If the workplace isn’t built for women, it isn’t built for the future 

For decades, the data shaping medicine and work has been drawn largely from male bodies. The systems built on that data were never neutral, they were incomplete. Yet women have been expected to fit into them anyway. 

A minority of scientific research today is done specifically on women. The result is a persistent “one size fits all” model, but that one size is men’s. Male biology remains the default across medical research, occupational health guidance and workplace standards. From drug trials to diagnostic criteria to temperature settings in offices, the baseline is often male physiology. 

Women have different physiology. Different hormone profiles. Different life stages. Different lived experiences. And many of those differences are still under-researched and therefore under-reported and under-represented. 

“The challenge isn’t that women’s health has suddenly become more complex,” says Deborah Garlick, founder of Henpicked: Menopause in the Workplace. “It’s that workforce demographics have changed and work hasn’t kept up.” 

Endometriosis is a stark example. It is estimated to affect around 10 per cent of women and girls globally, yet we still do not fully understand what causes it. Heavy menstrual bleeding, perimenopause, postnatal recovery and hormonal fluctuations across the life course remain comparatively under-studied. The gaps distort outcomes across women’s lives, including their working lives. 

“When research doesn’t reflect women’s realities, workplaces are left designing support without a full evidence base,” Garlick adds. “Employers are often having to move faster than the research, not by guessing but by listening to their people.” 

“Workplaces are not biologically neutral,” says Shakira Taylor, lead wellbeing coach at We Are Wellbeing. “Hormonal cycles and life-stage transitions interact with job demands including workload intensity, shift patterns, physical environments and time control.” 

When workplaces are built on incomplete science, women pay the price in health, confidence, earnings and progression. For UK employers facing retention pressures and skills shortages, that is not just a women’s issue. It is a workforce risk. 

The biological reality work never planned for 

“Hormonal cycles and life-stage transitions interact directly with work demands,” says Baz Moffat, co-founder and chief executive of The Well HQ. “And yet most work environments have been designed around male bodies and male physiology.” 

From office temperatures calibrated to male metabolic rates to protective equipment and ergonomics based on male body data, the bias is structural. Add to that shift patterns, rigid attendance policies and performance models that assume linear energy and availability, and you begin to see the mismatch. 

Garlick agrees the issue is not capability, but context. “As humans, our hormones change throughout life,” she says. “For some women, changes linked to menstrual health or menopause can affect sleep, concentration or energy. For others, they don’t experience challenges at all. Women are not a single group, and this is not about assuming reduced capability. We’re all unique.” 

The problem arises when work is rigid 

“What we see in employers is that symptoms which, with the right support, can be managed become problematic when workplaces are inflexible or when people feel unable to talk openly,” Garlick adds. “Understanding managers and psychologically safe environments make a real difference.” 

Every woman’s experience is different. Some may want time off for severe period pain. Others are unaffected. Some struggle significantly with menopause symptoms. Others sail through. Some undergo IVF. Others choose not to have children. 

But what the evidence shows clearly is that women’s careers are disproportionately affected by these transitions. 

Menopause alone can bring anxiety, sleep disruption and loss of confidence, often at the peak of a woman’s career. Without support, many reduce hours, step back from leadership or leave altogether. That translates into missed promotions, reduced lifetime earnings and lower pension contributions. 

“When women don’t get the support they need through heavy periods, menopause, pre and postnatal transitions, they can’t perform at their full potential,” Moffat explains. “And too many end up leaving the workforce entirely.” 

For UK workplace health and wellbeing leaders, that is the cumulative impact that matters. This is not about isolated symptoms. It is about career trajectories. 

When unsupported, the effects compound 

“In the UK, around one in four women live with a reproductive health condition, and nearly three-quarters of women aged 40 to 60 experience menopause symptoms, many reporting negative work impacts,” says Taylor. “Evidence links this to presenteeism, reduced progression and workforce exit, particularly mid-career. Over time, repeated exposure to unsupportive conditions contributes to persistent gender inequalities in pay, pensions and senior representation.” She adds.  

Garlick warns that delayed diagnosis and minimised symptoms add another layer of risk. “There is clear evidence that women experience delays in diagnosis or have symptoms misattributed,” she says. “In the worst cases, that prolonged uncertainty can shatter confidence, limit career choices and reduce earning potential, with knock-on effects for pensions and later-life outcomes.” 

The distortion begins early and builds across the life course. If women feel unable to disclose, or adjustments require repeated justification, confidence erodes. That affects performance reviews, stretch assignments and leadership visibility. By the time employers notice the talent gap, the damage is already done. 

Taylor warns that intersectionality remains a blind spot. “Women’s experiences of health at work vary significantly by ethnicity, disability, age and socioeconomic status, yet data collection and intervention design often fail to reflect this. Without intersectional analysis, policies risk benefiting only the most advantaged groups.” 

What works and what doesn’t 

There is a temptation to respond with awareness days, webinars and standalone policies, maybe a policy tucked away at the back of an employee handbook. That is not enough. “Doing one-off webinars or awareness days is a start, but it doesn’t change culture,” says Moffat. “Women need strategic, tangible policies that inform and impact all levels.” 

Garlick is equally clear. “Employers should stop relying on surface-level activity that looks positive but doesn’t change day-to-day lived experience,” she says. “A policy without understanding, or awareness without action, can raise expectations without improving reality.” 

Taylor also agrees: “Employers should avoid reliance on one-off awareness raising initiatives that are not accompanied by structural change. Sustainable improvement requires preventative, embedded changes in job design, management practice and whole organisational accountability.” 

Jane Pangbourne, author warns that unclear management practices can compound the issue. “Lack of manager training with inconsistent accommodations forces employees to jump through hoops for basic adjustments. That becomes counterproductive and potentially discriminatory.” 

Research consistently shows that job design and autonomy outperform programme-led or purely medical approaches when used in isolation. “Increased autonomy, flexible working, workload control and psychologically safe disclosure are associated with improved work ability and retention,” Taylor explains. 

Flexibility is not a perk. It is infrastructure 

Hybrid and flexible working hours allow women managing pain, fatigue or caregiving responsibilities to stay productive without the additional stress of masking symptoms. Simple environmental adjustments, access to quiet spaces, better temperature control, ergonomics that account for different body shapes, make a measurable difference. 

Even basic steps such as making period products available in toilet cubicles signal seriousness. 

“Office temperature, furniture design, even the structure of the working day, these are usually based on men’s bodies and men’s physiology,” Moffat says. “We can and should design differently.” 

What employers must stop doing is equally clear. Tokenistic gestures. Rigid presenteeism cultures. Punitive absence tracking that fails to recognise cyclical or chronic symptoms. Inconsistent managerial responses that force women to repeatedly justify their needs. 

“When support depends on individuals repeatedly advocating for themselves, it places the burden in the wrong place and risks reinforcing stigma,” Garlick adds. 

“Women’s health should not be treated as a perk,” Moffat says. “It is as fundamental to women succeeding in the workplace as having the right technology to do their job.” 

Beyond absence: measuring what matters 

Absence data captures only a fraction of the impact. 

“Absence data only tells part of the story,” Garlick says. “Success should be measured through retention, engagement, confidence and progression – whether people feel supported to do their best work over the long term.” 

Presenteeism, reduced ambition, stalled progression and early exit often go unmeasured. Yet these are the metrics that determine organisational performance. 

“Being taken seriously when health is challenging, and working within a culture of collaboration and respect, brings boundless rewards for both employee and employer,” Pangbourne says. “It allows organisations to retain the lived experience and expertise of more mature women at work.” 

For Rebecca Douglas, co-founder of The Well Crowd, the issue is now strategic. “Women’s health at work is not a wellbeing initiative,” she says. “It is a workforce design issue. If women’s health remains optional, organisations will continue to lose experienced mid-career talent. Leadership pipelines will narrow. Economic inequality will widen.”

“If we continue to build workplaces around a narrow biological model, we are designing for the past,” Douglas says. “The organisations that redesign work around the workforce that actually exists will have the competitive advantage.” 

This is not about special treatment. It is about evidence-based design. When medical and workplace research defaults to male biology, the system fails women across their working lives. When employers correct for that bias; through job design, autonomy, inclusive data and confident management, performance improves. 

The future of UK workplace health and wellbeing will not be shaped by awareness campaigns alone. It will be shaped by whether we are prepared to admit that work was never neutral and redesign it accordingly.