'Micro' Managing

 I recently stumbled into a bit of controversy on LinkedIn. 

Honestly, I’m not even sure how this wound up in my “feed” — but there was a post from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the topic of “micro-retirements.”

Now, if you’re like me, you may be wondering — what the heck is a MICRO-retirement?  Turns out that, unlike actual retirement, it’s a series of multiple, intentional “mini-breaks” from work throughout life — rather than waiting until the traditional “big” retirement at the end of a career. 

Some of you are going to say — oh, we used to call that a sabbatical. Others might well see this as some kind of extended PTO or vacation break. But those, of course, are generally employer supported/sanctioned, whereas these micro-retirements presumably would not be. 

Oh, and none other than sidehustles.com[i] (who admittedly might be biased on the subject) claims that 1 in 10 Americans plan to take one this year.

That said, it’s actually not a new term, though I don’t remember hearing it previously. Said to be the latest Gen Z trend, the current label gained traction in the mid-2000s, especially after The 4-Hour Workweek by Tim Ferriss (2007), which popularized the idea of “mini-retirements” as deliberate breaks instead of a single retirement at the “end.”

This was positioned as folks working for an 8-10-year stretch — saving up enough money for — whatever — and then taking several months or a couple of years to do — whatever (travel to Asia, volunteer, write a book, etc.) funded by savings accumulated during the working stretch. And then you come back to the workforce — maybe a completely different field, maybe something related to the time you took off, or perhaps your “old” field, but rejuvenated, inspired, etc. 

The controversy, as you might expect, was between those who did a bit of eye-rolling at the notion of just walking away from work for random, extended periods of time and those who viewed those eye-rollers as some kind of 19^th century neanderthal throwbacks for their more “traditional” views about work. Oh, and interestingly enough, age didn’t really seem to be a factor in those responses (if only because LinkedIn seems to still be dominated by “older” voices — or maybe that’s just my feed).

People change jobs all the time — and employers often terminate employment of hundreds (and even thousands) of people with precious little opportunity to prepare. At some level then, people deciding to take an extended break from work shouldn’t be all that disruptive.  On the other hand, “covering” for folks who are on sabbatical, parental leave, or even vacation does put a strain[ii] on the rest of the team (though I know of instances where their extended departure was welcome!). In other words, managing micro-retirements would/is surely (be) … complicated.

We spend a lot of time and energy worrying about people not saving enough even after a 40-year career, and so the notion that you’d pull up, stop and spend (and spend money supporting) an extended period (months to a year) on life experiences[iii] — well, I can’t quite get my head around it. That said, the side-hustles survey says just over half (52%) of those who have taken one plan to return to their current employer. 

In fairness, I’ve never had a sabbatical — heck, I never even took time off between my job changes (I know, sick, right?) — and I am widely (though good-naturedly) razzed about my personal (and still “evolving”) version of “retirement.” 

So, I may not be the most open-minded on the subject. 

But what do YOU think?

• Nevin E. Adams, JD        

 

---

[i] Who also claims that 1 in 8 Millennials (13%) and nearly 1 in 10 Gen Zers (9%) are planning a micro-retirement in 2025, and that 1 in 5 Americans (20%) have previously taken a micro-retirement, including 22% of Millennials and 17% of Gen Zers.

[ii] 38% of the respondents to the side-hustles survey admit it causes staff shortages and strain on companies, though 54% say it prevents burnout and improves well-being — ostensibly for the retirees, rather than those covering for their outage.

[iii] I was mostly working on my own “life experiences” like raising kids, paying a mortgage, going to law school (at night, while working) — and doing jobs that were VERY full-time on their own.

(Just Because) Survey Says?

 We’re often told (via surveys) of any number of retirement plan options that plan participants want. Should it matter?

Most recently, we’re assured that participants are clamoring to have access to private market investments. Before that, it was cryptocurrency — and for what seems like months now it’s all been about retirement income. Apparently vast majorities of participants are eager to have access through their 401(k) to an array of complex financial instruments to which they have, thus far, been largely (or totally) barred — or so surveys say.

Indeed, I’ve always been amazed that organizations are able to find so many ostensibly knowledgeable participants to weigh in on these complex topics — particularly since there is an abundance of (other) surveys that suggest that when it comes to financial matters, participants are, largely, clueless.

Not that that seems to dampen their collective interest in these new options — though when given a chance to put their money where their mouth is, participants seem to be about as cautious as you’d expect (want?) largely financially clueless individuals to be.  Doubtless the questions posed in these survey instruments are less complex than the actual decision points turn out to be.   

So, why bother asking participants what they (think they) want in the first place?

It’s not that there isn’t value to be gleaned in assessing participant sentiment but — as noted above, the actual take-up rate on those products, even when offered by a plan, has traditionally been…disappointing, certainly from the standpoint of the manufacturers of those offerings.

Manufacturers that, it bears noting, inevitably turn out to be the sponsors of these surveys claiming that participants want what they rarely seem to take. That doesn’t make them irrelevant, of course, nor does it mean that the results are hopelessly biased — but it is, I would argue, worth some caution in blindly embracing (or sharing) the results, even when a reputable canvassing body is involved. At a minimum, a visible footnote acknowledging that specific “interest” in the outcome seems warranted.

The reality is that these types of surveys are rarely designed to actually gauge participant interest — savvy product manufacturers have likely already done some of that alongside the inevitable market and profit margin projections. Rather, they are a means to create and/or fuel public awareness, but perhaps more specifically to encourage plan sponsor/fiduciary consideration on the path to the ultimate acceptance of options they might otherwise be disinclined to entertain.

Prudent plan fiduciaries should, of course, take note of such things — but arguably with a grain of salt, certainly as it pertains to their specific workforce. However fervent the interest of a group of unrelated individuals might be, that doesn’t make it relevant for those under your care.

Indeed, ERISA’s standard of care is a high threshold, one that requires that the services engaged not only be reasonable in terms of fees and applicability, but solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries.

And, as any parent can attest, sometimes those in our care want things that don’t meet that standard, whatever their opinion may be at the time.

Regardless, plan fiduciaries shouldn’t feel coerced into incorporating options just because a sponsored survey says (some) participants want it — participants who, of course, might not know what they’re asking for. Because, after all, prudent plan fiduciaries are expected to.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD