Introduction
This article addresses a current and complex issue facing all organisations – how does an organisation support women’s health, specifically menopause, at work through awareness without the unintended consequence of exacerbating stigma? Organisations in the United Kingdom (UK) are increasingly regulated to support menopause at work, such as forthcoming legislation to publish and regularly refresh a Menopause Action Plan (for employers of 250+ employees), over and above previous fair treatment requirements under the Equality Act 2010 (ACAS, 2024). Further, a Senate Enquiry in Australia (published February, 2025) recently supported 16 of its 25 recommendations, including the need to better understand existing workplace supports for menopause (Australian Government, 2025). The velocity of the menopause at work conversation is such that many organisations are adopting workplace interventions and supports without considering and/or measuring real-world impact on women themselves. The specific challenge for organisational support of menopause is its enduring stigma, largely due to associations of gendered ageism and assumptions of compromised performance (Atkinson, Carmichael & Duberley, Reference Atkinson, Carmichael, Duberley, Wilkinson and Woolnough2024; Daly, Pike, Clarke & Beck, Reference Daly, Pike, Clarke and Beck2024; Laker & Rowson, Reference Laker and Rowson2024; Thomas, Randle & White, Reference Thomas, Randle and White2024).
Recent developments in the conversation around menopause in Australia and the UK are helping to destigmatise public perceptions of menopause (Rottenberg & Gilchrist, Reference Rottenberg and Gilchrist2025), drawing attention to unhelpful practices that risk unintended consequences (Thomas, McCarthy, Wood, Arnot & Pitt, Reference Thomas, McCarthy, Wood, Arnot and Pitt2025). While awareness of menopause at work has increased significantly since the media explosion in the UK in 2021 (Orgad & Rottenberg, Reference Orgad and Rottenberg2024), which has since also been prevalent in Australia (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, McCarthy, Wood, Arnot and Pitt2025), there is already caution about whether awareness acts as a doubled-edged sword of unintentionally increasing stigma (Daly et al., Reference Daly, Pike, Clarke and Beck2024; Steffan, Reference Steffan2024). Yet, recent evidence suggests that organisational silence is not the answer, which could perpetuate misunderstandings for both individual and employer (Collins, Barry & Grace, Reference Collins, Barry and Grace2024) and form a type of organisational blind spot that can be detrimental to organisational performance (Fotaki & Hyde, Reference Fotaki and Hyde2014). An additional complexity is that menopause experiences are often temporary, transitional and highly individualised further challenging organisational support mechanisms (Cronin, Abbott, Asiamah & Smyth, Reference Cronin, Abbott, Asiamah and Smyth2024; Grandey, Gabriel & King, Reference Grandey, Gabriel and King2020). Menopause transition is deeply connected with identity discourse (Darke, Reference Darke, Holland and Adkins1996), identity work, or ‘menopause talk’ (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021), identity threat (Sergeant & Rizq, Reference Sergeant and Rizq2017; Steffan & Potočnik, Reference Steffan and Potočnik2025), identity transition (Opayemi, Reference Opayemi2025) and negotiation of related social transitions (De Salis, Owen-Smith, Donovan & Lawlor, Reference De Salis, Owen-Smith, Donovan and Lawlor2018). As the majority of menopause at work research has focused on identity work done by and for the individual themselves, we know little about organisational processes of identity and menopause. Taken together, it is unknown how organisational action to support menopause at work through identity mechanisms facilitate menopause experience through awareness or worsen experience through exacerbating menopause stigma.
There is a trend towards positive expression of stigmatised identity in order to reduce stigma by normalising aspects of difference, much of which is being written in the LGBTQ+ and mental health spaces (Clement et al., Reference Clement, Schauman, Graham, Maggioni, Evans-Lacko, Bezborodovs and Thornicroft2015; Ong, Lewis & Prayag, Reference Ong, Lewis and Prayag2025; Trotter & Yates, Reference Trotter and Yates2025). In terms of menopause, positive positioning through an ‘education for all’ approach (Quental, Gaviria & Del Bucchia, Reference Quental, Gaviria and Del Bucchia2023, p.1) is thought to normalise menopause. Butler (Reference Butler2020) positioned the vicarious nature of a negative emotion (embarrassment) as a form of powerful, and arguably positive identity work that is ‘abjection work’, where abjection can disrupt identity and organisational processes (citing Kristeva, Reference Kristeva1982), resulting in an improved position for the individual. While such positive positioning of menopause moves away from the pervasive fear narrative, a positive shield around the true issues of exclusion and marginalisation might fall into the trap of washing or masking, which risks reinforcing shame around the origins of stigma. This risks moving backwards rather than forwards. Further, while menopause is inherently associated with emotion regulation, change and suppression (Grandey et al., Reference Grandey, Gabriel and King2020), there is a theoretical argument to move towards a more neutral or non-emotive position of how individuals identify with and experience stigma (Effron & Miller, Reference Effron and Miller2015; Targett & Beck, Reference Targett and Beck2022) within their organisational context.
Identity has long-since been associated with self-esteem and aspirational identity (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002; Hofer, Busch & Kärtner, Reference Hofer, Busch and Kärtner2011), positioning oneself in a positive light to others (Ahuja, Heizmann & Clegg, Reference Ahuja, Heizmann and Clegg2019; Sveningsson & Alvesson, Reference Sveningsson and Alvesson2003) and to oneself through self-awareness and self-consciousness (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) or being true to oneself (Rook, Leroy, Zhu & Anisman-Razin, Reference Rook, Leroy, Zhu and Anisman-Razin2024). Identity (re)construction to position oneself positively, to seek authenticity, to self-explore has been posited as provisional where temporary solutions are sought to bridge a transitional identity (Ibarra, Reference Ibarra1999; Rook et al., Reference Rook, Leroy, Zhu and Anisman-Razin2024). However, the transitional object in these studies is generally the changing nature of work rather the changing nature of the individual (Steffan & Potočnik, Reference Steffan and Potočnik2025). Further, engaging in positive and authentic identity positioning can be emotionally effortful (Maitlis, Vogus & Lawrence, Reference Maitlis, Vogus and Lawrence2013), as is creating distance with an undesirable identity (Radcliffe, Cassell & Malik, Reference Radcliffe, Cassell and Malik2022) or identity deflection as stigma resistance (Thoits, Reference Thoits2016), relevant to many women experiencing menopause at work (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Barry and Grace2024). Individual resistance of stigmatised identities is associated with high-risk behaviours, where those who resist stigma might experience frustration on the path to empowerment (Pescosolido & Martin, Reference Pescosolido and Martin2015). The interrelations of resistance, concealment and neoliberal engagement with identity work are evident in how individuals navigate societal expectations. Identity work emphasises personal responsibility and self-management, often pressuring individuals to conform through neoliberal behaviours to specific societal norms (Rottenberg, Reference Rottenberg2013). This framework creates environments where resistance and concealment become coping mechanisms for the individual employee.
From an organisational perspective, identity regulation, or organisational processes through which identities are (re)constructed (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002), can (unintentionally) reinforce exclusionary practices of marginalising individuals who lack ‘fit’ with existing prescribed organisational identity. This can lead to discrimination, creating and reinforcing boundaries of inclusion and exclusion (Ashforth & Mael, Reference Ashforth and Mael1989; Ely & Thomas, Reference Ely and Thomas2001; Ortlieb, Glauninger & Weiss, Reference Ortlieb, Glauninger and Weiss2021). Excessive organisational control can lead to emotional responses in individuals such as stress and identity conflict (Collinson, Reference Collinson2003) and where resisted, employees can feel strain and tension (Thomas & Davies, Reference Thomas and Davies2005). Similarly, stigmatised identity can lead to emotional costs of anxiety and lowered self-esteem (Major & O’Brien, Reference Major and O’Brien2005). Organisational control of stigma has been reported through engaging in realistic portrayals of the stigmatised identity to help avoid minimising the issue experienced by individuals (Bos, Pryor, Reeder & Stutterheim, Reference Bos, Pryor, Reeder and Stutterheim2013) and reframing the stigmatised attribute alongside positive imagery, such as the reframing from victim to advocate (Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz & Rüsch, Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012). Identity regulation can exert itself through different control mechanisms including socio-ideological control which is enacted through self-identity, such as disability (Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021) and social minorities (Ortlieb et al., Reference Ortlieb, Glauninger and Weiss2021). Of course, such reframing requires an understanding of the stigma itself.
There is a balance to be found between positive messaging around stigmatised health and well-being and realism to avoid over-simplification or dismissal of the lived experience of stigma (Effron & Miller, Reference Effron and Miller2015; Targett & Beck, Reference Targett and Beck2022). These complex dynamics of awareness and stigma appear to be inextricably linked with identity regulation, yet we have limited understanding and application of such mechanisms in an organisational context. As resistance and/or the concealment of stigma appears so tightly bound with emotional labour and neoliberal behaviours of identity work, it follows that identity regulation of stigmatised identities can be a form of organisational control (Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021). Specifically, it is unclear whether identity regulation offers a mechanism through which a balance between awareness and increased stigma can be found. Such a balance would arguably benefit the organisation to deliver organisational socialisation processes, promotion of organisational fit, and access to appropriate workplace support. However, it is unclear how such organisational processes can and do support menopause as a uniquely individual yet ubiquitous aspect of gendered health. Organisational use/misuse of identity regulation for menopause is untested, especially with a specific focus on the emotional cost of identity regulation, associated with the resistance of stigma.
This theoretical lacuna is addressed through the empirical context of menopause at work, as an unavoidable bio-psycho-social transition (Atkinson, Carmichael & Duberley, Reference Atkinson, Carmichael and Duberley2025) through which women navigate their own work identity (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021) and broader personal resources (Steffan & Potočnik, Reference Steffan and Potočnik2023), however, it is unclear how individuals are affected by organisational identity regulation mechanisms. This article reimagines Alvesson and Willmott’s (Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002, p. 627) model of identity regulation to explore how identity regulation, if effectively used by an organisation, through individual identity processes, might find a balance between raising awareness and not exacerbating stigma around menopause. In doing so, identity regulation offers a potential model of organisational support rather than control.
Identity regulation as organisational control of individual identity practices
Identity regulation as a form of organisational control over employee identities occurs through officially endorsed discourses (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002), employee interpretation and appropriation (Bardon et al., Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017) and self-constructed understandings (Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021). The theoretical basis of this article draws on Alvesson and Willmott’s (Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002, p. 627) model of identity regulation, which states that identity regulation prompts identity work, which then informs identity regulation. The model also positions self-identity as inducing and being reworked through identity work, as well as accomplished through identity regulation, which can be responsive or resistant. Identity regulation promotes understanding and support while challenging negative stereotypes (such as around menopause), allowing for the development of inclusive practices that validate experiences and empower individuals, reducing stigma and enhancing workplace acceptance.
Central to the model, yet seemingly implicit, is power and control. It has long since been established that individual identity is targeted by organisations to exert power and control over their workforce (Willmott, Reference Willmott1992), and that identities are constructed within organisational power dynamics (Brown AD, 2022). Alvesson and Willmott (Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) and much of the research that their article has inspired over the 23 years that followed (e.g., Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis & Ingram, Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010; Bardon et al., 2016; Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021), tends to focus on the role of management and related discourse (Paring, Pezé & Huault, Reference Paring, Pezé and Huault2017). Organisations, of course, are far more complicated in terms of influence over and from individual worker identity, such as through identity work (Brown AD, 2022; Snow & Anderson, Reference Snow and Anderson1987). Importantly, identity regulation can fail in that there exists space for employees to subvert mechanisms and engage in resistance to organisational processes of identity regulation, such as through deviant use of artefacts or bodily gestures (Paring et al., Reference Paring, Pezé and Huault2017). While organisational regulation as control can be expressed in many forms, control is generally the desired and uncritical organisational outcome (Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021).
Organisational misuse of identity regulation might prioritise organisational fit over individual needs, foregrounding organisational needs over employees; a case where those who fit can flourish and those who do not, risk marginalisation (Ely & Thomas, Reference Ely and Thomas2001). The dual categorisation of ‘us and them’ posited by Ashforth and Mael (Reference Ashforth and Mael1989) creates and perpetuates such mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. Excessive organisational control can lead to stress and identity conflict (Collinson, Reference Collinson2003), and resistance of identity regulation can result in strain and tension, manifesting as work disengagement (Thomas & Davies, Reference Thomas and Davies2005). Spicer and Alvesson (Reference Spicer and Alvesson2025) caution the overuse of the concept of resistance, to go beyond action and behaviour that is simply ‘not happy compliance’ (p. 456), as such, associating resistance, through identity regulation mechanisms, with health and well-being outcomes might add the desired weight of argument. Ortlieb et al. (Reference Ortlieb, Glauninger and Weiss2021, p. 266) found that identity regulation was ‘ambivalent’ in that it enabled their marginalised participants (refugees) to engage in work for the organisation, but this work constrained individual identity.
As mentioned, compromised health and well-being, specifically anxiety and lowered self-esteem can be the result of stigmatised identity (Major & O’Brien, Reference Major and O’Brien2005). Reframing stigma by those with lived experience to become advocates to help others can lead to organisational inclusion and awareness (Bos et al., Reference Bos, Pryor, Reeder and Stutterheim2013; Corrigan et al., Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012). The caution is that positive messaging around stigmatised health and well-being can negate or dismiss the lived experience of stigma (Effron & Miller, Reference Effron and Miller2015). Rook et al. (Reference Rook, Leroy, Zhu and Anisman-Razin2024) reported on the malleability of ‘self-construal’, which contrasts a fixed and stable sense of self with one that is a product of enduring self-exploration and redefinition (p. 14). This supports research by Caza, Vough and Puranik (Reference Caza, Vough and Puranik2018) who posited that identity (re)construction is done in response to a desire to reconcile multiple identities.
Organisational controls respond to the ‘self-positioning’ of individual employees in response to managerial discourse (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002, p. 620), which has the potential to frame how identities are given meaning, both positively and negatively, and can motivate identity work. This connects with the menopause at work literature, which positions neoliberal behaviours of self-efficacy to control symptoms and align one’s work identity to organisational expectations rather than to personal needs (Steffan & Loretto, Reference Steffan and Loretto2025), driven by the ‘neoliberal State’s desire to keep all older people experiencing menopause in the workforce’ (Rottenberg & Gilchrist, Reference Rottenberg and Gilchrist2025, p. 1). While subordinating the menopausal self, individuals experience ease of ‘fitting in’ with the organisational requirements of them as employees. It is this basis of organisational control through identity regulation, connecting with individual identity work favouring the organisation, that leads to identity mechanisms that have the potential to both empower and exploit employees.
Exploitation and empowerment
Over-identification with the organisation, a product of identity regulation, can lead to burnout as it feeds off emotional appeals on the individual (Kunda, Reference Kunda1992), arguably as a form of exploitation. Specific strategies of identity regulation can magnify negative responses such as cynicism and resistance when employees feel ‘threatened, defensive, subordinated or insecure’ (Gotsi et al., Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010, p. 785). Insecure attachment can be an unintended consequence of organisational use of identity regulation where organisational approval is withdrawn from the individual leading to a recalculation of self-worth, resulting in stress and job insecurity (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002). Identity regulation draws on positive identity construction through socialisation, integration, imposed narratives, scripted roles and exclusionary practices, however, the desired outcome of identity regulation is generally to align individual behaviours with organisational objectives (Bardon, Brown & Pezé, Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017). The problem for individual employees is that there is little space for identities that do not fit with organisational objectives, culture and expectations, which runs the risk of marginalising individuals with stigmatised identity (Ortlieb et al., Reference Ortlieb, Glauninger and Weiss2021), or even identities that simply do not fit organisational needs or desired image.
Identity regulation sets out parameters through which health and well-being disclosures are measured. Organisational support for employees with multiple identities (i.e., gender, age, ‘menopausal’) can be viewed through a paradoxical lens whereby managerial supports that might otherwise be counterproductive, alienating and oppressive can be viewed by the employee as empowering and supportive (Gotsi et al., Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010). An example of this is a workplace adjustment that facilitates the hiding of (perceptions of) how menopause symptoms impact performance (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021). While neoliberal choice-making of presentation of self offers a form of identity-related power (Brown AD, 2022) and concealment can protect an individual from discrimination, the act of concealment can lead to stress (Pachankis, Reference Pachankis2007), and might perpetuate stigma through a discourse of hiding-to-fit. Mechanisms of concealment include passing, which is to appear as a member of a non-stigmatised identity (Lyons, Zatzick, Thompson & Bushe, Reference Lyons, Zatzick, Thompson and Bushe2017), and covering, which minimises the visibility of the stigma, while resistance aims to challenge and subvert stigma. However, over-identification with one’s work identity through the mechanism of identity regulation, which could help individuals cope with ambiguity of multiple and potentially conflicting identities (Gotsi et al., Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010), should be met with caution as over-identification with a changing self within the constrained power of an organisational discourse is less-understood.
What is clear is the inter-relativity of neoliberal behaviours of identity work promote as an ideal that necessitates both resistance and concealment. Resistance of normative pressures and challenging a status quo, such as women being compelled to conform to unrealistic standards of societal expectations around gender and age (Gill, Reference Gill2007), emphasising self-management, pressures individuals to conform to such societal norms (Rottenberg, 2018). Individuals may conceal their struggles or aspects of their personal lives, such as experiencing menopause, that may be perceived as weaknesses in a productivity-focused society (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021). By masking these experiences, individuals conform superficially while internally resisting pressures to present an organisationally ideal identity. Individuals resist through subtle acts of defiance while concealing non-conforming aspects to maintain an acceptable public persona. Thus, neoliberalism’s focus on individualism and personal responsibility complicates identity work, leading to a cycle of resistance and concealment as coping strategies.
(Emotional) identity work
Identity work involves individuals proactively constructing and negotiating their identities in response to social and organisational expectations and communications (Snow & Anderson, Reference Snow and Anderson1987), and yet requires greater connection with and to processes of organising (Brown, 2022). Identity work towards conformity positions individuals to align with organisational discourse, outwardly displaying appropriate workplace performance, however, such conformity can be met with doubt and anxiety when organisational expectations contradict one’s own desired identity (Bardon et al., Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017). Identity work is conducted as a ‘means of pursuing control in work organisations’ through identity regulation (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002, p. 622), and assumes an aspect of intentionality and agency. What is less-clear is how emotional labour associated with identity work might confound such intentionality. Emotional labour is generally conducted to conform to organisational expectations (Hochschild, Reference Hochschild1983). Lack of appropriate workplace understanding can exacerbate the burden of emotional labour during menopause, whereby women self-regulate their identities, balancing personal experiences of menopause with professional roles. As a result, professional identities might be prioritised, potentially affecting well-being and job satisfaction (Gatrell, Reference Gatrell2011).
Identity work is undoubtedly an emotional endeavour. Winkler’s (Reference Winkler2018) review paper highlights that identity work itself can be emotional and also that emotions could act as a catalyst for identity work. This is especially complex when identity work is conducted in response to unexpected emotional triggers (i.e., menopause-related anxiety, stress, emotional instability), which itself is emotional (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021). Emotional identity work responses to managing menopause at work can defy the categorisation, directionality and/or causality of emotions and identity work by presenting a context where the intermingling of emotions as an antecedent and consequence of identity work is blurred. Winkler (Reference Winkler2018) recommends that organisational research should consider the ‘emotional constitution of the identity work experience, the intersection of emotions and knowing the self…’. This article aims to address these enduring lacunae, while highlighting that ‘knowing’ the self requires a self-awareness that is yet to be adequately problematised in the identity literature.
Supporting stigmatised identities
Supporting menopause through awareness is generally positive (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Carmichael and Duberley2025), yet menopause remains associated with enduring stigma (Daly et al., Reference Daly, Pike, Clarke and Beck2024). There is little written on menopause-related stigma, so we turn to wider literature on stigmatised identity. Organisational management of stigma within its ranks tends towards a model of power and control. Building on Goffman’s (Reference Goffman1963, p.3) seminal definition of stigma as an attribute that ‘is deeply discrediting …reduces the bearer from a whole …person to a tainted and discounted one’, connects with assertions that the construction and regulation of work identity is conducted within the whole person in that all life domains contribute to how work identity is positioned (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002). Link and Phelan (Reference Link and Phelan2001, p. 363) provide a relevant definition of workplace stigma as the ‘co-occurrence of its components – labelling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination – and further indicate that for stigmatisation to occur, power must be exercised’. It is the co-occurrence or co-production that is important here, moving away from stigma that is done to a passive actor, which assumes agency.
Awareness comes from wider health and well-being messaging at both societal and organisational levels. Repositioning stigmatised language to positive language can support a more positive identity association, incentivising and motivating organisations to support stigmatised groups. Reframing and positive imagery is done by altering perceptions by focusing on strengths and positive personal attributes, positive imagery in awareness activities to shift group perceptions (Corrigan et al., Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012), emphasising resilience over severity of experience, accentuating productivity over deficit, highlighting biology over moral failing, and shifting focus from the individual to a societal issue. For example, studies on substance abuse that position the bio-psycho-social aspects of addiction, promoting it as a health issue rather than a moral failing, can shift the focus from the individual to broader systemic issues (Kulesza, Larimer & Rao, Reference Kulesza, Larimer and Rao2013).
Mental health studies show that increasing awareness through emphasising recovery and resilience can reduce stigma more effectively than those focusing on severity of symptoms (Clement et al., Reference Clement, Schauman, Graham, Maggioni, Evans-Lacko, Bezborodovs and Thornicroft2015). However, mental health awareness can also lead to individuals internalising public stereotypes, adversely affecting their identity and self-esteem (Thoits, Reference Thoits2011). This highlights that while there is a positive side to awareness of stigma, there can be a downside. Goffman (Reference Goffman1963) argued that social awareness efforts that highlight stigmatised traits might reinforce negative stereotypes, altering how individuals perceive themselves and how others perceive them. Unintended consequences of creating awareness around stigmatised identities include desensitisation and compassion fatigue that can reduce empathy and long-term support, especially where such support is perceived as resource misallocation (Selçuk, Avci & Ataç, Reference Selçuk, Avci and Ataç2022). Further, a backfire effect can occur when individuals strengthen beliefs when confronted with information that is in opposition to their own held beliefs (Nyhan & Reifler, Reference Nyhan and Reifler2010).
Organisational activity aiming to provide awareness must avoid oversimplification of complex issues to avoid misunderstanding. Pescosolido and Martin (Reference Pescosolido and Martin2015) presented their Stigma Complex, which distils the complicated interactions of stigma through a range of interpersonal process, determining that social inclusion is a key direction for stigma reduction. They asserted that understanding and awareness must be embedded in social relationships. For example, nuanced messaging is required to convey the complex nature of stigmatised identities (Heijnders & Van Der Meij, Reference Heijnders and Van Der Meij2006), and repeated use of headline statistics can increase stigmatisation, by oversimplifying the complexity of the issue and lead to moral licensing, where spreading awareness is a proxy for meaningful action (Effron & Miller, Reference Effron and Miller2015). While the line between awareness and stigma has been considered, it remains blurred, especially from the perspective of the organisation to support stigmatised identities of its employees.
Menopause and organisational control
Menopause is a point in time when a woman has not had a period for 12 months (National Health Service (NHS), 2023), and yet there has been an explosion of government, workplace and individual discourse about how to ‘solve’ the problem of menopause, which (for most women) is a naturally occurring bio-psycho-social phase of life (Orgad & Rottenberg, Reference Orgad and Rottenberg2024). All women at some point will experience menopause, and yet the dominant discourse around menopause is one of marginalisation and exclusion (Rowson & Jones, Reference Rowson and Jones2025), which is troubling given that women represent 51% of the wider population. There is no clear indication of the extent of the impact of menopause on how women work as it is deeply individualised, temporary, and is experienced at a time when mid-life complexity (domestic, work, health domains) is high for many women (Steffan & Loretto, 2024).
Menopause is, of course, an issue of gender, which requires an acknowledgement of the embodied nature of gender, and how gendered bodily norms contribute to organisational processes (Spicer & Alvesson, 2025). Organisational control over human bodies (Lawrence, Schlindwein, Jalan & Heaphy, Reference Lawrence, Schlindwein, Jalan and Heaphy2023) and women’s bodies in particular is not a new phenomenon (Trethewey, Reference Trethewey1999). Trethewey’s (Reference Trethewey1999) seminal work positioned female professional bodies as hyper-visible, where age is positioned through organisational discourses of age-as-decline. Miscenko and Day’s (Reference Miscenko and Day2016) review paper provides useful insight into women’s embodied identity whereby gender, as a work identity category, is one through which women might perform the most relevant identity (i.e., being a woman) to suit the organisation (citing Moore, 1999). Of course, this assumes both agency of the embodied self and an awareness of how the body is understood by others within the organisation. It is interesting to note in a comprehensive review of 600 articles on identity that age was not presented as a salient category (Thomas, Hardy, Cutcher & Ainsworth, Reference Thomas, Hardy, Cutcher and Ainsworth2014), demonstrating how organisational discourses around women’s ‘older’ bodies intersect with other identity categories, positioning age as an embodied identity. The menopausal body can trigger gendered ageist assumptions and stereotyping (Targett & Beck, Reference Targett and Beck2022), tapping into purposeful and embedded mechanisms through which organisational control over bodies is triggered and enacted (Lawrence et al., Reference Lawrence, Schlindwein, Jalan and Heaphy2023). Further, Thomas et al. (Reference Thomas, Hardy, Cutcher and Ainsworth2014), and more recently Atkinson, Beck, Brewis, Davies and Duberley (Reference Atkinson, Beck, Brewis, Davies and Duberley2021) highlight the need for organisational analysis to adopt an age-sensitive lens, one which is extended here to identity practices around supporting menopause at work, whereby menopause can act as a proxy for the intersection of gender and age.
Identity regulation of bodies at work has had little attention, and the research that does exist tends to focus on discursive identity mechanisms. Paring et al. (Reference Paring, Pezé and Huault2017) reported how bodies were central to the internalisation of idealised identity, yet this was conveyed and understood through other identity regulation mechanisms such as artefacts and bodily appearance. This is an important finding as organisational discourses might not reach all employees (Paring et al., Reference Paring, Pezé and Huault2017), or perhaps might be understood differently based on employee perspective and embodied vulnerabilities (Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021).
Until relatively recently, organisational silence on menopause was attributed to ‘wider societal discomfort with the ageing female body and the natural processes associated with it’ (Laker & Rowson, Reference Laker and Rowson2024, p. 2). As menopause awareness campaigning has gained traction, organisational supports are becoming more frequent and visible, however, their efficacy is largely untested. Workplace supports including improved job characteristics and line manager training on menopause (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Carmichael, Duberley, Wilkinson and Woolnough2024) are likely to improve experiences of work for women, just as they would do for other health and well-being issues. Workplace supports are arguably motivated by a business case of workplace retention, and continue to be motivated by this at a time when organisational resources are limited and other connected aspects of menopause and well-being, such as mental health, are becoming more visible (Cronin, Hungerford & Wilson, Reference Cronin, Hungerford and Wilson2021).
Despite its increasing organisational profile, menopause and the impact of symptoms remains largely stigmatised, which differs based on the organisational context. Menopause is likely to be less stigmatised if it is experienced with a work environment that is dominated by women such as nursing, where there is a person-centred culture of workplace health and well-being supports more generally (Cronin et al., Reference Cronin, Abbott, Asiamah and Smyth2024), and where progressive management techniques such as role modelling provides a pathway for non-punitive disclosure and requests for workplace adjustments (Hickey et al., Reference Hickey, LaCroix, Doust, Mishra, Sivakami, Garlick and Hunter2024). Workplace social support is reported as crucial to provide support for women’s health and menopause in terms of creating a workplace culture of inclusivity (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Beck, Brewis, Davies and Duberley2021), specifically peer and social supports at work can help women cope with menopause symptoms (Steffan & Potočnik, Reference Steffan and Potočnik2023).
Following on from peer support is the emergence of male allyship for menopause, which is cited as a key aspect of idealised organisational support (Bardett, Riach & Jack, Reference Bardett, Riach, Jack, Beck and Brewis2024; Kays et al., Reference Kays, Fernando, Abdelrahman, Rupert, Barry and Jain2022). However, there is little critical engagement on whether women experiencing menopause welcome male allyship. Allyship, or those with non-lived experience who actively advocate for peers, can be an enabler of access to resources and workplace integration (Holloway, Atteberry-Ash, Kattari, Harrop & Walls, Reference Holloway, Atteberry-Ash, Kattari, Harrop and Walls2022), which requires allies to acknowledge their position of power. From the perspective of the ally, there can be risk through association to the stigmatised out-group (Reeves, Loughhead, Teague, Halpin & Procter, Reference Reeves, Loughhead, Teague, Halpin and Procter2024), however, little is known about risks of allyship to the individual being advocated for.
Performative inclusion and symbolic allyship have garnered significant attention, particularly in the context of diversity and inclusion initiatives within organisations. Performative inclusion refers to superficial actions taken by organisations or individuals to appear inclusive without making substantive changes, which Ahmed (2012) describes as ‘non-performative’, where declarations of inclusion do not translate into meaningful practice. One example is the adoption of diversity days or events that celebrate cultural diversity without embedding genuine inclusivity into the organisational culture (Thomas & Plaut, Reference Thomas and Plaut2008). While these events raise awareness, they often do not influence hiring practices, pay equity or career advancement opportunities for under-represented groups. Symbolic allyship, on the other hand, involves individuals or organisations expressing support for marginalised groups in a way that is primarily about enhancing their own image. These actions might include posting on social media about social justice issues without engaging in deeper, sustained advocacy. Schwalbe (Reference Schwalbe2008) highlights that symbolic allyship can often be self-serving, maintaining the status quo rather than disrupting it. Further, social change takes time, effort and deep engagement in challenging the status quo (Kalina, Reference Kalina2020). For instance, during social movements, some companies might release statements of solidarity or change branding temporarily but fail to implement policies that support the communities they claim to stand with. Demonstrations of allyship may ultimately harm the physical and mental well-being of the marginalised groups in question (Kutlaca & Radke, Reference Kutlaca and Radke2023) and can detract from the efforts of those genuinely working towards systemic change, diverting resources and attention away from meaningful action.
The majority of reporting on menopause awareness does so with positive outcomes, such as increased self-awareness and awareness of organisational supports (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Beck, Brewis, Davies and Duberley2021; Hickey et al., Reference Hickey, LaCroix, Doust, Mishra, Sivakami, Garlick and Hunter2024). However, how increased awareness might have an unintended consequence of increasing stigma is insufficiently understood. Very recent reporting on an Australian sample has shed some light on this making the distinction between the positive messaging of raising public awareness through trusted sources and the negative messaging of menopause as a problem, which participants felt was perpetuated by those who have a financial stake in maintaining such a pervasive and negative narrative (Thomas et al., Reference Thomas, McCarthy, Wood, Arnot and Pitt2025). Such findings are important in that they critique the current wave of unchecked ‘supports’ and the unintended consequences on individuals themselves. Thomas et al. (Reference Thomas, McCarthy, Wood, Arnot and Pitt2025) also make the connection between misinformation on menopause and emotional risks for women, leading to a neoliberal approach to self-awareness (i.e., emotional identity work). The aim of this article is to draw on empirical evidence to support the development of a reimagined model of identity regulation, drawing on Alvesson and Willmott (Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) as the origin.
Methodology
Study design and participants
This multi-method study was conducted in two connected parts: a survey on women’s health at work followed by a vignette-based writing task on menopause at work. Survey participants (n = 525) were women aged 20 to 65, in paid work, resident in Australia (46%) or the UK (54%), all recruited on the Prolific Academic platform. Survey results informed the creation of the vignette content, in addition to the literature provided earlier. The vignette study (Finch, Reference Finch1987; Harrits & Moller, Reference Harrits and Møller2021) is of relevance to the research question as qualitative analysis (Tremblay et al., Reference Tremblay, Turcotte, Touati, Poder, Kilpatrick, Bilodeau and Giordano2022) has an established tradition in identity theory, specifically around identity regulation (Bardon et al., Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017; Fernando, Reveley & Learmonth, Reference Fernando, Reveley and Learmonth2019; Gotsi et al., Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010).
The study was designed to bridge theory and practice (i.e., identity and management), address a real-world issue (i.e., menopause at work), use more accessible language than much of the theoretically ‘heavy’ scholarly works do, and to provide a ‘thick description’ (Kostova, Reference Kostova2017) of the lived experience of women’s health in the workplace.
Study 1: survey
First, a survey (Appendix 1) was completed by 525 participants (all identified as women, except only one participant who identified as non-binary) between 10th and 12th March 2025. The survey was designed to explicitly ask respondents about their views on awareness of women’s health (of which menopause was one line of explicit questioning) and whether this might lead to or exacerbate stigma. The survey came about as a result of a common and recurrent (unreported) finding from multiple studies on menopause in the workplace conducted by the author. Further, press and media reporting on increased stigma as the counter-argument to awareness was becoming evident with practitioners suggesting that the menopause awareness movement might have swung too far (personal communications). As such, this dilemma was positioned at the centre of this study. The survey was targeted and relatively brief, asking seven main questions and taking respondents on average six minutes to complete.
Survey analysis was conducted using SPSS for the quantitative analysis (not reported here) and using excel for frequency analysis (partially reported here). The open comments were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s (Reference Braun and Clarke2006, Reference Braun and Clarke2019, Reference Braun and Clarke2022) well-established six-phase thematic inductive analysis to determine patterns in the data. This was a methodological process of analysis in accordance with clear guidelines, as themes do not mystically ‘emerge’ from the data. For this article, of the 525 survey responses, 333 respondents provided comments that formed the basis of the inductive analysis. Social constructionist inductive analysis is a valid method that enables an exploration of how individuals and society collectively make meaning and understanding of reality. This ‘bottom-up’ approach allowed the raw data to inform broader patterns and themes discerned from Study 1 to inform Study 2. One of the most important points of relevance of Study 1 was that the results of the survey then informed the writing of the vignette and associated questions, which formed the basis of Study 2.
Study 2: writing activity
Participant recruitment
Participants in Study 2 are a sub-group of respondents to the survey in Study 1. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked if they would like to participate in a further study, which would be some form of writing task. Of the 525 survey respondents, 264 individuals from all age groups said they would like to participate further. It was decided to select participants into Study 2 from the women who completed the survey who were in their 40s (n = 114) and 50s (n = 117) age categories to capture the likelihood of lived experience of menopause. There was significant variation in self-reported awareness of menopause from respondents in the 40s age range (maybe = 27; no = 55; yes = 32), more so that women in their 50s who seemed to have more awareness of menopause (maybe = 4; no = 9; yes = 104). Participants were asked to provide their Prolific ID if they wanted to participate in the writing task, so this anonymous link to participants was used to recruit into Study 2. Of the 264 respondents who gave consent to be contacted for Study 2, 128 were in their 40s (n = 72) and 50s (n = 56), of which 58 women responded. Four responses were deemed below the eligible time requirement (10 minutes), as such, there were 54 viable responses to the writing task from women in their 40s and 50s. Submissions took an average of 28.1 minutes taken to complete. Participant summary of task writers is provided in Table 1. The only survey participant who identified as non-binary did not participate in the writing task, as such the term ‘woman’ is freely used throughout the findings from Study 2 and the discussion that follows.
Participants of the writing task (Study 2)
Notes: In team make-up, ‘equal’ means equally men and women. Desk-based and non-desk-based responses were actually ‘mainly desk-based’ and ‘mainly non-desk-based’ which have been edited for this table.
Women in their 40s and 50s responding to the survey question: Do you think that raising awareness can lead to negative outcomes for women within your organisation in relation to menopause?
Data collection and analysis
In an explicit approach to avoid leading interview participants to discuss identity, the writing task purposefully excluded the word identity (Gotsi et al., Reference Gotsi, Andriopoulos, Lewis and Ingram2010). The writing task was delivered through Qualtrics as a 3-question task (see Appendix 2). The task was to read the vignette (written in response to Study 1 findings) and write about how the vignette content made respondents feel, drawing on their own experiences. Data were analysed deductively in response to the decision that was made at that point to use identity (regulation) as a theoretical frame, as such, analysis deductively prioritised data patterns connecting with identity, and organisational expectations, support, language, symbols, and dialogue around menopause in the workplace. Deductive analysis allows for analysis to use existing theory ‘to examine meanings, processes and narratives of interpersonal and intrapersonal phenomena (Fife & Gossner, Reference Fife and Gossner2024, p. 1). Despite this being a phase of deductive analysis, it was striking how emotions and emotional discourse dominated the data and subsequent findings, which was not anticipated. The patterns from the Study 2 data were categorised as different levels of organisational control, however, the data suggested that control was only part of the picture, the other main theme determined from patterns in the writing task data was summarised as support. As such, the dual pathways of control and support to extend the identity regulation model (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) were developed, and coding of themes are presented through the structure of the reimagined (extended) model of identity regulation (Tables 3, 4 and 5).
Themes of discursive practices, normative structures and social processes
Themes of identity of self, identity work and emotional costs of identity regulation
Expanded identity regulation pathway
Findings
Findings are provided from the individual perspective of their organisational context. Study 1 findings reflect analysis of data in response the question in the survey, Do you think that raising awareness can lead to negative outcomes for women within your organisation in relation to menopause? Table 2 provides frequency of how women in their 40s and 50s differentially responded this question, demonstrating patterns in the data.
As negative responses to this question dominated (63% and 57% for women in their 40s and 50s respectively), frequency analysis was conducted on the open-ended text responses given to explain the reasons for their answer. The most common responses for women believing that raising awareness would unlikely lead to negative outcomes was due to their workplace being majority female staff (19%), followed by the benefits of increasing education and understanding (15%), improved access to workplace supports (10%), reduced stigma (8%), improved personal understanding (7%), improved comfort to discuss/disclose (6%) and increased empathy (5%), improved equality narratives (5%).
Just speak about it! The more is it openly discussed the less stigmatizing it will be. (40s, Australia)
I don’t believe awareness can make a negative impact. It will create a common ground to discuss uncomfortable topics, normalise everything. (40s, Australia, Education, Middle, mixed team)
I just don’t feel raising awareness about any health problem at all can be a negative thing. It can only be a positive when it brings empathy and care. (40s, UK, Middle, Accounting/Audit)
Ten percent of respondents took the opportunity to highlight the need to educate men and/or to overcome male reluctance to engage with menopause (10%). Respondents discussed the need for same-sex advocacy from those with lived experience, which might be a challenge in the short term but would lead to positive outcomes and a focus on equality narrative.
Women’s health happens whether we discuss or not. We should be open about this so women don’t struggle/suffer in silence. (50s, UK, desk-based, healthcare)
Of the respondents who explained their positive response to the question, only 23 responses related to individual benefits to understanding one’s own body – most responses focused on social and government policy, and organisational factors.
Further, as opposed to the negative responses to the question, only eight respondents (2%) made explicit reference to men as a point of reference for how awareness might be reflected positively.
In 2025 women should be able to have an open conversation about their health if it affects their job. Men need to be schooled, they don’t know if we don’t inform them. (50s, Australia, Automative/Aviation, desk-based, middle, male dominated team)
Participant responses were framed in relation to how male colleagues perceived menopause. Within this theme, sub-themes of being judged by male colleagues (10%), men finding menopause accommodations unfair and/or feeling uncomfortable (9%), men not caring (5%) and the overarching patriarchal society using menopause negatively against women (5%). Relatedly, only one participant referred to younger colleagues not being receptive – the narrative was firmly situated on a male response and related controls.
The majority of participants who reported this theme were from the Australian sample. Of the 28 participants (30%) who directly referred to men in their response, 21 (74%) were from the Australian sample. This was the main point of distinction between the two countries with relation to the research question posed in this study.
People are already cruel about menopause. To promote and highlight this and periods will have a reverse effect and lead to more issues between the sexes. We as women can menstruate and still do your jobs proficiently without the need for an awareness campaign (40s, Australia, Legal, Senior, equal team)
It is a male dominated organisation. I don’t want to make them feel awkward or I don’t want to feel embarrassed. (50s, Australia, construction, mid-level job, male dominated)
I don’t know. I find it difficult to talk about even as a woman so I’m not sure I’d want to be open about it at work. It is an unspoken awareness. (50s, UK)
Menopause awareness was given as a reason to doubt work performance and ability of women, perceptions that women will take advantage of menopause in order to reduce work outcomes and/or quality, highlighting menopause ‘struggles’ could lead directly to increased discrimination and stigma and the fear that menopause will be ‘weaponised’ against women.
I think having an awareness may encourage people to take advantage or weaponise it. (40s, UK, Senior, Government, male dominated team)
I guess a conversation amongst leaders in organisations then cascade those conversations down. Deal in facts, not emotion. What are women’s health issues and how do they impact women in a factual and direct way. (50s Australia)
Survey results identified a main theme that awareness of menopause was desired through a pathway of caution. Respondent comments suggested that, regardless of their employer’s menopause discussion and level of preparedness to support menopause, caution should be exercised. This could, therefore, be represented as moving forward to increase engagement in menopause support from those employers who are relatively silent on the subject, to showing more critical engagement with less obvious engagement from those employers who are performative in their menopause support. From the data, the key terms of ideal engagement were respect, empathy and discretion.
In a respectable way that this is part of a cycle of life that will affect women (wife, mother, etc)/someone you love and care. (40s Australia)
Maybe just provide support quietly without any fanfare. (50s Australia)
Study 2
As mentioned in the method section, data from Study 2 were deductively analysed, motivated by the following headings from Alvesson and Willmott’s (Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) identity regulation model: identity work, self-identity and identity regulation. There were only two discernible distinctions between countries in the analysis of Study 2 data for how findings relate to these three coding categories. First, the finding from Study 1 whereby Australia respondents were more likely to suggest that male managers and colleagues were a barrier to support was repeated in Study 2. Further, Australian participants appeared more self-determinist in presenting themselves as performance-ready workers without organisational supports than the women in the UK sample, who had a higher desire for and expectation of organisational support for menopause.
Findings from Study 2 provide insight into how the pathways of identity regulation must find a fine line between awareness and stigma. Data analysis determined two key pathways (themes) of identity regulation: one of exploitation, control and concealment and the other of empowerment, support and disclosure. This highlights how identity regulation can offer support as well as control, with different outcomes in terms of employee well-being, focusing on emotional responses to identity regulation of menopause at work.
Interestingly, health and well-being support, but not menopause specifically was mentioned in both control and support pathways, presenting a connection (or mediated path) between the two identity regulation pathways. Data suggests that wider supports for health and well-being might negate the need for explicit menopause supports and address the exposure to increased stigma. The sentiment for each pathway was distributed towards the control pathway, controlled by a better-the-devil-you-know approach to change. While the current situation was not ideal for many women, it was preferable to the possible exposure that would come from an awareness campaign gone wrong.
Implications of the control pathway included reinforced neoliberal expectations and behaviours of self-care, where silence reinforced taboo, yet arguably offered less risk to increasing stigma. Individual behaviours aligned with organisational objectives. While around one-third of participants preferred the control pathway, this was arguably driven by fear of disclosure and associated judgements due to menopause stigma and association gendered ageism. However, many women just wanted their privacy, which should be respected.
Implications of the disclosure pathways demonstrated how awareness was likely to improve access to supports through disclosure, presenting a risk of exposure to judgements. This takes trailblazers and campaigners to communicate the legitimacy of menopause. Support was sought through soft-skills (listening, care, empathy) rather than explicit policy and associated ‘noise’. The majority of women called for awareness through caution and subtlety of organisational discourse. A central theme was that organisations must find a way to create awareness without ‘veering’ into personal privacy. There was concern that awareness campaigns could ‘backfire’ if not handled sensitively, resulting in more stigma.
Findings suggest that the male line manager in the vignette presented a barrier to seek and gain support, which was supported by women’s own stories. Specifically for Australian stories, but also featuring heavily in UK stories, the position of a male line manager presented a hurdle to overcome, with associations of lack of care, lack of empathy and lived experience. This highlights that advocacy through allyship might not provide women with the route to support that is most viable and/or promised by an increasing visibility of male allyship for women’s health in the workplace.
Discussion and conclusions
This article sought to answer the research question of how organisations can increase awareness of menopause without exacerbating stigma. Findings suggest that there is a fine line between providing awareness for women to gain support through awareness (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Carmichael, Duberley, Wilkinson and Woolnough2024), without unintentionally making the situation worse for them through over-awareness of personal and individual menopause experience. A reimagined identity regulation model (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) using this empirical context provided a pathway of control (Bardon et al., Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017; Jammaers & Zanoni, Reference Jammaers and Zanoni2021), but also a pathway of support. This article makes a contribution to identity regulation literature by reimagining (extending) how identity can be used at an organisational level to support as well as control employee behaviour and well-being. This is done through separate pathways of exploitation, control and concealment and of empowerment, support and disclosure. The theoretical contribution is provided by indicating how the pathway for support through resistance had the same goal as the control pathway, i.e., behavioural fit between organisation and individual (Bardon et al., Reference Bardon, Brown and Pezé2017). There is also a mediated connection between pathways of control and support by widening the focus of the stigmatised issue (i.e., menopause) to a broader, less-stigmatised, yet still relevant issue (i.e., women’s health). This finding makes a contribution to stigma theory of reinforcing individual actions of shifting the focus from an individual issue to a broader systemic issue (Kulesza et al., Reference Kulesza, Larimer and Rao2013) by demonstrating that a balance between the two might can be done through individual action within organisational identity regulation.
Identity regulation offers a uniquely suited framework to explore menopause awareness and stigma due to its focus on how societal norms shape individual self-conception and behaviour. The extended model promotes practices that support individual empowerment and validation, encouraging environments where menopause experiences can be acknowledged and respected. Due to the deep connection between individual identity and menopause (Steffan, Reference Steffan2021), the empirical context of menopause at work was used to explore how the established identity regulation model could explain the question of how to increase awareness without exacerbating stigma. Findings reinforce the notion that individuals strive to position themselves positively (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Heizmann and Clegg2019), which in this context generally equates to hiding and/or minimising the menopause experience (control) or seeking subtle, sensitive and empathetic workplace interventions (support). While much of the literature on stigma promotes proactive or public awareness (Clement et al., Reference Clement, Schauman, Graham, Maggioni, Evans-Lacko, Bezborodovs and Thornicroft2015; Corrigan et al., Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012), and menopause awareness is generally received positively (Atkinson et al., Reference Atkinson, Carmichael and Duberley2025), participants from both Australia and the UK generally indicated a desire for a more measured approach to menopause support in the workplace. Australian participants were less likely to expect organisational support, leaning towards a neoliberal narrative of self-support for menopause at work. This finding highlights cultural nuances between two seemingly culturally similar countries. This raises a call for greater understanding of cultural difference rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all of global workplace supports for menopause and health and well-being more broadly.
Having said that, resistance was conducted by participants from both countries without cultural distinction to find an organisational fit, reaching well beyond simply unhappy compliance (Spicer & Alvesson, 2025). Resistance was a common theme throughout the data, specifically around the support pathway. Supporting previous research (Pescosolido & Martin, Reference Pescosolido and Martin2015), participants referred to their frustration on the path to empowerment. While a stigmatised identity might lead to emotional costs (Major & O’Brien, Reference Major and O’Brien2005) so too does resistance, unless it connects with the individual desire of how to be managed. For example, those on the control pathway offered low resistance, however, those on the support pathway adopted resistance to be supported in a way that identity regulation could ‘control’ them in with the original model of employee behaviour (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002). Organisational processes of organisational fit, socialisation and workplace supports were seemingly desired by participants. On the control pathway, there was compliance with hiding menopause from the workplace in order to fit. On the support pathway, there was evidence of resistance to map out an ideal form of supporting menopause ‘without fuss’ to provide empathetic support, which then enabled an organisational fit to be found. While participants in the support pathway sought a fit with organisational structures, there was a phase of resistance to reconfigure how menopause was supported before the control pathway could then be more relevant.
Findings in this study suggested a more critical approach to male allyship for menopause is needed. There were cultural differences in the data with an Australia-dominant reluctance or scepticism of male support and/or allyship. While demonstrations of allyship can initially garner positive attention and are relatively easy and cost-effective mechanisms to show support to marginalised groups, they may ultimately harm the physical and mental well-being of the groups they are notionally supporting (Kutlaca & Radke, Reference Kutlaca and Radke2023). Additionally, they can detract from the efforts of those genuinely working towards systemic change, diverting resources and attention away from meaningful action. Social change takes time, effort and deep engagement in challenging the status quo (Kalina, Reference Kalina2020). In this study, male allyship was discussed through a participant narrative of caution, providing a conceptual extension to the generally positive messaging around the benefits of male allyship (Bardett et al., Reference Bardett, Riach, Jack, Beck and Brewis2024; Kays et al., Reference Kays, Fernando, Abdelrahman, Rupert, Barry and Jain2022). Perhaps there is a disconnect between the speed of which male allyship for menopause has been performed versus the deep investment in resources for meaningful and embedded change. Overwhelmingly, participants were reluctant to disclose menopause to a male colleague and/or manager, albeit more so the case in the Australian sample.
As organisations adopt an appropriate pathway of menopause support through identity regulation, the role and placement of male staff in ‘support’ roles should be re(considered). Inclusion efforts should be genuine, and should involve actionable measures such as revising organisational policies, promoting diverse leadership, and creating accountability structures (Dobbin & Kalev, Reference Dobbin and Kalev2016). This requires long-term commitment and structural change rather than temporary, cosmetic, performative fixes. A critical lens should be adopted in response to a swell in academic and practitioner suggestion that allyship is required to move the dial on supporting marginalised workers.
This article has a number of limitations including the limited diversity of sample as all primary data were from Australia and the UK. Also, the data only captured data from one non-binary participant who unfortunately did not opt-in to the writing task. As such, broader intersectional applicability is limited and the discussion somewhat constrained. Other aspects of intersectionality were not studied in this exploratory study based on age and gender, although we might also be mindful of the warning that subordinating interest in a single categorisation (gender) at the behest of intersectionality might dilute women’s voices (Broadbridge & Simpson, Reference Broadbridge and Simpson2011). Another limitation is that, due to its theoretical focus, this article had limited space with which to engage with national-level policies, broader societal narratives, equality laws that all would undeniably influence organisational action related to menopause and women’s health.
To conclude, the majority of participants endorsed increased awareness of speaking about menopause as a way of seeking organisational support. What was surprising was the strong note of caution from the majority of participants in how that awareness should be conducted within the organisation. The issue with the current wave of awareness is that, in the menopause economy motives of marketisation and monetisation, the voices of those who either do not want a menopause conversation at work, or want a more discrete menopause conversation at work is being silenced by those engaging uncritically in organisational awareness campaigns. This article recommends a more measured, inclusive and empathetic approach to awareness and allyship models that are less performative and more focused on embedding cultural change within an organisation. This can be achieved through well-considered and contextually specific organisational practices including gender-neutral policies and communication guidelines to enable stigma-sensitive support. As such, this study draws on this well-established model to challenge pre-existing concepts of identity, resistance and concealment, resulting in a contribution that expands the application of its underlying theory.
There is a fine line between promoting awareness with exacerbating stigma. The reimagined identity regulation (Alvesson & Willmott, Reference Alvesson and Willmott2002) pathways of control and support provide insight into how organisations might take a more measured and inclusive approach to supporting menopause at work. It is important to note that the majority of participants sought support for menopause so that they could continue, as an employee, and ideal worker, and to fit with organisational norms. Very few women spoke about awareness for their own sake, it was very much aligned to self-care for work retention and continued performance. So, while the support pathway might deviate from individual behaviours aligning with organisational objectives, the ultimate outcome of the support pathway brings the same result, although with realigned organisational practices of support.
While organisational silence might not be the answer to overcome stigmatised identities at work (Collins et al., Reference Collins, Barry and Grace2024), findings suggest that neither is an uncritical increased visability of menopause supports through performative organisational action that has insufficiently connected with and considered the needs, desires and opinions of women themselves. As such, a practical contribution of this article is for organisations and those who seek to influence workplace policy on menopause to adopt a more critical lens for their awareness campaigns to avoid any unintentional consequence of exacerbating menopause stigma.
Data availability statement
Upon request.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the participants who took part in this study, appreciating their time and engagement with the survey and especially the writing task aspects of the study. The author also gives thanks to the anonymous reviewers and Editor of the Journal of Management & Organization for their timely, thoughtful and helpful comments to improve the final version of this article.
Funding statement
No funding received for this study and subsequent article.
Conflict(s) of interest
None.
Ethical standards
Gained from University of Edinburgh Business School Ethics Committee.
Appendix 1: Study 1 – Survey
This study sets out to find a path along the tightrope of raising awareness of women’s health at work without exacerbating stigma, or simply put, making things better without making them worse. This survey, conducted by researchers at the University of [anonymised], asks questions on your experiences and views of women’s health at work. It is motivated by the increased conversation in the United Kingdom and Australia around women’s health including menstruation and menopause. As a researcher of women’s health, I am an advocate of increased awareness, finding that knowledge is power; the more women know about their bodies and minds, the better prepared they are to cope with any change and/or challenges. However, I have encountered many research participants who are reluctant to talk about women’s health at work for a range of personal and professional reasons, fearing negative consequences. I refer to this as a double-edged sword. This survey puts that question front and centre as a serious yet unanswered issue in the current conversation around women’s health policy and practice at work. Your participation is entirely voluntary, your responses will be confidential and anonymous. Reporting on the findings from this study will be done in aggregate, and where comments are used as illustrative examples, they are done so anonymously. Once the study is finished, anonymised data will be retained on secure University of [anonymised] servers. This study and this survey have been ethically approved by the University of [anonymised]. This survey should take you around 5 minutes to complete fully.
Do you consent to participate in this survey?
• I would like to start by asking you a few questions about yourself:
• Age list
• Gender (identity) woman, non-binary, trans-man, trans-woman, other (please state)
• Job type desk-based; non-desk-based; other [describe]
• Industry one word to best describe the industry in which you work
• Seniority Where is your role in your organisational hierarchy: high/middle/low
• Colleagues Think about the group or team of colleagues who mean the most to you in terms of your experiences of work. Is this group dominated by men, women, around the same, not sure
• Organisational culture How open is your organisation to discussions around women’s health? Very – not at all
• Are you based in: UK or Australia
1. Are you or have you experienced menstruation while in the workplace?
2. Are you or have you experienced menopause symptoms while in the workplace?
3. Are you or have experienced any other women’s health issue in the workplace? [details]
4. Do you think it is a good idea to raise awareness, at a societal level (i.e,. in media etc), about:
• Menstruation / Menopause/Women’s health in general Y/N/Not sure
• Please give a reason behind your choice for this question
5. Do you think it is a good idea to raise awareness about how the following can be supporting with your organisation:
• Menstruation / Menopause/Women’s health in general Y/N/Not sure
• Please give a reason behind your choice for this question
6. What is the main positive reason you can think of for raising awareness about women’s health within your organisation? Please limit your response to 1-2 words.
7. Do you think that raising awareness can lead to negative outcomes for women within your organisation in relation to …?
• Menstruation/Menopause/Women’s health in general Y/N/Not sure
Please give a reason for your answer
Please provide a response to this question. Please limit your response to 50 words.
How can organisations raise awareness of menstruation, menopause and women’s health without any unintended consequences such as exacerbating stigma?
The next phase of this research is to interview a small number of survey respondents. Please enter your Prolific ID in this box and click on ‘Yes, I would like to be interviewed’ if you would like to be interviewed.
Thank you for taking the time to complete this brief survey.
Appendix 2: Study 2 – Vignette
You have been invited to Phase 2 of this study as you indicated that you would like to participate at the end of the survey you completed last month on Women’s Health Awareness Not Stigma. You are now being asked to complete a writing task. The writing task is in response to a fictional short story below. The short story has been developed based on research evidence from the results of the phase 1 survey that you participated in. Before we start the writing task, can we ask you to briefly reflect on any thoughts that you’ve had on menopause supports in the workplace since completing the survey last month? [open text]
This is now the writing task. This should take you around 20 minutes (you are being paid for 30 minutes), so please take your time and answer fully. We expect around 200-300 words for this writing task. There is no right or wrong style of writing, please write in the style you feel most comfortable. All responses are confidential and anonymous.
Please read this fictional short story.
Beth is 47. She’s been working in the same government job for around 10 years. Her job requires physical work, but she likes that because it means she doesn’t have to go to the gym. She gets along well with her team, who are an equal split of men and women. Beth’s line manager is a 40-year-old man, who she gets along well enough with to have a few drinks at the pub after work occasionally. Around six months ago, Beth started forgetting things, mainly people’s names, which is a bit awkward. She has more recently started to experience uncharacteristic mood swings and heavy periods. She snapped at a colleague last week and went home early, telling colleagues she had a head-ache. Some of Beth’s friends have started talking about menopause, and there was something on the radio about it the other day. She’s thinking these are probably menopause symptoms, but she’s not sure. On her way in to work today, she walked past a poster in her team’s office which read ‘we’re all in this together’. ‘It doesn’t feel like it’, Beth muttered to herself. Beth stood there, wanting to turn around and go home again. ‘This isn’t me’, she said. She wondered if she should ask for help, but nobody talks about personal health issues at work, and she didn’t want to be the first.
The task
Think about Beth’s situation. How does it make it you feel? Does it sound familiar or does it not? Does it stir up any particular emotions?
You are being asked to write about how an employer can support female employees who are directly, themselves experiencing menopause symptoms. The desired outcome of this support is making things better (awareness) without making them worse (stigma). Drawing on how the vignette makes you feel, what can employers do to help women?
You can write about Beth, using her context, OR you can write about your own experience. Either is fine. Can you please write between 200 to 300 words? [open text].
Open access
