Forced retirement age differs across countries, perhaps a depiction of population pressure, economics or value systems (Manfredi & Vickers, 2009). Retiring at 50 is probably as justified as retiring at 70. It is, however, my firm belief that the longer an employee remains in the work, the better for himself and the employer. This paper demonstrates why chronological age is an ineffective criterion for determining retirement age since it is not a good measure of ability and performance.
The retirement age depends on the work type and not chronological age. The importance of a job is a practical measure of one’s ability and performance. Some jobs (mining and piloting) need high attention to detail and physical ability to perform. Administrative and community service jobs require less attention to detail or physical ability to perform. A worker in the seventies with deteriorating health will not perform high-attention to detail works, or physical ability to perform jobs but will satisfactorily perform administrative and community service works. Consequently, the importance of work should determine the retirement age.
A work suitability for a particular job should base on performance. An employee’s work performance record is a useful benchmark for employee’s performance assessment. The work performance record has no direct relationship with age (Ekerdt, 2010). Therefore, a worker with a positive work performance record should remain in the work. Thus, the suitability of a worker should be depicted in his performance.
People must be motivated and encouraged to remain in the job provided they are healthy and fit. Thus, a healthy employee should remain in work as much as he can carry out his duties. The findings demonstrate that age is not sufficient in determining retirement age.