IZA Newsroom

IZA – Institute of Labor Economics

Peter Drahn

Early retirement increases mortality risk among men

by

Demographic changes put governments under increasing pressure to reform old-age social security systems. Attempts to increase the effective retirement age, however, are often met with political opposition. A common argument is that, after having worked all their lives in physically demanding jobs, workers should have the option to retire early and thus avoid emerging health problems.

While leaving an unhealthy work environment is generally conducive to good health, the health effects of permanently exiting the labor force may go in the opposite direction, according to a recent IZA discussion paper by Andreas Kuhn, Stefan Staubli, Jean-Philippe Wuellrich and Josef Zweimüller. The paper shows that among men, a reduction in the retirement age causes a significant increase in the risk of dying before age 73 and a significant reduction in the age at death.

To overcome the problem of reverse causality (poor health leading to early retirement), the researchers analyzed the effects of an early retirement scheme that was introduced in some regions in Austria in 1988. The reform allowed older workers in eligible regions to withdraw three years earlier from employment than comparable workers in non-eligible regions. By comparing the health data between regions, the researchers were able to isolate the effects of the reform.

Results driven by men in lower income groups

The results show that an additional year in early retirement increases the risk of men dying before age 73 by 6.8 percent. For women, early retirement is not associated with worse health outcomes. The results among men are mainly driven by lower income groups. Men in blue-collar occupations, men with low-work experience, and men who have some pre-existing health impairment display higher mortality effects.

The authors suggest that retirement-related lifestyle changes may drive the increase in mortality. Retirement is not only associated with lower income and fewer resources to invest in one’s health, but also with less cognitive and physical activity as well as with changes in daily routines and lifestyles which are potentially associated with unhealthy behavior.

This may also explain why the mortality effect is only found among men. The researchers suggest that women may be better able to cope with major life events, have less unhealthy retirement-related lifestyle changes, and suffer less from a loss of social status than men.

Female leadership raises team performance

by

Female leadership in economic and social contexts is a rather rare phenomenon. Could this be because women have weaker abilities or attitudes to lead a team or an organization? Or are women, despite considerable changes in gender roles, still vulnerable to becoming targets of prejudice?

To answer this question, Maria De Paola, Francesca Gioia and Vincenzo Scoppa ran a field experiment with 430 students from an Italian university who volunteered to have a part of their exam evaluated on the basis of teamwork. The students were randomly assigned to teams of three members, one of which was randomly selected as a leader to organize team activities.

Women perform better under female leaders

Controlling for a number of individual characteristics, the researchers find that female-led teams perform significantly better than male-led teams. The effect is mainly driven by the better performance of team members, with female members reacting more to female leadership. Women tend to perform worse individually if they are in a leadership role, which suggests that female leaders altruistically devote more energy to organizing team activities, rather than improving their own performance.

The authors conclude that “stereotypically feminine qualities” like cooperation, mentoring, and collaboration seem important to leadership, certainly in contexts like this and perhaps increasingly in contemporary organizations. Women’s advantage may come from differences along the discretionary dimensions of leadership behavior, for example paying more attention to subordinates, helping others with their work or volunteering for tasks that go beyond their role.

Men give worse evaluations to female leaders

From a post-experiment survey, the authors find that teams led by men and women spend on average the same amount of time together, which implies that female-led teams are more effective. Nonetheless, men tend to give female leaders worse evaluations, which may be the result of male stereotypes against female leadership, especially considering the better performance of female-led teams.

Finally, when analyzing leaders’ evaluation of their role and of the team, the study finds that female leaders are not aware of their effectiveness in coordinating and finalizing the work of their team. But they are aware of the effort they have provided in accomplishing their role, and they evaluate their team members’ effort as less intense compared to male leaders.

Leadership advantage depends on the context

Overall, the findings suggest that women have a leadership advantage in some contexts and should be encouraged to take on leadership roles because they tend to work harder and their team might benefit more from their guidance. The study also confirms that women still face some difficulties in having their merits recognized, especially in male-dominated teams.

The authors stress, however, that their results pertain to a specific domain of leader activity. In other contexts, effective leadership may require more “masculine” qualities, such as the execution of authority, self-confidence, or power.