Phased Retirement Works. Most Companies Still Get It Wrong.

Phased retirement lets someone ease out of a job instead of stopping cold on one final Friday. More employees want that option now, especially Gen X workers who can't always afford to walk away from a paycheck all at once. But employers haven't kept up: SHRM puts formal programs at just 7% of firms, and Principal's Financial Well-Being Index shows that number heading down, not up, as employers lean on informal, one-off deals instead. Most companies solve this one employee at a time instead of building something repeatable. Here's what a phased retirement program HR teams can actually defend requires, and why that instinct doesn't hold up.

A director on your team, 27 years in, comes to talk to you. She doesn't want to retire outright. She wants to drop to three days a week for a year, maybe two days after that, then be done. What do you tell her?

At most companies, the honest answer is: whatever we can figure out. There's no form for this. No defined path. Just a conversation between her manager and HR that gets resolved, or doesn't, one exception at a time. That's what it looks like when a company solves retirement one person at a time instead of building a program for it.

Most Companies Don't Have a Phased Retirement Program: They Have a Favor.

The demand for this is not hypothetical. More than 4 in 10 workers want a gradual off-ramp instead of a hard stop, according to SHRM. Employers haven't caught up: only 7% run a formal phased retirement program, and about 2 in 10 more improvise something informal, where the employee and their manager just work it out between themselves.

A 2024 WTW survey found 15% of workers over 50 are currently phasing into retirement, while another 19% would like to. People want the option. Most never get access to it, because there's no consistent program to request in the first place.

Here's what one of those informal arrangements actually looks like. At T. Rowe Price, which has no formal phased retirement program, one employee negotiated directly with her manager to work 20 hours a week for two years before retiring, keeping her health insurance and 401(k) contributions the whole time. It worked out for her, but only because her manager said yes. No program guarantees the next employee who asks gets the same answer.

And the newest data says this gap isn't closing. Principal's Financial Well-Being Index, updated in August 2026, found that regular phased retirement offerings have gotten even less common between 2023 and 2026. Employers point to shifting labor market conditions and say they want to stay flexible, so they're leaning on one-off retention deals instead of building real programs. That's employers leaning harder into the favor system, not building their way out of it.

There's a potential risk buried in that gap. When phased retirement is handled through one-off arrangements, employees may receive very different opportunities depending on their manager, role, or ability to negotiate. That doesn't automatically amount to age discrimination. But inconsistent, discretionary decisions can be harder for employers to explain and defend when similarly situated employees are treated differently.

A well-designed phased retirement framework doesn't eliminate legal risk. In fact, formal programs come with their own compliance challenges. But clear eligibility criteria and consistent decision-making can reduce the reliance on ad hoc exceptions and give HR a more defensible process.

Employers appear to be solving retirement transitions one person at a time. Employees increasingly want flexibility around how they leave. Employers don't necessarily want to take on the complexity of building a formal program to give it to them. So flexibility becomes something you negotiate for instead of something you're systematically offered. That leaves an uncomfortable question sitting underneath all of this: when a gradual exit depends on who's willing to ask, who's good at negotiating, and which manager they happen to get, is that really a retirement strategy? Or is it just luck, dressed up as flexibility?

Building a Phased Retirement Program HR Teams Can Trust

What does this look like when it's done right? Look at the employers who've actually built one instead of improvising, and the same pattern shows up again and again.

Eligibility is defined upfront: typically a minimum age (55 or 60) and a minimum tenure (often 10-plus years). The hour reduction follows a set path, something like 80% time and pay for a defined period, rather than an open-ended "figure it out." Health benefits continue at full-time levels, which turns out to matter more to participation than the pay itself. And critically, the program has an end date. Phased retirement that runs indefinitely stops being a transition and starts being a permanent part-time arrangement nobody planned for.

The piece employers skip most often is the knowledge transfer plan. A strong program requires the departing employee to document processes, train a successor, and formally hand off relationships during the reduced-hours period, not as an afterthought in their final two weeks. Without that structure, you get the worst version of phased retirement: someone coasting at 80% effort with no obligation to actually transfer what they know.

A few employers already run this well. Abbott's "Freedom to Work" program, launched in 2008, lets employees 55 and older with 10-plus years of service either drop to a four-day week or take five extra weeks off a year, while keeping full benefits and their 401(k) match in exchange for mentoring junior staff. More than 2,100 employees have used it, and Abbott says the average retirement age among participants has climbed from 58 to 61, according to Abbott's own reporting and HR Brew's coverage.

Land O'Lakes runs a similar benefit for employees 55 and up, built around knowledge transfer: departing experts spend their reduced hours mentoring successors and documenting institutional knowledge before they leave.

MasterControl takes a more flexible route, stepping employees down from a four-day week to three, then into contract or 1099 work, as Fortune reported.

Public institutions run formal versions too, often with more rules written down than most private employers bother with. The University of Kansas Medical Center, governed by Kansas Board of Regents policy, offers phased retirement to faculty and professional staff 55 and older with at least 10 years of service, for up to three years. Pay reflects the reduced schedule, but retirement contributions, leave accrual, and life insurance stay calculated at full-time-equivalent levels.

Different structures, same principle: a defined path, real benefits, and a built-in reason to hand off what you know.

The Business Case for Getting This Right

The upside of building a system instead of negotiating case by case is concrete, not hypothetical. Abbott, Land O'Lakes, and MasterControl all report the same underlying wins from their programs: better retention, smoother knowledge transfer, and a more orderly transition out the door. Abbott's is the most measurable of the three, a real, multi-year shift in when people actually chose to retire.

There's also a workforce-fit argument that goes beyond retention. Chris Littlefield, president of retirement solutions at Principal Financial Group, put it directly in that same Fortune piece: "Fitting work into their life, rather than their life into their work, is really important." Gen X employees especially are leaning on 401(k)s over pensions and can't always afford to stop earning cold, which is exactly what's driving the growth Paychex flags through 2026.

Where HR Gets It Wrong: Treating It as a Scheduling Change

Here's what most programs miss. A well-designed hour reduction solves the operational side of retirement. It does nothing for the human side.

An employee who drops from five days to three still has to answer the same questions everyone retiring eventually faces: who am I without this title, what fills the time I've freed up, where does my sense of contribution come from now. Phased retirement without support for that transition doesn't prevent the identity crisis. It just spreads it out over a longer runway. The employee coasts through the reduced schedule, checked out well before their last official day, and HR ends up with the exact disengagement problem a structured retirement benefit was supposed to solve. We wrote about what that disengagement actually costs an organization if you want the fuller picture.

This is where the operational program and the human transition need to run together, not sequentially. Pairing a phased retirement schedule with actual coaching, someone helping that employee build purpose, structure, and connection outside of work while they're still easing out, means they arrive at their true last day ready to leave. Not still figuring out who they are without the job.

That combination, structure plus support, is what separates a phased retirement program from a scheduling accommodation that happens to look good on paper.

Ready to stop solving phased retirement one person at a time?

Request a corporate overview and we'll walk you through how Moro's employer program helps you build a system that works for your workforce and the people leaving it.