Building on feminist organizational scholarship, this study conceptualizes work organizations as historically structured around assumptions of a stereotypical masculine, linear, rational, and contained body. As Acker’s (1990, 2006) theory of gendered organizations demonstrates, organizational norms, temporalities, and expectations of the “ideal worker” are not gender neutral. Rather, they are implicitly aligned with bodies imagined as stable, predictable, continuously available, and detached from most cyclic bodily processes. While some more gender-neutral cyclic processes, such as sleeping and eating, are more or less tolerated in work organization, feminist and queer studies of work organizations have shown that bodies which further deviate from the “ideal worker” norm, such as reproductive, aging, or “leaky” bodies, are rendered problematic within organizational contexts. These studies highlight how bodily processes that are gendered, cyclic, changing, or difficult to contain, such as menopause (Jack et al., 2019; Steffan and Loretto, 2025), menstruation (Grandey et al., 2020; Sang et al., 2021), or breast feeding (Van Amsterdam, 2015), fundamentally challenge dominant organizational logics grounded in reliability, control, and productivity. Importantly, the studies highlight that rather than prompting structural organizational change, such embodied deviations are often individualized and managed through concealment, self-discipline, and heightened self-responsibility.

Extending this critique, Fuchs (2018) and Pawlett Jackson (2024) explicitly theorize the temporal mismatch between linear time conceptualizations and embodied cycles. Both argue that prevailing living and working rhythms are built on linear, future-oriented, and accumulative notions of time that systematically marginalize cyclic, changing, and regenerative temporalities. Pawlett Jackson (2024) further emphasizes the menstrual cycle as a specific form of embodiment that stands in marked contrast to linear modes of work organization. From this perspective, cyclic bodies are not merely misfits within organizations but actively expose the temporal assumptions underpinning organizational order.

Drawing on this body of work, we conceptualize organizations as environments in which linear organizational temporalities intersect and often clash with non-linear, embodied rhythms. We focus on the menstrual cycle as a cyclic process that affects nearly half of the working population over a substantial part of their working lives, and thus as a paradigmatic yet under-researched example of cyclic embodiment at work. This allows us to examine how organizational structures, norms, and practices engage with bodily processes that are inherently cyclic, changing, and relational.

A significant amount of the (global) working bodies are dealing with cyclic and changing body realities in terms of having a menstrual cycle and (peri-)menopausal nonlinearities. Yet, some phases of the menstrual cycle, i.e., menstruation, premenstrual symptoms (PMS), and menopause are highly stigmatized and tabooed especially in workplaces (Grandey et al., 2020; King, 2020; Steffan and Loretto, 2025). In consequence, current workplace arrangements incentivize WPMC to downplay and hide the effects of a cyclic body to avoid being seen as unprofessional (Grandey et al., 2020; Przybylo and Fahs, 2020; Sang et al., 2021; Steffan and Loretto, 2025; Young, 2005). The necessity of concealing menstruation, PMS, or menopause confronts WPMC with additional workload and stress, i.e., in terms of painful bodies, concealing symptoms, presentism, ongoing stigma, lack in access to facilities and balancing workload while experiencing diverse symptoms (Amacker et al., 2024; Gaiswinkler et al., 2024; Grandey et al., 2020; Owen, 2024; Sang et al., 2021). Menstruation and PMS are mostly conceptualized as a problematic ‘female’ experience or challenge that must be individually managed and at all costs concealed by concerned WPMC (Bauer, 2022; Bobel and Fahs, 2020; King, 2025; Persdotter, 2020).

Evidently, the embodied experience of the menstrual cycle is not limited to menstruation or PMS. Nevertheless, most existing empirical studies focus solely on phases of the cycle that are framed as (potentially) problematic, such as menstruation (e.g., Amacker et al., 2024; Gaiswinkler et al., 2024; Schoep et al., 2019), PMS (e.g., King, 2020), menopause (e.g., Steffan and Loretto, 2025), or combinations of menstruation, menopause, or menstrual disorders (e.g., Howe et al., 2023; Sang et al., 2021). While some studies explicitly question the social construction of menstruation, PMS, or menopause as problematic, many others implicitly reinforce this framing. This is most evident in the titles, which associate these phases with deficits, e.g., in Schoep et al. (2019) “Productivity loss due to menstruation-related symptoms” or in Amacker et al. (2024) “Menstrual problems at the workplace².”

As a result of this problem-focused orientation, menstruation and menopause have become the most widely scientifically discussed aspects of the menstrual cycle, while the broader cyclic experience remains largely overlooked. This narrow focus also obscures the fact that symptoms vary not only across cycles but also change over the lifespan.

At the same time, in public discourse cycle awareness, symptom tracking, and cyclic work have become trends many WPMC follow (Andelsman, 2022; Hajkova and Doyle, 2024; Pfender et al., 2025). Guidebooks, newsletter articles, supplement advertising and cycle coaches all promise to provide guidance on using the cycle as a ‘female superpower’ for a successful (work) life. Although these initiatives often include educational elements about menstrual health, the recommendations they make are usually not based on scientific evidence, since scientific research on cyclic work is not yet well developed.

To address this, we suggest a more encompassing approach for organizational theory as well as for critical menstruation studies; one that attends to diverse, cyclic, and changing embodied experiences. Based on this premise, the following section introduces a cyclic perspective on work organization.

Building on these insights, we propose a cyclic perspective that moves beyond analyzing individual symptoms in isolated phases of the menstrual cycle or focusing solely on stigma or stereotyping. Instead, we advance an analytical lens that conceptualizes cyclic bodies as the default and understands the menstrual cycle, as well as peri-menopausal nonlinearities, as integral dimensions of cyclic, embodied, collective experiences.

To ensure a coherent research design, our research project puts cyclic temporalities and bodies of working WMPC in the focus of attention. With a cyclic perspective both in theoretical and methodological terms, we trace the non-linearities associated to a cyclic working body in dominantly linear structures. In resonance with common cross-disciplinary categorisations like “micro-meso-macro” levels of analysis (Dopfer et al., 2004; Serpa and Ferreira, 2019); or multi-level perspectives (e.g., Geels, 2010; Keller et al., 2022), we recognize that embodies realties of the menstrual cycle are influenced by different spheres: 1. The Individual Sphere covering personal experiences, knowledge and agency in reaction to individual body cycles, 2. The Organizational Sphere covering work structures, cultures, and management in reaction to cyclic working bodies, 3. The Societal Sphere covering public discourses, scientific developments and political agendas in view of a cyclic perspective on working environments (see Figure 1). Yet, we saw that the divide between ‘private life’ and ‘professional life’ played a decisive role in our data, which is why we chose to represent the organizational (work) sphere at the same level as the individual sphere. Nevertheless, the individual sphere remains at a micro-level in terms of limited impact. To capture this, we illustrated the organizational sphere with a larger circle that partly includes the individual sphere. From a cyclic view, these three spheres are understood as permeable cyclic loops that transform over time within one sphere, but that are simultaneously inherently interconnected and have a mutual influence on each other.

In line with research on menstruation as a global topic (e.g., Bhandal, 2020; Furlano, 2025; Gaybor and Harcourt, 2022; Khorsand et al., 2023; Standing et al., 2024), we see a high necessity to research the topic from an intersectional and context-sensitive perspective. In terms of geographical focus, a global-scale review of the policies, guidelines and practices regarding menstruation, menstrual disorders and menopause at work, conducted by Howe et al. (2023), reveals that most studies were conducted in the UK, followed by Australia and the US. It is noteworthy that most EU countries are not high-ranking and that Germany is only included in multi-country articles despite its prominent position in the EU.

While there might be the prejudicial assumption that menstrual stigma is only an ongoing issue in countries in the Global South, Winkler et al. (2024) and Grandey et al. (2020) demonstrate that it remains a crucially under-addressed issue in countries in the Global North, too. A recent empirical study by Forsa in Germany (2025) confirmed this impression. Of the 1,002 participants, 85% thought that menstruation was discussed too little or not at all in public, and 91% thought that there was too little information or education about menstrual cycle health (Forsa, 2025). Complementing these findings, Bauer (2025) situates menstruation as a central site of feminist body politics. While the public discourse increasingly invokes notions of empowerment and de-tabooing, she underscores the persistence of historical patterns of pathologization, naturalization, and gendering in Germany.

From a policy perspective, broader institutional measures addressing the menstrual cycle in the workplace remain rare across the EU despite the high prevalence of menstrual and menopausal symptoms and the considerable number of people affected (Schultz et al., 2025). Exceptions include Spain’s introduction of a menstrual leave law in 2023 (ibid.), a trade union-led campaign in Ireland advocating for menstrual and menopausal workplace policies (Forsa, 2023) and an internal organizational policies of the Left Party in Brussels addressing menstrual health (The Left, 2024).

Taking into consideration our advantage of local knowledge and cultural expertise as two white, cis-female researchers from Germany, we saw this as an opportunity to enhance existing research through in-depth qualitative insights in the German context combined with expert perspectives on an EU level. Our methodological approaches and the specific sample are detailed below.

In coherency with the overall cyclic research design, the study employs a longitudinal qualitative approach to explore how cyclic realities can be integrated into work organization. Under consideration of the changing circumstances and embodied realities, we aim to do justice to non-linear temporalities (see, e.g., Fuchs, 2018; Pawlett Jackson, 2024) by talking to the same people in two different moments in time. Within the time of four years from 2021 to 2025, this allowed us to build on the sample indicated in Table 1. The time period mostly evolved due to the life cycles and loops of both the authors and the research participants.

Our analytical approach combined deductive and inductive elements and proceeded iteratively, guided by the principles of qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz, 2018). We applied this approach to both our interview data and the materials generated in the action research workshops. Across the three rounds of interviews conducted over the four-year research period, we used semi-structured interview guidelines that were adapted to the respective focus and stage of the project while maintaining conceptual continuity. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. The workshops were documented through researcher memos. In the final workshop, participants themselves contributed written reflections on posters, which were photographed and analyzed. Following the coding procedures proposed by Kuckartz (2018) we conducted several cycles of coding, starting with deductive developed codes and added inductive ones to refine our category system.

Deductively our data analysis as well as the semi-structured interview guidelines are organized according to the three spheres: 1. The Individual Sphere, 2. The Organizational Sphere, 3. The Societal Sphere (see Figure 1).

Inductively, in all the spheres three overarching analytical categories emerged—evolvements, constancies, and frictions—capturing different dynamics of change, stability, and tension over time. These categories structured the subsequent presentation of our results and reflect our cyclic understanding of social and organizational processes.

Due to the sensitivity of the topic, we chose to focus on German speaking participants to be able to create a safer space and to react to cultural nuances. Participants were recruited through email lists, LinkedIn, and direct outreach. Ethical standards, including informed consent and confidentiality, were strictly observed given the sensitivity of the topic. Expert interviews were conducted with voices from Germany as well as from Ireland, Belgium, and Spain to enrich the data from Germany with a broader EU perspective. The experts from Ireland, Belgium, and Spain were identified following their participation in the ETUI Conference panel “Integrating Gender into Occupational Health and Safety,” which brought together perspectives on menstrual and menopausal health from different European contexts. Building on this exchange, we selected available participants representing distinct types of expertise: From Ireland, a key staff member of a union campaign tackling menstrual stigma contributed a trade union perspective, highlighting the role of organized labor in advancing menstrual inclusivity at work. The Belgian case serves as a potential good practice example for implementing internal organizational policies on menstrual health, represented by an interview with a leading official. In Spain, an union representative involved in promoting Spain’s menstrual leave law provided insights into legislative frameworks supporting menstrual health. Additionally, an independent Diversity Manager and Cycle Coach for companies from Germany was interviewed. Citations of expert interviews follow the format E.B, E.S, E.I, and E.G, with letters indicating the respective country (Belgium, Spain, Ireland, Germany).

Regarding the longitudinal study, Phase 1 aimed to establish a baseline understanding of personal experiences, cycle awareness at work, and organizational perspectives. Prior to developing the interview guide, a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to build the conceptual framework for integrating menstrual awareness into work structures (Figure 1). Building on the insights from the initial interviews, the study transitioned into a Phase 2 with a focus on transformation. This transformational perspective aims to identify shifts in personal strategies, organizational practices, and public discourses surrounding menstrual health and cyclic work. By revisiting the participants, the study does not only capture individual and organizational transformations but also highlights persistent gaps and opportunities for action.

Finally, the study incorporates action research elements through participatory formats organized over the past 4 years in Germany. These include workshops and collaborative exchanges focused on menstrual cycle awareness in professional settings. These participatory initiatives serve as platforms for identifying challenges, fostering dialogue, and co-creating practical recommendations to improve menstrual inclusivity at work.

The experience of the interviewees in the individual sphere is characterized by (1) the evolving nature of menstrual and menopausal conditions with mostly worsening symptoms over time, (2) increased awareness of cycle- or (peri-)menopausal-related needs, and (3) the constant negotiation between personal wellbeing and professional obligations.

Our empirical results show that individual behaviors of participants with minimal symptoms or even reduced symptoms due to menopause remained constant over the years. This implies that unless there is a significant physical impact, awareness of the menstrual cycle may not automatically lead to increased engagement and consequential actions with regard to the topic.

In contrast, participants with worsening symptoms due to aging or the transition to (peri-)menopause reported investing more time in tracking symptoms, refining their diaries, reorganizing non-work activities, or experimenting with medication to sustain or improve their work performance. Some of them have begun to think about aligning their work patterns with their cycles or (peri-)menopausal needs. Nevertheless, such practices were still tentative and provisional. They were not at all formalized or supported by organizational structures and remained mostly self-initiated, inconsistent and rather by chance than actually planned. Additionally, participants did not conceptualize the time they invest in the individually managed practices as additional work but rather considered it an integral part of their everyday practice. Consequently, this increase in mental workload remained concealed at their workplaces.

Menstrual or menopausal symptoms were often managed under the radar of a continuous professional performance to avoid the perception of weakness. Four interviewees revealed to push through work despite severe discomfort, later reflecting critically on this behavior.

The friction between workplace expectations and physical and psychological needs often led to internal conflicts and feelings of guilt or inadequacy. Some interviewees tend to play down their symptoms or emphasize that their employer is not doing that badly when it comes to gender equality. Simultaneously, some participants voiced a fear of overemphasis and re-stigmatization, if the topic was addressed. Concerns also included the risk of being stereotyped based on cycle phases, or being “mansplained” (I.4) about one’s own body, which further reinforced hesitation to speak up. Menstrual needs were persistently viewed as private concerns, disconnected from the organizational sphere. Conversely, it is acknowledged, that work is a factor which influences symptoms, as one interviewee put it:

However, the menstrual cycle was not perceived solely in negative terms. Some participants expressed a preference for working differently, i.e., more quietly and independently or from home during menstruation. Some participants also reported experiencing increased energy or creativity during certain phases of the cycle other than menstruation:

The findings emphasize the dynamic and evolving nature of menstrual and menopausal symptoms and related needs. The transition to (peri-)menopause, in particular, was described either as “a profound disruption” (I.8) or as a “liberation” (I.3). Changes in agency and action appear to be largely symptom-driven and encouraged by a growing focus on one’s own menstrual or (peri-)menopausal health partly influenced by evolvements in the societal sphere (see chapter 3.3). Nevertheless, evolvements in symptoms and in agency and action were managed individually and mostly remained concealed. First tentative attempts to reconcile work obligations with personal wellbeing remained provisional, imposing additional demands of time, effort, and mental load on the concerned WPMC.

The organizational sphere reflects the degree to which menstrual or menopausal health and cycle awareness are acknowledged and addressed through formal work structures, policies, and culture. Based on insights from the growing number of interdisciplinary studies on menstruation (see chapter 2.1), popular science literature (Clue App, 2024; Föhr, 2020; Melican and Mountford, 2017; Wiebe, 2020) and the empirical data collected, we identify four interrelated areas of organizational intervention aimed at closing the gap between current work structures and the lived realities of the menstrual cycle. These areas serve as a framework to systematize the wide range of possible measures and their respective focus from a cyclic perspective.

First, facilitating menstrual/menopausal management encompasses low-threshold, practical adjustments that can improve physical and psychological comfort and preparedness during times of PMS, menstruation or menopause in the workplace. Second, destigmatization and education focus on challenging persistent taboos and increasing awareness and knowledge around menstruation, the menstrual cycle and menopause. Third, flexible workplace structures and work-time autonomy can enable WPMC to self-manage potential fluctuations in energy, mood, or physical and psychological wellbeing more effectively. While these measures do not automatically include a structural cyclic work organization, they can contribute toward its establishment in an accidental or individual managed way. Finally, integrating cycle awareness into work structures explores the potential of aligning work tasks and rhythms with cyclic body realities. These four areas should not be seen as isolated or hierarchical but rather as complementary and potentially synergistic approaches toward a more inclusive cyclic organizational culture.

Regarding the facilitating the management of menstruation or menopause, half of the interviewees have access to menstrual products provided by the companies. However, the German expert reports that the provision of menstrual products encounters resistance. Often this is due to logistical complications or lack of initiative, or subcontractors who refuse to handle these supplies, which leads to frictions between the needs of WMPCs and company managers. Thus, cyclic health is often not only seen as dispensable or idealistic, but also as something which could be exhausting to push. In this regard, one interviewee had considered asking the department in charge for such tasks for providing menstrual products. However, she ultimately decided against it, assuming women “manage just fine with their own toiletries” (I.3) and feeling hesitant to create additional work for the department. Such perspectives reflect the ongoing framing of menstruation as a private, individual matter rather than an organizational collective responsibility. As the German expert points out, this stands in contrast to examples like, the provision of toilet paper which is a necessity for all working bodies. Notably, none of the interviewees reported structural offerings such as hot water bottles, fans or institutionalized recovery places, even though such measures were often described as supportive when working remotely from home. These examples show that working bodies are per default assumed to do not have cycle related symptoms, which makes the provision of cycle related products optional rather than obligatory.

Regarding destigmatization and education, the findings were mixed. Many interviewees reported that open conversations around menstruation have evolved. Yet, several participants described constant discomfort or a lack of response when menstruation- or menopausal-related needs were expressed. Gender dynamics played a clear role, with WPMC were more likely to share openly among themselves, while cross-gender dialogue remained highly divided feedback. The reaction of men, when (seldomly) addressed, was ranging from very reserved to very supportive feedback. A generational divide also emerged: younger employees seemed to be more willing to raise the issue and seemed to be generally more open to discuss menstruation and cycle at work. However, older women in leadership were perceived as more able to demand changes since they potentially had another standing and more power than younger women. For example, one interviewee described a situation in which openness about menopause symptoms was expressed, even in a male-dominated space:

In all the cases, an open communication culture about menstrual cycle- or menopausal-related issues was perceived as a beneficial practice that fosters mutual understanding and a sense of care within the team. Particularly, we observed a positive link between an open and supportive team culture and the ability of WMCP to navigate exhausting phases, which helped alleviate stress and mitigate symptoms. In contrast, when it is not possible to openly communicate about such issues, people affected are confronted with different challenges:

All experts emphasized that menstruation remains a highly concealed, tabooed and stigmatized topic in workplaces, even among those who discuss it openly within their families. This aligns with evidence from Spain’s menstrual leave law, where many women reportedly hesitate to use their rights for fear of negative workplace consequences, indicating that destigmatization remains limited (E.S).

The constancy of stigma results in low visibility and perceived irrelevance of menstrual health in organizational contexts, reflected in the absence of employee complaints, limited information, and scarce research on prevalence and effective measures.

Flexibility in work time and location was widely perceived as a supportive and enabling factor. While most interviewees already had access to flexible work arrangements in 2021, a comparison of both interview rounds suggests an evolvement: adapting working rhythms in response to menstruation or menopausal symptoms appears to have become more normalized. In the earlier interviews, participants often struggled to even imagine utilizing such measures for menstrual-related needs. In contrast, in the second round, many interviewees described actively using home office options or adjusted hours to manage symptoms related to menstruation, PMS or menopause—a notable increase compared to 4 years prior.³ Additionally, participants emphasized that it would be helpful to reframe sick leave toward broader understandings of being unable to work independent from the specific reason. In most organizations in Germany one can call in sick without a doctor’s note for a period of 3 days (further discussed in chapter 3.3). Yet WMPC employees still tend to hesitate to take advantage of such rights due to fears of stigma or appearing weak. As presented above in the findings from the individual sphere, several interviewees had feelings of guilt and inadequacy if work could not be done due to cycle related symptoms. Hence, despite the possibility of flexible and autonomous arrangements, the results indicate that it is not fully possible to make use of it without psychological stress. This shows how legal and structural possibilities are entangled with an internalization of sociocultural values and stigmata, which causes frictions toward cyclic work environments.

Given the insights from our data materials, general cycle awareness and its organizational integration still seem to be uncommon, which underlines the constancy of non-cyclic working bodies. Across both rounds of interviews, the workshops and the expert contributions, a recurring pattern emerges: while awareness and conversation around menstruation have increased, concrete organizational change remains limited. Only one case in the dataset featured a cycle-informed team structure, in which they have started to integrate cycle awareness into planning and task distribution. This included adjusting meeting intensity based on team energy levels and normalizing rest during menstruation. While rare and still in the testing phase, this case presents a promising model for rethinking organizational rhythms and highlights the potential of cyclic leadership.

Nevertheless, as one interviewee emphasized, starting with irony:

This experience of gendered discrimination is further underlined by another interviewee who reported a “reversed” logic of men expressing feelings of exclusion or discrimination if topics like menstruation or menopause are addressed:

Furthermore, a lack of institutional awareness or priority for the topic appears to be a strong constancy. Most interviewees reported little to no change within their workplaces regarding structural menstrual or menopausal health support. Reported initiatives often relied on individual engagement rather than structural action. For example, one participant noted that she had added the topic to a meeting agenda, but since she was unable to attend, it was not taken up—highlighting how such initiatives tend to depend on personal continuity rather than structural commitment.

In sum, the organizational sphere reveals a decisive gap between increased discourse on the one hand and meaningful transformation on the other hand. Most of the reported measures often remained symbolic and were rarely integrated into long-term structures. This shows how strong a non-cyclic working body is established and structurally advantaged. From a cyclic perspective, this underscores the necessity for cyclic health as organizational strategy rather than an optional or temporary diversity topic or a private issue of WPMC.

Resulting from the perception of the participants two different areas of societal change were identified as important: (1) cultural mentalities and (2) political and legal frameworks.

Regarding Cultural Mentalities, our data reveal a complex and ambivalent picture of cultural transformations regarding menstruation and menstrual and menopausal health. Participants observed an evolvement in terms of a generational shift and growing societal awareness, with increased emphasis on female health, mental wellbeing, and intersectional feminism. Nearly all interviewees agreed that the public discourse has changed in a progressive and supportive way, and that media coverage of menstrual and menopausal related issues and cyclic work has much increased in recent years. This indicates a partial breaking of the taboo. For example, one participant shared that she could post on LinkedIn about menstruating “and everyone would just be like, ‘Cool’ — like it” (I.2). Moreover, participants observed changes in the discursive tonality, from a suffering-oriented to an empowerment-oriented perspective, particularly in relation to professional life.

In contrast, these transformations are often experienced in friction to a broader cultural shift: they are often perceived as incomplete and confined to certain social ‘bubbles’, rather than indicating widespread structural change. Several participants stressed the gap between private awareness and public or structural implementation. As the interviewee, who could post about menstruation on LinkedIn finished: “everyone would just be like, ‘Cool’ — like it. But no one actually organizes their work according to that.” (I.2).

Additionally, a further friction could be observed in concerns about a growing backlash and political regression in response to increased gender discourse, particularly in connection with far-right movements. Signs of misogyny and antifeminist narratives were described as gaining momentum in certain cultural and political areas, causing feelings of threat. The German, Belgium, and Irish experts echoed these concerns about a general shift to the right in Europe, which is often associated with transphobia, misogyny, and threat to WPMC’s rights.

Regarding political and legal frameworks, participants agreed that the legal debates around menstrual health are constantly rare, although they are increasingly present in political and organizational discussions. Regarding the European landscape, our data material reveals the following picture:

While an initiative for an EU menstrual leave policy was launched by the Italian parliament in 2017, the proposed directive was not granted (European Parliament, 2021). Thus, it remains in the hands of the nation states to offer a legal framework that supports WPMC in this regard. Regarding the countries of the experts, the interviews revealed the following insights:

Germany’s legal framework does not include menstrual leave. However, one could argue German’s policy is still beneficial for people affected, since typically, no doctor’s note is required for up to 3 days of sick leave (§ 5 EntgFG). Hence, most people suffering from menstrual or menopausal issues could take time off without needing a doctor’s note or diagnosis at all. Yet, companies can demand certification from the first day (§ 5 EntgFG) — potentially creating barriers for those affected. The German expert summarized the legal situation on menstrual leave in Germany as follows:

To date, Belgium and Ireland are also lacking specific national legislation on menstrual leave, and the implementation remains voluntary or non-existent in most workplaces. In contrast, Spain currently serves as a landmark case. The country has become the first in the EU to introduce national legislation on menstrual leave, which allows time off for people experiencing severe menstrual pain:

Yet, the actual availment remains low: only 14% of women had applied for menstrual leave (Sociedad Española de Contracepción (SEC), 2024). According to a national survey from Spain, over half of women fear negative workplace consequences, especially younger women and those with lower education or income levels (E.S). This highlights the continued stigma and fear of discrimination that can undermine implemented polices. Additionally, the Spanish expert criticizes the fact that women need a previous diagnosis from a doctor, which is a major barrier to WMPC applying the law. Despite these concerns, Spain’s law has sparked some international attention and inspired comparative reflections across Europe. The Irish expert noted that their union’s campaign received much more media coverage because the discourse was already underway.

Nevertheless, policy discussions remain constantly limited at an overarching EU level. Interviewees and experts highlighted the lack of consistency in national sick leave regulations and the absence of unified EU standards. Some experts saw potentials in aligning menstrual leave with existing frameworks for parental leave under EU law. However, opinions differ on whether a joint EU legislation would be desirable or effective. Broader debates on cyclic health in the workplace, beyond menstrual leave, are still lacking.

In summary, cultural change is underway, but it is shaped by various frictions: progressive shifts in public and private discourse coexist with stagnation at the structural level and resistance or even backlashes from conservative forces. The evolving narratives and legal framework around menstruation, especially those that move away from suffering and toward empowerment, signal important steps forward. Yet, they remain fragile, context-dependent and contested.

Overall, the findings across all three spheres reveal an ambiguous and complex landscape. First, we see evolvements in individual experiences and personal agency, as well as in awareness and openness in discussing cyclic health at individual, organizational, and societal levels. These developments indicate meaningful shifts in how WPMC navigate and articulate their cyclic experiences. However, despite these evolvements, corresponding structural changes within workplaces remain limited. In terms of constancies, our results indicate that organizational transformations regarding cyclic health remain fragmented and unreliable, and many work structures continue to be shaped by linear temporalities that fail to accommodate cyclic embodiments. Thus, while discourse and individual practices may be shifting, institutional arrangements stay largely unchanged. The misalignment between evolvements and structural constancies produces significant frictions. WPMC who seek to protect their menstrual or menopausal wellbeing at work often bear the burden of managing it alone, investing additional time, money, and emotional energy. Cyclic health thereby remains framed as an individual issue affecting a “minority group,” rather than as a collective workplace concern relevant to all bodies. Further frictions become visible in policy developments: advances such as national menstrual leave laws (e.g., Spain) serve as important reference points, yet low uptake, implementation gaps, persistent stigma, and political resistance continue to constrain meaningful structural change.

Taken together, these evolvements, constancies, and frictions raise the crucial question of what drives or hinders workplace transformation and how workplaces might be reimagined if cyclic bodies were positioned as the norm.

In contrast to the described male-default and performance-driven work structures, we identify emerging cultural shifts and new leadership dynamics in all three spheres as key drivers of change.

Grounded in the identified barriers and drivers, we want to contribute to traditions of feminist futuring by developing workplace visions from a cyclic perspective. Envisioning alternative futures can help to unlock new practices and ways of thinking to shape more equitable worlds (Coleman and Jungnickel, 2023). Rather than developing scenarios or predictions, the goal of feminist futuring is to imagine and articulate visions and utopias that point toward more just and sustainable futures, and to explore pathways to bring these into being (Gümüsay and Reinecke, 2022; Priyadharshini, 2023). Feminist futuring is often grounded in a non-linear understanding of temporalities (i.e., Baker, 2018; MacLeavy et al., 2021; Reid-Musson et al., 2020). In concert with these perspectives, we propose workplace visions in which the cyclic and ever-changing nature of the body is the norm.

In terms of feminist utopias, a consequential work organization in loop with cyclic bodily changes and the prioritization of personal wellbeing over meritocratic and linear productivity norms can be seen as a “feminist glitch: a vehical of refusal, a strategy of nonperformance” (Russell, 2020). According to Russell (2020), a feminist glitch is the use of error as empowerment, a way to challenge systems of oppression by embracing failure, disruption, and nonconformity as feminist acts. In this understanding, the conceptual framing of cyclic bodies as default working bodies can be perceived as a feminist glitch against patriarchal and neoliberal norms. As an amplification of our “feminist glitch,” we are, hence, discussing future visions on basis of the discussed drivers and barriers.

Our study confirms that the combination of the assumption of a stereotypical male as workforce norm and ongoing menstrual stigma continues to influence individual behavior, and that resulting individually implemented cyclic work can burden WPMC with an additional workload rather than relieving it. These insights support a future workplace vision beyond individual management and coping in which cyclic body realities can be openly and collectively addressed.

In this vein, when asked about imagined future developments, many participants wanted to enhance body consciousness and to collectively increase the implementation of cyclic work. As one interviewee put it:

Few participants even called for a re-framing or re-interpretation of stigmatized symptoms or cycle-phases, gaining back ownership about such framings and concerned feelings and taking them seriously:

Here we see a twist of normalizing and collectivizing cyclic body realities instead of stigmatizing them as either ‘unchosen misery’ or a ‘superpower’. Today, acting like this is only possible in powerful positions including a secure working contract and with a certain amount of self-confidence and/or standing within the team. However, we argue that these two examples represent promising entry points for changing the way the cycle is framed: normalizing cyclic bodies and taking physical and psychological changes seriously instead of dichotomising them. Accordingly, a cyclic perspective implies future workplaces that include regenerative and pausing phases as well a re-interpretation of changing symptoms and cyclic bodies as a habitual recurring part of working lives. In concert, with the identified drivers, WMPCs in powerful positions can decisively contribute to this normalization of cyclic working realities.

Grounded in increased menstrual and menopausal visibility and education, pragmatic suggestions like the provisions of menstruation products, ensured clean and well-equipped toilets as well as dark-colored furniture and breathable workwear already exists (e.g., Forsa, 2023). Yet an assumed cyclic body norm turns them into an unquestionable necessity rather than an anti-discrimination measure for a minority group. In a similar way, topics of workplace and work-time autonomy and flexibility are already recommended (ibid.). However, a cyclic perspective allows for its possibility and application to any bodily concerns avoiding sexist re-stigmatization or discrimination of WPMCs. Additionally, it implies menstrual leave or a broader understanding and acceptance of reasons for taking sick leave.

A cyclic perspective also holds potential for sectors in which workplace and working-time flexibility is limited. By recognizing cyclic bodies as the default, organizations could, in principle, organize shift systems in ways that better align with embodied rhythms rather than assuming stable and linear availability. However, feminist scholars indicate that individualized practices such as cycle tracking and personalized scheduling with smart technology risk reinforcing pressures to manage one’s body productively and efficiently (Andelsman, 2022; Della Bianca, 2021; Hajkova and Doyle, 2024; Pfender et al., 2025). Rather than challenging dominant productivity norms, such approaches may inadvertently reproduce the very organizational logics they seek to transform. At the same time, interpreting this tension as a “feminist glitch” allows for a more nuanced reading of technological interventions. When detached from individualized self-optimization and instead implemented as collective organizational tools, smart technologies may offer opportunities to support adaptive scheduling practices that ensure adequate workforce coverage while prioritizing wellbeing across diverse bodies and genders.

Taking the debate on meritocratic tendencies further, both literature (Andelsman, 2022; Della Bianca, 2021; Hajkova and Doyle, 2024; Pfender et al., 2025) and our empirical insights show how societal trends to use menstrual cycle phases as “female superpower” risk falling into a trap of unlimited productivity. In consequence, visions of cyclic working environments invite broader critical reflections on contemporary capitalism and the resulting alienation of humans from nature and ecosystems. Along these lines, we encourage a normalization of organizing work according to one’s wellbeing, influenced by many different cycles and changing bodily needs.

On a more structural level, a cyclic body norm would hold legal and political institutions accountable in a different way. Propositions entail the implementation of menstrual, cycle, and menopausal health as part of the labor law or gender equality legislation, as well as its inclusion in collective bargaining agreements to ensure sector-wide implementation. Based on the insights from our expert interviews, EU-wide implementation is seen as highly desirable to accelerate change, including broader discussions on current linear working conditions. As a final point that goes beyond current focal points in critical menstruation studies (see chapter 2), a cyclic body approach considers not only menstruation, but the whole menstrual cycle and various life stages and cycles. In this vein, men could enact allyship by questioning the assumed male body linearity and by challenging the framing of cyclic embodiment as an issue that concerns only menstruating bodies. Men, too, experience cyclic bodily processes, yet they are often caught in pressures to conform to the ideal worker norm to maintain privilege and status.

Consequently, if all bodies are recognized as inherently cyclic and ever-changing by default, work organization can better accommodate diverse lived experiences and support health and wellbeing rather than undermining them. Moreover, cycle awareness can be understood as situating the human cyclic body as one of many interrelated natural cycles that shape and influence human and ecological systems. Or in the words of an interviewee:

As an exploratory, qualitative, empirical study, this research acknowledges several limitations. All interviewees work in sectors where remote work is easy to implement and already well established, which might not apply to different sectors. Additionally, this study focused on people aged between 20 and 50. Since many WPMC transition into menopause after the age of 50, future research should include broader age ranges. More generally, it must be considered that those willing to participate in such studies or action research workshops may already feel more open, educated and emancipated regarding the still-tabooed nature of the topic. As a result, our findings may reflect perspectives from more progressive or rather feminist, emancipated social groups, introducing a potential bias toward greater openness. Lastly, our study only covers perspectives from well-educated, abled-bodied, mostly white, cis-gender women. Menstrual and menopausal experience are a highly intersectional topic, and further research with more diverse groups is needed to cover different discrimination axes in relation to cyclic bodies.

Considering the limitations of our study, further research should evaluate practical measures within different organizational structures and with broader participation, including individuals from different professional settings and various backgrounds. Furthermore, we propose applying our approach of a cyclic perspective in different political and geographical contexts to be able to identify more nuanced conceptions of drivers and barriers toward increased cyclicity on a societal level beyond singular organizations. Furthermore, our empirical insights indicate that the ways of cyclic work organization promoted by blogs, guidebooks, and cycle coaches remains scientifically unexamined, which invites broader research to increase knowledge on cyclic health beyond stereotyped menstrual cycles. Additionally, it would be theoretically interesting to interlink a cyclic body perspective with more encompassing economic models like circular economy, caring/solidarity economy or postgrowth debates. Through a focus on socioecological and mostly concealed costs of a linear economic growth paradigm, they are already challenging linear economic constructions. Setting an interconnected cyclic system both in terms of macroscale perspectives on global economic and in terms of microscale body realities could enhance an overall understanding of the shortcomings and concealments of purely linear thinking and organization and create opportunities for loops of change.

To close the cycle of this paper: Today’s workplaces are still designed around the assumption of a stereotypical masculine, thus, non-cyclic, never-changing, predictable body. Yet, when we start to acknowledge diverse and cyclic body realities as default, this does not need to be the future.