How biology explains the shift in the approach to work among women over 50

On 14 May, I attended an event with great interest, where women’s health and work were discussed with a frankness which, let’s face it, is not exactly the norm in professional settings. The occasion was the event Women’s Health Matters: Bridging the Gap, during which the Women’s Health Impact Report was presented for the first time — a survey carried out by Deloitte in collaboration with the University of Milan and conducted by IPSOS. The discussion covered the menopause, periods, fertility and termination of pregnancy: all issues which, although they affect the bodies of millions of working women every day, have always been taboo, regarded as exclusively private and intimate matters.

A vivid impression that I’m passing on. In the hall, there was a sense of liberation amongst those who had been waiting for this moment for twenty years. There were also numerous men in the audience. I took home a personal realisation from that hall: what a long and arduous journey it has been to bring to the world of work the truth that women have a different body to men. Encouraging you to explore this topic further, I took this as my starting point and began to piece together my observations from 20 years’ work in the corporate world – spanning training, assessment, research and surveys – and I have come to the following conclusion: there comes a time, often around the age of fifty, when many women stop doing something they have done for decades with commendable consistency: striving. Striving to be positive at every opportunity. To find any kind of feedback inspiring. To invest precious energy in team dynamics they know by heart — with their power structures, strategic silences, and merits that often, inexplicably, end up being attributed to others. For years they have acted as mediators at home and at work; they have understood, accommodated and motivated others when no one thought to motivate them. At a certain point, with a clarity that surprises even themselves, a sober realisation sets in: it is time to say ‘enough is enough’. Organisations tend to interpret this moment as a sign of a natural slowdown. An almost relieving confirmation of prejudices they had never quite let go of. Rarely do they see it for what it often is: the arrival of a disenchanted realism. And realism, as we know, is often difficult to deal with.

Women’s health — the medical and scientific approach that studies the biological, psychological and social differences between the sexes — now offers further insights that help to explain this transition. And Gallup’s engagement trends translate this into figures that companies often fail to fully grasp. For decades, women have shouldered a disproportionate share of the emotional labour within organisations. Not because they had enthusiastically chosen to do so, but because biology and a certain not inconsiderable cultural pressure had equipped them well for the task.

Firstly, because of the heightened presence of oxytocin – the hormone that regulates interpersonal trust, prosocial motivation, the ability to form coalitions, and the response to relational stress. To put it provocatively, I would describe this as: the neurobiological basis of everything that is referred to in organisations as ‘soft skills’ – a term which, by its very name, betrays just how secondary it is considered to be. In women, its production is closely intertwined with oestrogen: the latter enhances oxytocin receptors, amplifying their effects. With the onset of the menopause, the drop in oestrogen significantly reduces the responsiveness of the entire system. The consequences are tangible: greater difficulty in tolerating highly conflictual environments, a reduced inclination to invest energy in dynamics perceived as unsafe or non-reciprocal, and a reduced willingness to put oneself forward in judgemental hierarchical contexts. The scientific literature refers to this shift from tend-and-befriend to relational selectivity. Those directly affected call it, quite simply, having stopped trying. In an environment designed around male models of competition and stress resilience, this biological change becomes a disadvantage not because women perform less well, but because the environment was not designed for them in the first place.

Gallup’s trends translate all this into thought-provoking data. Women have historically shown higher levels of engagement than men, an advantage that has been consistently documented since the first survey in 2000, with a gap that in 2024 still stood at 6 percentage points in their favour. But in 2024, the State of the Global Workplace recorded the steepest ever decline among female managers: a 7-percentage-point drop in engagement, and the same in wellbeing. This was the sharpest decline of any demographic group. It is as if to say: those who had given the most had less leeway when reserves ran low.