Flowing Through the Workplace: Exploring the Impact of Menstruation on Women’s Work Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The past few years have highlighted the necessity for management researchers to consider how bodily processes, specifically bodily processes unique to women, affect workers and workplaces (e.g., Bergman et al., 2023; Gabriel et al., 2022; Grandey, Gabriel & King, 2020). This presenter symposium on menstruation at work invites the Academy of Management community to think differently about people and their capabilities in organizations by focusing on an underrepresented but prevalent topic for organizational theory and practice. The menstruation (i.e., menstrual bleeding) and the menstrual cycle (i.e., 28-day recurrent cycle of sex hormones) is a topic fraught with shame and stigma, but it is embedded in organizational reality as a part of “experiences where work and nonwork blend (…) and [that] are brought directly into work” (Grandey et al., 2020, p. 22). Although menstruating people often try to mask their symptoms, passing as non-menstruating while they are at work (Sang, Remnant, Calvard & Myhill, 2021), those with menstrual problems cannot prevent negative aspects from entering the work domain (Motro, Ellis & Gabriel, 2019). The Academy of Management Annual Meeting 2024 theme “Innovating for the Future” invites members to examine the interplay of innovation, policy, and purpose as a lens for rethinking conventional ways of leading, managing, and organizing. For organizations to be dynamic and innovative, they are dependent on cognitive resources provided by employees. These individual resources are also naturally consumed by non-work-related tasks such as taking care of menstrual needs. In addition, cognitive resources and abilities fluctuate over the course of a woman's cycle. As such menstruation can consume resources to varying degrees by time and person (Motro et al., 2019). Following recent menstruation research (e.g., Grandey et al., 2020; Sang et al., 2021; Werner, Punzi & Tukenburg, 2023), we recognize menstruation as a distinctive issue inclusive of physical symptoms, stigma, shame, and social interactions, including those in the workplace. With this presenter symposium we aim to create insight about the connection between biological processes and specific problems regarding menstruation (e.g. endometriosis; Presentation 3) and behavior at work (e.g. motivation to lead and risk-taking behavior; Presentation 1 and 2). Building on this, we shed light on the contribution that organizations can make to establish better working conditions that take the female cycle into account (e.g. menstrual leave policies; Presentation 4). This symposium raises some the challenges menstruating people experience at work, what would help them feel more empowered in the workplace and what organizations can do to design and implement appropriate and effective measures that make a supportive workplace. Together with discussant, Dr. Mirjam Werner, this symposium aims to identify and review gaps in theory, policy, guidelines and practice that provide starting points for creating humane, powerful and innovative organizations and further research on the topic of menstruation and work. Follicular Stage and Motivation to Lead Author: Mikaila Ortynsky; Telfer School of Management, U. of Ottawa Author: Alyson Byrne; Memorial U. of Newfoundland Author: Anika Cloutier; Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie U. Author: Erica Carleton; U. of Regina Navigating the Female Agency Paradox: How Sex Hormones Cyclically Impact Risk-Taking Behaviors Author: Rachel Hahn; Purdue U. Experienced Stigmatization, Organizational Resources, and Burnout in Employees with Endometriosis Author: Alexandra Cook; U. of Amsterdam Author: Alexander Zill; U. of Applied Sciences Mittweida Menstruation at Work: Cross-Cultural Analysis between Germany and Spain Author: Tanja Reimer; Europa-U. Flensburg Author: Jasmin Joecks; Eberhard Karls U. Tübingen
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".