After 50, too many women reduce their working hours, become trapped in lower-quality jobs, or exit the labor market altogether. Part-time employment becomes more prevalent as women age. The gender gap widens. For women, this means lower lifetime earnings and significantly smaller pensions. Many are calling this phenomenon the “menopause penalty”—a midlife equivalent of the motherhood penalty. And indeed, research suggests that women’s earnings drop in the years following a menopause diagnosis.
But while menopause clearly plays a role, there is a risk in attributing these economic setbacks too narrowly to biology. Doing so not only oversimplifies women’s lived realities—it also medicalizes what are fundamentally social and organizational problems. Menopause matters. But it rarely acts alone.
A convergence of pressures and setbacks
Midlife is often the most demanding phase of women’s lives. Menopause tends to coincide with a series of other “life shocks” that disproportionately affect women. Caregiving responsibilities intensify: aging parents begin to need support, while many women are still helping children or even grandchildren. The “sandwich generation” is squeezed between upward and downward care.
Meanwhile, serious health risks increase—including breast cancer and chronic illness. Divorce is also common in midlife and comes with major financial and emotional consequences. The death of a parent is another major shock that frequently occurs in midlife and is largely invisible in workplace thinking—grief doesn’t fit into a few days of leave but often brings lasting exhaustion and difficulty concentrating.
Overlay all of this with growing exposure to ageism in the workplace and it becomes clear that menopause is rarely the only culprit. Yes, symptoms such as fatigue, hot flashes, or brain fog can make work harder to sustain. But menopause comes at a moment of cumulative strain. It does not create the inequalities. It amplifies those that already exist.
When work refuses to adapt
Many jobs are still designed for a worker who is endlessly available, physically resilient, emotionally stable, and largely free from caregiving responsibilities. Menopause symptoms collide with these unrealistic expectations.
Instead of redesigning work—adjusting schedules, reducing unnecessary presenteeism, offering autonomy, improving ergonomic conditions and workplaces, or recognizing fluctuating capacity—organizations implicitly ask women to adapt their bodies. And when they cannot, the “choices” available are reducing hours, stepping back from responsibility, refusing promotions, accepting less visible roles, or leaving work altogether.
From the outside, this looks like individual preference. That’s why the menopause penalty looks exactly like the motherhood penalty. Neither is caused simply by biology. Both result from the collision between life stages and rigid work systems built around male, uninterrupted career norms.
The penalty is also reinforced by stereotypes. Menopause is still associated with emotional volatility, decline, and loss of competence. Many women fear being perceived as less reliable or less ambitious. Some avoid high-visibility projects. Others turn down leadership roles or client-facing positions simply because they fear exposure. Menopause stereotypes are like sexism on steroids.
Economically, the menopause penalty represents a massive loss of human capital. Women in their late 40s, 50s, and early 60s often hold their highest levels of skill, institutional knowledge, and professional experience. When they reduce hours or leave work prematurely, organizations lose leadership potential, mentoring capacity, and expertise.
The danger of medicalizing inequality
There is an increasing push to frame menopause primarily as a health issue requiring medical solutions—more awareness campaigns, more diagnoses, more treatments.
Don’t get me wrong: better healthcare really does matter. Too many women suffer unnecessarily because of lack of information, poor medical support, or lingering fears around hormone therapies. For those with severe symptoms, treatment can be life-changing.
But there is a real risk in making menopause the central explanation for midlife economic inequality. When reduced earnings or stalled careers are blamed mainly on hormonal changes, it obscures the role of workplaces, the gendered division of unpaid work, insufficient care infrastructure, ageism, and broader social, political, and corporate issues.
It suggests that if women simply managed their symptoms better, the problem would disappear. We often medicalize social problems. For example, we prescribe antidepressants without addressing poverty, violence, overwork, or isolation.
Hormone therapy may ease hot flashes and prevent osteoporosis (and that’s a lot). But it won’t pay the rent, restart a stalled career, restore lost pension rights, or compensate for years of unpaid care work. Pills don’t fix ageism. They don’t erase structural inequality.
Let’s redesign work for long lives
1. Design work for sustainability. Most jobs are still built around an ideal worker who is always available, endlessly energetic, and free from responsibilities outside work. This model breaks down over long working lives. Companies should rethink workloads, hours, and performance expectations to allow for fluctuating capacity over time. Focusing on outputs rather than presence, reducing unnecessary urgency, and normalizing lower-intensity periods would make careers more sustainable.
2. Make flexibility the norm. When flexible working is treated as an exception, it carries invisible penalties (slower progression, reduced visibility). To avoid turning flexibility into a career trap, companies should offer autonomy over hours and location by default and ensure flexible workers are not sidelined.
3. Confront ageism head-on. Many midlife career setbacks for women are inseparable from age discrimination. Employers should track pay, promotions, and evaluations by age and gender, challenge stereotypes in leadership cultures, and ensure development opportunities exist throughout careers.
4. Recognize caregiving as a normal life-stage reality. Midlife is often when care responsibilities peak—for aging parents, ill relatives, or extended family—yet workplace policies remain focused on early parenthood. Companies should expand support to include eldercare flexibility. When caregiving is ignored or treated as a personal inconvenience, many women quietly reduce hours or exit.
5. Address menopause openly. Raising awareness and training managers can reduce stigma and improve support. But if rigid schedules, long hours, and unforgiving performance models remain, women are left to manage symptoms within broken systems. Menopause initiatives must go hand in hand with reforms in job design, flexibility, and inclusion—or risk becoming symbolic rather than effective.
Integrity, understood as a disposition to behave in prosocial, ethical, and principled ways rather than corrupt or self-serving ones, is among the strongest and most consistent predictors of job performance and leadership effectiveness. The reason is far from mysterious. Leadership, whatever its context, is a collective enterprise. No meaningful goal, from building empires to running companies, has ever been achieved alone.
Across history, not just in humans but also other animals, cooperation has depended less on raw power than on trust. Ancient trading societies flourished precisely because reputation constrained behavior: merchants in Phoenician city-states, medieval guilds, and Silk Road networks relied on repeated interactions and informal enforcement mechanisms to ensure that partners honored their commitments. Those who cheated were excluded, not merely judged. Trust, in effect, functioned as an early mechanism for coordination and enforcement.
The same logic applies in modern organizations. Teams perform better when members believe that leaders will act fairly, keep promises, and avoid exploiting asymmetries of information or power, or are so focused on their personal gain that they have little concern in harming the group. In line, research shows that leaders perceived as lacking integrity struggle to attract talent, elicit discretionary effort, or sustain collaboration over time. Conversely, leaders known for ethical consistency benefit from faster coordination, lower monitoring costs, and greater willingness among others to take risks on their behalf.
The cost of distrust
Given a choice, people prefer to collaborate with those they trust not because they are naïve, but because distrust is expensive. Working with unreliable or unethical partners increases the likelihood of failure, conflict, and reputational damage. In business, this may mean backing leaders who misrepresent performance or shift blame. In politics, it can mean empowering those who erode institutions for personal gain. In both cases, the costs are borne not only by the followers but by the system as a whole.
This is why chronic corruption is one of the most reliable markers of institutional breakdown. As documented year after year by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index, countries that score lowest on integrity and trust tend to share familiar pathologies: weak rule of law, politicized institutions, capital flight, and persistent underinvestment, generally caused by parasitic governments and destructive leadership. By contrast, countries that consistently rank at the top of integrity and trust measures benefit from stronger institutions, more predictable governance, and higher levels of social and economic cooperation. To be sure, these societies are not free of self-interest or ambition; rather, they have succeeded in aligning incentives so that ethical behavior is rewarded and corruption is costly, censoring selfish short-term individual gains in favor of collective long-term benefits.
Measuring integrity
So, how can we tell whether a person has integrity, or gauge someone’s moral reliability?
The question is especially consequential when applied to leaders, whose decisions shape the success, welfare, and future prospects of others. Fortunately, behavioral science offers several useful insights, even if it stops short of perfect certainty.
First, integrity is not directly observable. Unlike physical attributes such as height or hair color, it cannot be seen or measured at a glance. Instead, it is inferred or deducted from patterns of behavior, consistency over time, and alignment between words and deeds. Integrity is therefore an attribution rather than a trait we can observe directly, which makes assessment inherently probabilistic rather than definitive.
Second, short-term interactions are often misleading. Because appearing ethical brings clear benefits (trust, influence, reduced scrutiny, and access to resources) people are incentivized to signal integrity even when they lack it. This helps explain why superficially ethical environments can sometimes attract parasitic actors who exploit the goodwill and assumptions of others. In contrast, in persistently corrupt settings, distrust becomes the default, and even well-intentioned individuals are treated with suspicion. Context shapes both behavior and perception.
A parallel and increasingly robust line of evidence comes from research on the so-called “dark traits”, narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Although conceptually distinct, these traits share a common core of low empathy, emotional coldness, and a tendency to instrumentalize others. From an integrity standpoint, this combination is toxic. Individuals high on these traits are less constrained by guilt or concern for others, more willing to bend or ignore rules, and more likely to justify unethical behavior as necessary, deserved, or clever rather than wrong.
Psychopathy is most directly linked to callousness and fearlessness, reducing sensitivity to punishment and moral emotion. Machiavellianism predicts strategic deception, cynicism about human motives, and a belief that ends justify means. Narcissism, especially in its more grandiose forms, adds entitlement and moral exceptionalism, the belief that normal rules apply to others but not to oneself. Together, these traits reliably predict counterproductive work behaviors, ethical transgressions, and integrity failures, particularly in roles that confer power, discretion, and weak oversight. Crucially, this is not because such individuals lack intelligence or self-control, but because their motivational architecture is misaligned with prosocial norms. Where integrity depends on empathy, respect for authority, and an internalized concern for collective outcomes, dark traits tilt decision making toward self-interest, dominance, and short term gain, making them among the strongest dispositional red flags for integrity risk in organizational life.
Third, while integrity cannot be measured perfectly, it can be assessed meaningfully. Research shows that peer ratings are among the most reliable indicators, precisely because integrity is reputational: it reveals itself in how people behave when others depend on them. Longitudinal data, such as 360-degree feedback, is especially informative. Personality traits like conscientiousness, altruism, and self-control (including the capacity to self-edit) also predict ethical conduct, as does past behavior. Self-reports are often dismissed, but well-designed measures still differentiate reliably between individuals with higher and lower integrity. Track records matter, even if they do not render anyone immune to temptation. As Warren Buffett famously observed, reputation takes a lifetime to build and a moment to destroy.
Finally, the environment matters. Ethical failures are not only the result of “bad apples,” but also of “rotten barrels.” Weak governance, misaligned incentives, and tolerance for small transgressions can erode integrity even among otherwise decent individuals, while well-designed systems can reinforce ethical behavior by making misconduct costly and transparency unavoidable.
Sapping growth
Taken together, these points suggest that integrity is neither inscrutable nor guaranteed. Whether in governments, firms, or teams, integrity functions as an enabling condition for coordination and progress. When trust erodes, actors devote more effort to monitoring, hedging, and self-protection, leaving less energy for innovation or growth. In this sense, integrity is not merely a moral ideal, but a form of social infrastructure: largely invisible when it works, and painfully obvious when it does not.
Below, Brad Stulberg shares five key insights from his new book, The Way of Excellence: A Guide to True Greatness and Deep Satisfaction in a Chaotic World.
Brad is on faculty at the University of Michigan. He is a performance coach and regular…
AI inspired many employers to take a wait-and-see approach to hiring in 2025, but new data suggest they’ll be returning to the market in search of certain skills in 2026.
According to Upwork’s In-Demand Skills 2026 report, demand for AI-specific pr…
A viral X post from late last year pitted images depicting two hustle-culture lifestyles side by side: tech bro hoodie and Notes app icon on one side, a business suit and a copy of Cal Newport’s Deep Work on the other side.
“Left guy will most like…
Personality is one of the most underrated predictors of career success in the world. Defined by scientists as the range of habits and typical behaviors that make us who we are—and different from others—and with more than a century of robust academic evidence on how it impacts work and other real-life outcomes, here are some fascinating facts to digest:
(1) The simplest and most reliable way to understand someone’s personality is to look at their scores (position) along five universal traits, namely emotional stability (how calm, composed, and non-anxious you are), extraversion (how sociable, assertive, and energetic you are), agreeableness (how kind, polite, and friendly you are), openness to experience (how curious, intellectual, and open-minded you are), and conscientiousness (how driven, organized, and self-controlled you are). In fact, every other character trait you may read about—e.g., EQ, grit, empathy, resilience, authoritarian, and overconfident—is nothing but a combination of those “Big Five” traits, if not merely one of them relabeled (old wine in new bottles).
(2) There are multiple ways to assess these personality traits, ranging from peer-ratings (most people would agree on their views of a specific person, since we all have consistent reputations and others are able to decode them), AI-scraping of digital footprints (what we say and do online, and how we say and do it compared to others), and science-based personality assessment (you can take a free, visual two-minute version here). Although some believe that self-report questionnaires are inadequate to capture someone’s personality—because anyone can lie or distort their answers and manage impressions—well-designed tests translate someone’s preferred self-presentation into a prediction of their future performance, including how they behave in work and career settings.
(3) There are hundreds of independent scientific studies highlighting the consistent predictive power of personality vis-à-vis all types of job performance and career success outcomes. Most notably, the “Big Five” have been found to predict job satisfaction (higher in emotionally stable, agreeable, and conscientious people), leadership potential (higher in extraverted, emotionally stable, open-to-experience, and conscientious people), sales performance (higher in extraverts), general career progression (higher in conscientious and extraverted people, though the latter depends on culture), and resilience (higher in emotionally stable and conscientious people). Even negative or undesirable outcomes, such as absenteeism, work conflict, and career instability (all more likely when you have lower emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness). In short, who you are determines how you work and how you relate to work, including your boss, colleagues, and clients.
And yet, the predictive power of personality is not destiny. Acknowledging that personality shapes career outcomes does not mean we are prisoners of our dispositions. It does mean, however, that control comes in specific and sometimes counterintuitive forms.
Behavioral changes
First, while it is hard to change your personality, it is entirely possible to change your behavior: Personality describes tendencies, not fixed scripts. It reflects what comes naturally, not what is possible. A useful way to think about personality is as a set of default settings rather than an immutable operating system. You may be naturally introverted, emotionally reactive, or low in conscientiousness, but that does not prevent you from acting differently when the situation requires it. It does mean that doing so will take more effort and intention than it would for someone whose personality aligns more closely with the role.
This is where self-awareness becomes essential. Without it, people mistake their habits for necessities and their preferences for constraints. With it, they can anticipate when their instincts will help and when they will mislead them. Self-awareness is not achieved through introspection alone. It comes from structured feedback, personality assessment, coaching, and noticing patterns over time. If you receive the same feedback across roles, bosses, or teams, that is not coincidence. It is personality expressing itself.
A useful analogy is handedness. Being left-handed does not prevent you from using your right hand, but it does mean that writing with it will feel awkward and effortful at first. Over time, however, people adapt, compensate, and sometimes become functionally ambidextrous. Personality works in much the same way.
Good and bad matches
Second, there is no such thing as a universally good or bad personality. There are only good or bad matches. Traits become assets or liabilities depending on context. High extraversion is advantageous in leadership and sales, but less so in roles requiring sustained focus. High agreeableness supports collaboration, but can undermine negotiation and tough decision-making. High openness fuels learning and innovation, but may complicate execution if not balanced with discipline.
This is why talent is often best understood as personality in the right place. Careers accelerate when environments reward who you already are rather than punish it. Much of what organizations label as “underperformance” is simply misfit. The same individual can look average in one role and exceptional in another, without changing much at all.
This also explains why changing environments is often more effective than trying to change oneself. If development proves hard or slow, adjusting role design, team composition, or organizational culture can quickly turn a personality liability into a strength. This is not avoidance. It is strategic self-management.
Change happens
Third, people can and do change, including in durable ways: Personality is relatively stable, but it is not fixed. Longitudinal research shows that people change across adulthood, often becoming more emotionally stable, agreeable, and conscientious over time. More targeted change can occur through sustained role demands, life events, and deliberate interventions such as coaching.
Crucially, coaching almost always works by helping people go against their nature. Leaders are rarely coached to do more of what comes naturally. They are coached to slow down when they rush, listen when they dominate, tolerate uncertainty when they avoid it, or impose structure when they prefer improvisation. In that sense, development is inherently anti-authentic. Growth usually requires behaving less like your default self, not more.
This is also why development feels effortful. Personality change does not happen through insight alone, but through repeated behavioral experiments that gradually recalibrate habits. Over time, what once felt unnatural can become routine, expanding a person’s behavioral range.
A perfect fit isn’t required
Fourth, and critically, it is perfectly possible to succeed in roles that are not tailor-made for your personality: Personality explains a meaningful but limited portion of career success. Even under the most generous estimates, it accounts for perhaps 40% to 50% of the variance in outcomes, often less. The rest is explained by skills, learning, motivation, context, opportunity, and persistence. In practice, this means that people routinely succeed in roles that do not fit them naturally.
Introverts can be excellent salespeople. They may not draw energy from constant interaction, but they often compensate through preparation, deep listening, and follow-up. Highly agreeable individuals can become effective negotiators by learning when to create constructive conflict. Risk-averse people can lead innovation by relying on disciplined experimentation rather than bold improvisation. Less conscientious individuals can thrive in structured roles by building external systems that compensate for their preferences.
In many of these cases, success depends on emotional labor: the ability to display enthusiasm, confidence, or composure that may not reflect one’s internal state but is appropriate for the role. Emotional labor is often dismissed as inauthentic, yet it is one of the most underrated career skills. Many high performers succeed not because their jobs perfectly match who they are, but because they have learned to perform the role effectively.
A useful analogy is acting. Good actors are not limited to playing versions of themselves. They succeed by understanding the demands of the role and adapting accordingly. Careers work much the same way. People often grow into roles that initially felt uncomfortable, not because their personality changed overnight, but because their capacity to adapt expanded.The danger is not stretching beyond your personality, but doing so indefinitely without recovery, awareness, or choice.
In short, personality shapes how we work, how others experience us, and how our careers unfold over time. It is one of the most powerful forces in career development precisely because it operates quietly and consistently. But influence is not destiny. With self-awareness, strategic choices, and deliberate development, people can work with their personality rather than be constrained by it.
The real risk is not having a particular personality. It is failing to understand the one you have, and mistaking “being yourself” for the same thing as being effective.
Will Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce retire after this football season? Kelce has not yet delivered a public answer to this question, and there’s widespread speculation. But his choice of words when speaking about this decision may tell…
Since I was old enough to vote in presidential elections, I’ve heard plenty of grumbling across the political spectrum about moving to Canada if one candidate or another wins. And since I have been a full-time worker, I have also been party to a numbe…
Stress isn’t just an occasional visitor in our lives—it’s more the houseguest who never got the hint to leave. Between economic uncertainty, workplace upheaval, rounds of layoffs, and the delightful unpredictability of daily life (surprise traffic jam…
Maybe you first bonded over shared workplace frustrations. You gradually started finding each other every lunch break and synchronizing trips to the coffee machine. Eventually they become a confidant for venting about your real life outside of work.&n…
