retirees is that of Greene et al. (1969) who surveyed 648 older workers and retirees. The subjects were selected from eight companies, four of which had preretirement counseling programs. Retirees who had taken part in a counseling program were better adjusted than those who had not. This was particularly true when comparing workers from the same company. This finding is difficult to interpret inasmuch as a selection process may have been operating. People with a favorable orientation toward retirement are more likely to seek out information on retirement (Simpson et al., 1966b). This explanation is supported by the fact that when all retirees from companies with counseling programs were compared with all retirees from companies without programs, few significant differences were noted. METHOD In an attempt to overcome the methodological difficulties of previous studies and to provide much needed evidence on the impact of preretirement programs on the actual retirement experience of participants, an experimental design was employed. This study is a longitudinal update of an earlier project (Glamser & DeJong, 1975). The design included experimental groups which participated in either a group discussion program or an individual briefing program and a control group. In 1973 subjects were identified from the work force of the six Pennsylvania plants of a major glass container manufacturer with production facilities in 11 states. Three plants are at one location in the central part of the state, and three are in the southwest corner of the state. At both locations there are two major plants separated in distance by about 1 mile. In the western location a smaller plant is adjacent to one of the larger ones. In the central location, the smaller plant was between the two larger ones. All of the company's 132 Pennsylvaniabased male employees age 60 and over were included in the initial mailing list for the study and over one-half responded to the pretest. The median age of respondents was 62, while the mean years of school completed was ten.

3 246 GLAMSER Over 90 of the respondents owned their homes and 91 were married. The range of occupations represented was quite broad from engineers and chemists to machinists, machine operators, and semi-skilled packers. Much of the industry's work is of an assemblyline nature, and a majority of the workers are employed in semi-skilled positions. The specific programs evaluated were: (1) a group discussion program patterned closely after the one developed at the University of Michigan Institute of Gerontology and (2) an individual briefing program designed to be typical of the preretirement efforts of many companies. All of the older workers in a given plant were assigned to one of the three groups prior to any actual contact, although each group was not the same size because of differing plant sizes and the need to enhance group interaction in the discussion program. The decision as to which plants were assigned to which group was based solely on the number of older workers at the plant. The manufacturing process is identical at both locations and workers are not systematically assigned to the various plants. Twenty-six workers (from one plant) were assigned to the group discussion program, a total of 66 (from three plants) were assigned to the individual briefing program, and 40 (from two plants) were exposed to no programs, and thus comprised the control group. The actual rates of response and program participation may be seen in Table 1. As noted above, all of the subjects in a given plant were assigned to the same group to minimize reactive and other contaminating effects. Although the programs were not mandatory, workers were given the impression that participation was expected. Thus, program participation was about double that normally experienced with purely voluntary programs. The group discussion program included eight meetings held over a 1-month period with sessions lasting approximately 90 min each. These sessions were led by the author and included the following topics: the meaning of work and retirement, Social Security and Medicare, retirement income, financial planning, health, leisure, family and friends, and living arrangements. A company official assisted at the income session to explain company benefits and to answer questions pertaining to company policy. Similarly, an employee Table 1. Response Rates and Retirement Program Participation. Population Size in 1973 Pretest Response Program Participation Population Size in 1979 Pojttest Response Group Discussion (16) 62 (16) (20) Individual Briefing (36) 71 (47) (41) Group (18) 100 (40) () of the Social Security Administration attended the third session to explain the various benefits available to retirees. For each of the sessions a reading assignment from Hunter's Preparation for Retirement (1973) was given in advance. Free copies of the book were provided, and the entire book was covered during the program. To maximize involvement of the participants, separate sessions were held for salaried and hourly wage personnel. The format employed at the sessions was a combination of the facilitated interaction and presentation/audience models of preretirement education. The emphasis was upon individual retirement concerns and small group discussion of issues raised by the leader or participants. Because the men had known each other for many years they were quite relaxed and discussion of the issues raised flowed freely. The program was loosely structured with the participants exercising a great deal of influence on the directions that the sessions took. Participants assigned to the individual briefing program visited their plant personnel office for an explanation of the company's retirement benefits. They were also given four booklets dealing with retirement planning, income, health, and leisure activities. The briefing was handled by the regular plant personnel manager and lasted approximately 30 min. Obviously, tfye individual briefing program involved far less time and intensity as well as a different method than the group discussion program. However, such programs are common and therefore the inclusion of such a program in this evaluation was deemed useful. Two months prior to the initiation of the two programs, all subjects on the mailing list

4 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS 247 received the pretest questionnaire designed to measure retirement-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior as well as standard demographic items. To minimize reactive effects, only one postcard follow-up was employed. The pretest data were used to determine group comparability prior to exposure to the programs. The groups were known to be similar in terms of social, economic, and occupational characteristics, but it was necessary to examine them with respect to retirement-related issues. Thus, the three groups were compared on five variables: (1) knowledge of retirement issues, (2) attitude toward retirement, (3) commitment to work, (4) attitude toward the company, (5) retirement planning and preparation activities undertaken. No statistically significant differences were found as was reported in an earlier paper (Glamser & DeJong, 1975). The posttest measurement was conducted by mailed questionnaire approximately 6 years after completion of the preretirement programs to allow time for the younger participants to retire. The average length of time spent in retirement by the respondents was 3.7 years with a range of 5 months to 6 years. This wide range and the substantial time in retirement for some respondents constitute an obvious limitation. However, multiple measurements or individual measurements over a long period of time were seen as introducing even greater confounding variables. By this time the original mailing list had suffered attrition in the form of twenty deaths and two departures from the company prior to retirement. Of the remaining 110 men, 82 responded to the posttest for a return rate of 75. Given the longitudinal nature of the study and the use of mailed questionnaires, this compares favorably with other studies. Because one respondent was employed full time and one was paralyzed by stroke, the usable sample size was 80. It should be noted that all subjects initially assigned to the groups were included in the posttest mailing even if they had not taken part in their assigned program (which was the case with about a third of the workers). Inasmuch as these nonattenders may differ from the others (Simpson et al., 1966b), their exclusion would probably bias the evaluation in a positive direction with the self-selection problem common to previous studies. Thus, the analysis is probably conservative since the findings include all retirees from study plants who responded to the final mailing. However, absence from the programs does not mean the individual was totally immune to the treatment. Many participants discussed the programs and shared materials with fellow workers. RESULTS A major objective of preretirement programs is to ease or expedite the transition to retirement. Therefore, respondents were asked how long it took them "to become used to being retired." While this retrospective approach is less than ideal and deals only with perceptions, its limitations are equally operative within the groups. As can be seen in Table 2, no systematic differences can be observed in the responses of the workers assigned to the three groups. Twenty-one percent of the group discussion respondents reported an adjustment period of less than a month as did 22 of the individual briefing respondents and of the control group. At the other extreme, 26 of the discussion group reported a period of 1 year or more as did 34 of the briefing group and of the control group. While the other time categories show some variations across the groups, no substantial differences exist. Thus, it would appear that neither program is associated with the reported length of the adjustment period. To determine the subjects' perceived level of preparation for retirement, they were asked "In general, how well prepared were you for retirement?" Possible responses ranged from "very well prepared" to "not prepared at all." Table 2. Retirees' Self-Reported Time to Adjust to Retirement. Retirement Program Group Discussion Individual Briefing (N=41) X 2 = 3.17 d.f. = 6 p <.80 Less Than Month Months Months One Year or More 26 34

5 248 GLAMSER Table 3. Retirees' Reported Preparedness for Retirement. Table 4. Mean Life Satisfaction, Attitude Toward Retirement, and Job Deprivation. Retirement Program Group Discussion Individual Briefing (N=41) (N = 20) X > *" d.f. = 4 p <.25 Very Well Prepared Fairly Well Prepared Not Well Prepared The data in Table 3 reveal no substantial difference in the overall response pattern of the three groups, although the subjects in the discussion group report a mildly higher level of preparation. Given the lack of statistical significance, the author must conclude that the retirees were being charitable by not reporting that his program left them unprepared for retirement. Beyond these rather simple and limited indicators of program impact would be measures of retirement adjustment. To this end three attitudinal areas were explored life satisfaction, attitude toward retirement, and job deprivation. Life satisfaction was measured via the Cantril (1965) ladder technique wherein the subject places a mark on a tenrung ladder the extremes which are labeled "best possible life" and "worst possible life." Attitude toward retirement was measured by responses to a five-item Likert scale which allowed the traditional five responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. This scale, which had been employed in an earlier phase of this study (Glamser, 1976), allows for a range of possible scores of five to 25 with the higher scores indicating a more positive attitude toward retirement. Some minor changes were made to allow its use with persons currently retired. The third attitudinal measure was the job deprivation scale designed by Thompson (1958) and later used by Simpson et al. (1966c). A five response form of the fouritem scale was employed to produce a possible score of from four to 20 with higher scores indicating deprivation. Mean attitude scores by program are presented in Table 4. As was the case with the other variables, the retirement programs Retirement Program Group Discussion Individual Briefing (N=41) (N=20) Probability Life Satisfaction Retirement Attitude Job Deprivation appear to have had no impact upon these measures of life satisfaction, retirement attitude, or job deprivation. In fact, the scores are nearly identical in some cases. The retirement programs, even the comprehensive group discussion program, appear to have had no long-term effect on the average levels of measures of retirement adjustment. However, this does not mean that specific individuals were not helped or that initial adjustment to retirement was not affected. The most stressful period of retirement adjustment is likely to be the first month or so, a period not tapped by this research design. Another important limitation is the fact that most of these retirees saw retirement in positive terms while they were working. From their perspective retirement was the way out of a stressful and demanding situation. Commitment to work was generally low, especially among hourly employees. In fact, only 41 of the respondents waited until age 65 to retire. Thus, a retirement program cannot be expected to improve attitudes that are already positive. DISCUSSION To date there is little evidence that retirement preparation programs have a significant or substantial impact upon the subsequent retirement experience of the participants. Does this mean such programs are of no value? This author thinks not. During the 1973 data collection phase of the study, almost 90 of the sample indicated that they believed that the company should sponsor some kind of program to prepare workers for retirement. Upon program completion, a solid majority of the.88

6 IMPACT OF PRERETIREMENT PROGRAMS 249 participants in both groups reported feeling better as a result of the program, and nearly 90 felt that their respective program was helpful as a way of preparing for retirement. The data from 1979 are also supportive. Approximately 84 of the retirees believed that companies should have programs to prepare workers for retirement. This would seem to indicate that older workers desire assistance in preparing for retirement, and that they appreciate such assistance when it is rendered. Thus, the true value of retirement preparation programs may lie in the help that can be provided when it is needed during the preretirement stage. Of course, it must be recognized that this study is limited. Larger samples and more frequent or earlier measurements are necessary. Perhaps more sensitive measures and a focus on individuals would produce different results. However, it may be prudent to shift the focus of retirement preparation programs and their rationale somewhat to the preretirement period. It has been amply demonstrated that retirement preparation programs can have an immediate effect upon the participants with respect to knowledge and behavior (Fitzpatrick, 1979; Glamser & DeJong, 1975; Tiberi et al., 1978). Thus, it is reasonable to design and evaluate programs in terms of what can be accomplished during the time preceding retirement. This would include meeting the emotional needs of the worker as well as his or her practical needs. As Tiberi, et al. have demonstrated, the type of program employed is an important factor in the employee's emotional response a dependent variable ignored by most evaluators. As noted earlier, some approaches may actually create problems. Another consideration is the fact that no retirement preparation program that involves a small, one-shot investment in time and effort is likely to have a long-term effect on personal adjustment and life satisfaction. It is quite possible that a well-designed program which involves the older employee over a period of years would have a substantial impact upon retirement adjustment. Yet, brief superficial programs are likely to remain the norm in retirement preparation. Thus, whether or not a truly intensive and comprehensive program could produce favorable long-term outcomes is probably a moot question for the foreseeable future. There is also the very real possibility that workers with the greatest need for preretirement education and counseling are often the ones who avoid participation. Any program which is voluntary will have this fundamental problem. In spite of the apparently negative results of this study, it is clear that retirement preparation programs can have a number of positive effects for workers and employers. While attitudes toward retirement may have changed for the better since the initial development of such programs, workers facing retirement generally exhibit some very real concerns about such things as income, health, and family relations. They desire and appreciate employer sponsored programs that meet their needs for information and emotional support. When this observation is coupled with the possible benefits to employers of such efforts, one must predict that the growth of retirement preparation programs will and should continue. REFERENCES Atchley, R. C. The sociology of retirement. Schenkman, New York, Cantril, H. The pattern of human concerns. Rutgers Univ. Press, New Brunswick, Charles, D. C. Effect of participation in a preretirement program. Gerontologist, 1971, //, Donahue, W., Orbach, H. L., & Pollak, O. Retirement: The emerging social pattern. In C. Tibbits (Ed.), Handbook of social gerontology. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Fitzpatrick, E. W. Evaluating a new retirement planning program results with hourly workers. Aging and Work, Spring 1979, Friedmann, E. A., & Havighurst, R. J. The meaning of work and retirement. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Glamser, F. D. Determinants of a positive attitude toward retirement. Journal of Gerontology, 1976,5/, Glamser, F. D., & DeJong, G. F. The efficacy of preretirement preparation programs for industrial workers. Journal of Gerontology, 1975,30, Goudy, W., Powers, E., & Keith, P. Work and retirement: A test of attitudinal relationships. Journal of Gerontology, 1975, 30, Greene, M. R., Pyron, H. C, Manion, U. V., & Winklevoss, H. Preretirement counseling, retirement adjustment, and the older employee. USDHEW, AoA, Washington, Oct., Hunter, W. W. Preparation for retirement of hourly wage employees in Niagara Falls, New York. Division of Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Hunter, W. W. A cross-national appraisal of preretirement education. Division of Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Hunter, W. W. Preretirement education for hourly-rated

7 250 GLAMSER employees. Division of Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Hunter, W. W. Preparation for retirement. Inst. of Gerontology, Univ. of Michigan-Wayne State Univ., Ann Arbor, Mack, M. J. An evaluation of a retirement planning program. Journal of Gerontology, 1958,75, Maddox, G. L. Retirement as a social event in the United States. In J. C. McKinney & F. T. devyver (Eds.), Aging and social policy. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, Miller, S. J. The social dilemma of the aging leisure participant. In A. M. Rose & W. A. Peterson (Eds.), Older people and their social world. F. A. Davis, Philadelphia, O'Meara, J. Retirement: Reward or rejection. The Conference Board, New York, Simpson, I. H. ( Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Work and retirement. In I. H. Simpson & J. C. McKinney pubjication is available in microform i l - i Please send me additional information. University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Dept. P.R. Ann Arbor, Ml U.S.A. 18 Bedford Row Dept. P.R. London, WC1R4EJ England Name Institution. Street City State -Zip (Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC, (a) Simpson, I. H., Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Exposure to information on, preparation for, and self evaluation in retirement. In I. H. Simpson & J. C. McKinney (Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC, (b) Simpson, I. H., Back, K. W., & McKinney, J. C. Orientation toward work and retirement. In I. H. Simpson & J. C. McKinney, (Eds.), Social aspects of aging. Duke Univ. Press, Durham, NC, (c) Thompson, W. E. Preretirement anticipation and adjustment in retirement. Journal of Social Issues, 1958, 14, Tiberi, D. M., Boyack, V. L., & Kerschner, P. A. A comparative analysis of four preretirement education models. Educational Gerontology, 1978, 3, Ward, R. A. The aging experience. J. B. Lippincott, New York, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH University-wide Institute on Aging seeks a Director of Research. The successful candidate will be an experienced researcher in any of the social, behavioral or biomedical sciences, possess the demonstrated ability to obtain grant support and qualify for an academic appointment as full professor. Preference will be given to individuals who can document sensitivity to the needs of low income minority urban elderly. The selected individual will coordinate all research programs in aging, direct personal research, serve on the Executive Committee of the Institute and report to the Executive Director who in turn reports to a University Vice President. Starting date and salary are negotiable. Please send letter of application plus resume with salary history in confidence to: C-18, P.O. BOX 2066 Philadelphia, PA Equal Opportunity Employer