The (performance) management of retirement and the limits of individual choice

Abstract

The removal of the default retirement age in the UK has been broadly welcomed as the disposal of an age-discriminatory measure. It is argued here that a focus on formal equality has been at the expense of a more critical analysis of the employment relations consequences. The central role given to performance measurement allows employers considerable discretion over when employees retire and the scope for bargained outcomes in the new regime is limited. This may be to the detriment of older workers and will have implications for the workforce as a whole. Equality, in other words, may come at the expense of a broader conception of fairness.

From annual ritual to daily routine: continuous performance management and its consequences for employment security

“…We argue that, while there continue to be a range of employer rationales, a new phase of monitoring and measurement is driven primarily by the need to control dismissal, in other words to manage employee ‘exit’ from the organisation. For example, in the situation of older workers in the UK who are being encouraged, but also forced, to continue working by the abolishment of the Default Retirement Age (DRA) and the extension of the State Pension Age (SPA) respectively, employers resort to PM in attempts to regain control over the timing of retirement (Beck and Williams, ). We review some of the political and practical reasons why managing exit has been seen increasingly as a priority and go on to consider how technical innovation has provided a more systematic basis for management decisions.…”

“…The ending of the default retirement age in 2011 was met with concern from employers, who argued that it would make it difficult and costly to remove older workers whose performance is deteriorating (BIS, ). Government advice, and that of agencies and practitioner groups, was that dismissal would not be construed as discriminatory, provided it was the result of a rigorous and consistent PM procedures (Beck and Williams, ). Employers were actively encouraged to implement such schemes as a means of ‘equality‐proofing’ dismissal decisions.…”

“…Nevertheless, this does not mean the end of ranking. All schemes that rate individual employees are comparative, since performance measures are implicitly norm‐referenced rather than based on fixed output criteria (Beck and Williams, ). The difference in this case is that the comparison remains implicit.…”

Redefining retirement: age equality and the rise of performance management

“…Performance management (PM) creates the opportunity to identify and ultimately remove individuals who fall below a set benchmark. All abilities decline at some point, and employers are now encouraged—indeed forced—to ‘manage‐out’ such employees who are incapable of improvement (Beck and Williams, ; DWP, ; TUC/CIPD, ).…”

“…Age equality, as currently interpreted, assumes a narrow and relatively unsophisticated formal equality. The new retirement regime is thus the expression of a particular view of age equality: one that focuses on ‘sameness’, not difference (Beck and Williams, ). This is founded on the individual's right to work, a prominent feature since policy turned away from encouraging early withdrawal from the labour market (Taylor, ).…”