older bearded man in front of pastel background and laptop smiling

Aging has changed in the 21st century. The cliches are true: "40 is the new 30," "50 is the new 40." And when it comes time to retire, your retirement won't look like your grandfather's retirement. So why do we still view it the same way?

Signature Wealth Strategies CEO Chip Munn believes there's a need for a new retirement model, especially since many of us will still be working in some capacity after we "retire," whether out of a desire to stay active, or because of a shortfall in retirement savings. Munn calls it a "remixed retirement," which is also the title of his newest book, The Retirement Remix: A Modern Solution to an Old School Problem. He recently discussed his ideas about how retirement has changed, retirement readiness, and steps workers and employers can take to keep an aging workforce productive and engaged.

BENEFITSPRO: Your website mentions changing the way we look at work. What does that mean and how would it look?

Chip Munn: Work has typically been viewed as a means to an end rather than a place to share our unique value with others.

For employees, changing the way they look at work means getting honest with themselves and developing a vision of what they want to spend their time doing. Then they can find or design a situation that lets them live out their vision. It's not unusual to hear disengaged employees say things like, "I would do something different, but I'm 10 years in now," or, "I wish I could do something else, but I only have 5 years left (until my pension.)"

The only other people I've heard use phrases like that are incarcerated. There's a better way and it only requires open-mindedness and courage.

A new view of work would allow employees to see their work as an extension of their personal purpose. If companies and employees took this approach, then both could benefit from the experience of allowing people to spend their time (regardless of how many hours they work) focused on tasks where their passion, knowledge and experience meet. It would allow veteran workers to focus on transferring their most valuable asset – their primary wisdom – to the next generation over time, while also being more engaged with their work.

What is a "remixed" retirement?

The Retirement Remix concept is based on the idea that retirement is a journey, rather than a destination. Believe it or not, most people pick their "target" retirement date based on either when their parents retired or when their friends plan to retire (which is often based on when their parents retired.) At some point people believe they should retire, but they don't often have a reason for leaving the workforce at a specific age.

I've heard people compare the fear of retiring to jumping off a cliff and hoping your parachute will work. That's probably why the scariest day in the life of some people is the day their last earned paycheck clears the bank. A remixed retirement is one that's designed to be more like hiking down a hill. There are basecamps along the way and there's no need for a rush or a parachute. You don't have a set time of arrival, so you can take your time.

Are you seeing people planning for what they'll do in retirement or winging it?

It's not surprising for people to underprepare for retirement, particularly what they'll do in retirement. Planning for the financial aspects of retirement can certainly have pitfalls, but in my experience it's more likely that people will "fail" at retirement and go back to the workforce as a result of a lack of purpose than due to a lack of money.

I think that expectations of retirement are really hard for people to get right, because they don't have any experience. Also, the unique nature of people's goals and financial situations make it difficult to compare our experience to our friends'.

I think that the recent COVID work-from-home orders have given people some experience with three key things they'll likely miss about their workplace: their community, their routine and their sense of contribution. I think using this pandemic experience and creating other "trial retirements" can help employees set the right expectations.

Is there a difference among occupations as to who wants to keep working and who wants to get out of the workforce ASAP?

The notion of retirement was developed, in no small part, to coincide with the physical capabilities of workers in the Industrial Age. Workers with jobs that are more physically demanding or come with harsh working conditions are more likely to want to make a change (either to retirement or to a less stringent position).

Knowledge workers or those in management or executive positions are more likely to want to leave the workforce because they long for more time and freedom. It's not uncommon for the majority of their workday to consist of activities that they don't find joy or fulfillment in and they think that they can be happier in retirement than they are at work.

There's no denying that age discrimination exists in the labor market. Are employers interested in employing older workers as well as offering ways to transition them to retirement?

I think that age discrimination is really a result of underestimating the value of a veteran employee's experience. Businesses exist partly to make a profit for shareholders, and in many cases, the discrimination comes about as a result of budget cuts or the desire to lower costs in order to create or increase profits.

Most employers aren't necessarily interested in employing older workers from outside the company. There's a big difference in both cost and value, however, between hiring older workers and retaining your current veterans in some capacity. A creative, forward-looking company could reduce costs and increase profitability by establishing a program that focused on maintaining and transitioning senior team members' primary wisdom to the next generation.

What about people who say boomers should leave the workforce at 65 to make room for younger people to advance their careers?

It depends on what the company's objective is, but generally speaking, that's not a fair trade for the company. My follow-up question to those people would be – who says you can only have boomers or younger people? I think, ideally, you'd want to have both. All types of diversity, including varying age ranges, increase group creativity. Combining the experience of senior team members with the innovation of new hires can be a great mix.

There's no way to rush experience. I've heard it said that good decisions come from experience, but experience comes from bad decisions. Maintaining and transferring wisdom can drastically decrease bad decisions, saving companies time and money.

If you compare the US to other countries, we work longer hours, get less personal/vacation/family leave, and our retirement and health care plans are tied to our employers. Since the system already exists, what incentive is there for employers to change it by, say, offering job flexibility or transitioned retirement?

Employers who want to stay in business will have to change. The Affordable Care Act made health care more affordable for individuals. Millennials have already forced changes in job flexibility in the workforce. COVID-19 has forced changes in where people are comfortable working. We won't go back to "the way things were," and taking a look at the retirement path is the next phase of that progression.

Workers were putting up with that system, but that is over. Employers will likely have to continue to evolve. What's more important is the reason why companies should change sooner rather than later – because the right Retirement Remix Plan can actually help them generate higher profits and shareholder value.

They're squandering their company's most valuable resource by not changing. I recently had a client who was paid a severance package that included a year's salary to not work. Meanwhile the people she mentored saw that her more than 20 years of service wasn't rewarded with reciprocal loyalty. How is that the best strategic plan for the company and its shareholders?

Are there examples of employers who are doing transitioned retirements?

There are lots of companies who offer a form of transitional retirement, but it's a one-off solution rather than a strategic decision. Old School Retirement is the norm, not because it's best for anyone, but because there hasn't been a better solution. I'd suggest that a remixed retirement strategy offers a better solution to the company, the veteran employee and the next generation.

How can employees and HR make this happen?

The freedom of time and purpose that the Retirement Remix represents is obvious to employees. At a certain point, money no longer contributes to enhanced satisfaction – they want more freedom of time and purpose. Companies want more engaged employees and higher profits, but they have to understand that this type of solution is good for them.

It's important that both employees and HR executives grasp the concept of primary wisdom – the unique experience and knowledge inherent in veteran employees – and the wisdom drain that occurs when senior people leave. Employees can use this knowledge to create their value proposition to the company and HR people can use it to quantify their wisdom drain (the asset that they lose when the employee leaves).

If I were an employee, I'd spend time clarifying exactly what my ideal situation would look like at work. I would identify and quantify my primary wisdom and I would create an offer to the company.

I had a client who served as director of marketing for a company, who didn't enjoy many of her responsibilities but loved some of the artistic components. After defining her primary wisdom, she went to the president and proposed that she work from home as a 1099 contractor for the company, doing only the artistic components. They happily agreed, rather than having to replace her skill in that area. Most companies aren't unwilling to consider alternative arrangements that are a win for them, but the employee would be much more likely to succeed going in with a specific request.

If I were an HR manager, I would spend some time considering what the primary wisdom is for each team member, starting at the top. Armed with this information, I would consider alternative work and compensation arrangements.

I would look for opportunities that align with my business objectives, without draining the wisdom from my company, and that also align with my employees' innate desire for more freedom. Cicero said, "Dig your well before you're thirsty," so if I were an HR manager, I'd share my discoveries with my key employees and solicit feedback. Just understand if your team has no experience with these concepts that they may be a little skeptical.

Instant Insights /

Remixing retirement and work for more engaged and productive employees

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You