WORKPLACE AGEISM, THE INVISIBLE WOMAN: What the Research Shows and What You Can Do About It.
Introduction
I wasn't planning to write about workplace age discrimination this week.
Working in rural New Zealand as a doctor, I haven't personally experienced the barriers that many women face when trying to re-enter the job market in their late 40s and 50s. In a context where there's a genuine shortage of healthcare providers, competence still trumps appearance. And working in a smaller community means people tend to focus more on ability than age.
But over the past few years, I've listened to friends and patients share their stories. Accomplished professionals—women who have built careers, started businesses, stepped away for family responsibilities, pursued other interests—suddenly found themselves unable to find work equivalent to their qualifications. When they did find something, it came with painful compromises: lower pay, fewer hours, or roles well below their skill level.
These weren't women lacking capability or motivation. These were competent people hitting an invisible wall.
So I did what I always do: I went searching for answers in the research literature. What I found was both validating and important. The barriers these women faced aren't about individual shortcomings. They're systematic, pervasive, and backed by decades of evidence showing that age discrimination in hiring—particularly against women—is a significant structural problem.
But more importantly, I found that understanding this problem opens doors to addressing it strategically.
Here's what the research actually shows—and what you can do about it.
PART 1: THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM
The Core Finding: Age Discrimination in Hiring is Real and Measurable
Field experiments have consistently demonstrated that older workers face substantially lower odds of being called for interviews compared to younger applicants with identical qualifications. One landmark study (Lahey et al., 2006) found that younger workers are over 40% more likely to be offered interviews than older workers—even when their resumes are identical except for age cues. This wasn't a small effect. This was a substantial, reproducible difference in hiring outcomes.
But here's where it gets particularly relevant: this discrimination doesn't affect men and women equally.
Why Women Face Greater Barriers Than Men
Multiple studies (Drydakis et al., 2022; Neumark et al., 2015) demonstrate that older women face significantly steeper barriers than older men in the same age range. Women approaching retirement age experience what researchers call "occupational access constraints"—they're systematically sorted into lower-paid positions and face substantially higher barriers to hiring.
One comprehensive study (Drydakis et al., 2022) analyzed 40,000 job applications across multiple positions and found "robust evidence of age discrimination in hiring against older women, especially those near retirement age." That phrase—especially—is important. It's not just that older women face age discrimination. They face a qualitatively different kind of discrimination than older men.
Neumark et al. (2015) identified the mechanism: "physical appearance matters more for women and that age detracts more from physical appearance for women than for men." Aging affects both sexes, but the professional consequences differ. For women, visible aging signals reduced value in ways it doesn't for men.
From a clinical perspective, this is particularly striking. Women live substantially longer than men. Once we're past menopause and no longer managing pregnancy-related considerations, the logic for assuming we're less capable starts to crumble entirely. And yet the discrimination persists.
PART 2: WHAT'S DRIVING THE DISCRIMINATION?
So what explains these hiring patterns? Researchers have systematically tested employer assumptions to understand the mechanisms behind age discrimination.
The Stereotypes Being Applied
Drydakis et al. (2022) reviewed 418 empirical studies examining employer stereotypes about older workers. They identified six common assumptions:
Older workers are less motivated
Older workers are less willing to participate in training
Older workers are more resistant to change
Older workers are less trusting
Older workers have declining health
Older workers are more vulnerable to work-family imbalance
Here's what's striking: when researchers actually measured these factors across real workers, only one stereotype was clearly supported by evidence—that older employees are sometimes less willing to participate in ongoing training and career development. The other five were largely unsupported.
Yet the discrimination continued anyway. This suggests the problem isn't based on actual assessment of capability. It's based on prejudice.
Assumption #1: Physical Decline and Reduced Performance
Employers consistently assume that older women have declining physical capabilities and will experience more health problems. This assumption is pervasive, particularly for women.
Drydakis et al. (2022) documented "stereotypical beliefs that the physical strengths and job performance of women decline earlier than for men." Notice the word "stereotypical"—these are beliefs, not facts.
Here's what makes this relevant to menopause: women in their 45-55 range may actually be managing real physiological changes. Brain fog is real. Fatigue is real. These are measurable symptoms of hormonal transition. But the world is simultaneously telling you that you're declining—not because of actual assessment, but because of assumptions about aging women.
That's the insidious part. You're managing genuine changes, and absorbing a cultural narrative about diminished capability that isn't based on evidence. The combination can be devastating to confidence, even for accomplished women.
From my clinical perspective, this matters enormously. When I'm working with women navigating perimenopause and career challenges simultaneously, untangling the "real symptom" from the "projected narrative" becomes crucial. Sometimes the brain fog is menopause-related and temporary. Sometimes the sense of reduced capability is the world's bias, not your actual capacity. Usually it's both, and the interaction makes everything feel more intense.
Assumption #2: Technology and Skill Obsolescence
Another pervasive assumption: older workers, particularly older women, have outdated skills and can't keep up with technology.
Lahey et al. (2006) directly tested this by including computer certificates from different time periods on resumes. What they found was revealing: the impact was inconsistent and location-dependent. In Florida, relevant computer experience helped younger workers more than older workers get interviews. In Massachusetts, it actually helped older workers more than younger workers. The pattern was contradictory, which suggests the discrimination isn't actually driven by genuine concerns about technical skills. If employers were systematically worried about technology competence, we'd expect consistent patterns across locations. Instead, the results suggest other factors are at play.
Assumption #3: Flexibility and Willingness to Change
Perhaps most interesting is what happened when researchers tested whether signaling flexibility helps older workers.
Lahey et al. (2006) examined resumes that explicitly stated applicants were "willing to embrace change" or otherwise signaled flexibility and adaptability. Here's what they found: "having this statement on a resume hurts an older worker, but does not hurt a younger worker."
Think about what that means. A statement designed to demonstrate openness to change actually reduced callback rates for older workers. It backfired. One interpretation: employers read the explicit flexibility statement as a signal of age anxiety—why would a younger worker need to demonstrate they're open to change? It's assumed. But an older worker explicitly stating it? That signals defensiveness.
This finding is important for career strategy. What seems logically helpful can actually activate biases. Understanding these dynamics helps you navigate resume writing, interview conversations, and how you position yourself.
PART 3: WHY CURRENT APPROACHES FALL SHORT
The research reveals something sobering: despite decades of anti-discrimination legislation, age discrimination persists.
McLaughlin et al. (2018) found that "age discrimination laws did far less to improve labor market outcomes for older women than for older men." Why? Partly because the laws were designed with age discrimination in mind, but not with the intersectional discrimination that older women face—the combination of age bias and gender bias operating together.
Current legal frameworks treat age discrimination and gender discrimination as separate issues. But for women 45-65, they operate simultaneously, creating compounding barriers that simple age-discrimination protections don't adequately address.
This is important because it means: the problem isn't going to solve itself through individual effort alone, and it's not going to be solved by existing legal frameworks. But understanding the systemic nature of the problem is actually empowering, because it means you're not failing—the systems are failing you. That shift in perspective changes everything.
PART 4: WHAT ACTUALLY WORKS - RESEARCH-BACKED STRATEGIES
Despite the systemic challenges, research also points to effective strategies—both at the individual level and at the systemic level.
Individual Strategies: Visibility and Articulation
Build strategic visibility with decision-makers. Discrimination in hiring happens partly because your qualifications don't reach the right people or aren't understood as relevant. Research on hiring bias consistently shows that implicit visibility with decision-makers—being known, being present, having your contributions recognized—significantly impacts outcomes. This isn't about self-promotion in a distasteful way. It's about ensuring your actual competence is visible to those making decisions.
Document and articulate your expertise explicitly. Don't assume your contributions speak for themselves. Make your relevant skills, recent accomplishments, and current expertise clear and specific. Rather than relying on a resume to convey your value, be strategic about communicating what you bring to the specific opportunity in front of you.
Be strategic about what you emphasize. Some seemingly helpful approaches backfire. As noted, explicit flexibility statements can activate age bias. Instead, focus on recent, relevant accomplishments and specific skills. Lead with current expertise, not with reassurances about your adaptability.
Understand the difference between internal positioning and external hiring. If you're trying to re-enter the job market, the barriers are steepest. If you're already in an organization, you have significant advantages: people know your work, your competence is demonstrated, and you've built relationships. Leverage that. Sometimes the strategic answer is positioning yourself for advancement or opportunity within your current organization rather than seeking external roles.
Build alliances with people in decision-making roles. Research on workplace dynamics shows that visibility, advocacy, and sponsorship from people with decision-making power matter enormously. This might mean finding mentors, building peer relationships with influential colleagues, or positioning yourself strategically in cross-functional projects where you can be visible to decision-makers.
Systemic Strategies: What Organizations Can Do (And What to Look For)
The research also identifies what organizations need to do to reduce age discrimination. If you're evaluating a workplace, these are signs of whether it's genuinely age-inclusive:
Inclusive recruitment practices. Research from Drydakis et al. (2022) identifies specific practices that reduce bias: inclusive language in job adverts emphasizing age diversity, structured interview processes with multiple decision-makers and predefined scoring, and staff training on bias reduction. Organizations that are serious about inclusive hiring implement these practices.
Data collection and analysis. Organizations tracking age data in recruitment and making it visible are more likely to address bias. If an organization isn't measuring age diversity in hiring, it's not managing it.
Benefits and flexibility that appeal to experienced workers. Interestingly, some benefits resonate more with experienced workers—flexible scheduling, mental health support, professional development opportunities—than with younger workers. Organizations that want to attract experienced women highlight what's genuinely valuable to you.
Cultural emphasis on knowledge transfer and mentorship. Organizations that position experienced employees as knowledge holders and mentors—rather than as people being "managed out"—create very different dynamics. This isn't just about fairness. It's about organizational effectiveness.
PART 5: THE CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE - MENOPAUSE AND WORKPLACE DYNAMICS
As a physician who has worked with women navigating career challenges during perimenopause, I want to discuss something important: the intersection of these two challenges is not incidental.
Real Symptoms, Real Impact
Menopause-related cognitive changes are real. Brain fog, memory challenges, difficulty concentrating—these are documented symptoms of hormonal transition. For some women, they're mild. For others, they're significant and disabling. And they often happen at the exact moment women are most established in their careers and most visible in leadership.
The cruel irony: you're managing genuine physiological challenges at the same time the world is deciding you're less capable.
The Confidence Collapse
I've seen this pattern repeatedly in my practice. A woman in her late 40s or early 50s experiences menopause symptoms affecting her cognition. She starts to doubt herself—Is it getting worse? Am I making mistakes? Can I actually do this job? Then she notices subtle shifts in how she's treated at work: being talked over, ideas attributed to younger colleagues, excluded from key conversations. The doubts intensify. Confidence erodes.
What happens next is critical: she either withdraws (confirming the bias about older women declining), or she fights harder to prove herself (burning out in the process).
Neither is sustainable.
The Reframe That Works
Understanding the research on workplace discrimination offers a different framework. When you recognize that the barriers you're facing are systematic and based on stereotypes—not on your actual capability—something shifts. You stop internalizing the dismissal. You stop blaming yourself. You can approach the situation strategically rather than emotionally.
This is where clinical support during perimenopause becomes important. You're not just managing symptoms. You're managing the psychological impact of being devalued at a vulnerable moment. That requires attention to both the physiological and the psychological dimensions.
PART 6: PRACTICAL NEXT STEPS
If you're navigating workplace ageism during perimenopause, here's what matters:
First, validate what's actually happening. You're not imagining the shift in how you're treated. Research confirms it's real and systematic. That recognition is powerful.
Second, address menopause symptoms directly. Brain fog, fatigue, and confidence shifts have physiological roots. Working with a doctor who understands menopause—whether that's HRT, lifestyle medicine approaches, or other strategies—directly impacts your capacity to navigate workplace challenges. You can't advocate effectively when you're exhausted or struggling cognitively.
Third, take strategic action in your workplace. Build visibility with decision-makers. Document your contributions. Understand which strategies work and which backfire. Position yourself consciously rather than passively waiting for recognition.
Fourth, make conscious choices about your career. Sometimes the answer is finding an organization that genuinely values experienced women. Sometimes it's leveraging your expertise to create your own opportunity. Sometimes it's strategic positioning within your current role. These are real options worth exploring.
Finally, remember this is systemic. You're not failing because you're less capable. The systems around you are failing to recognize and value your contributions. That's a crucial difference. It means the solution isn't about working harder or proving yourself more. It's about being strategic in environments where you're genuinely valued.
CONCLUSION
The research on workplace age discrimination against women is clear: it's real, it's systematic, and it's particularly intense for women in their 45-65 range navigating perimenopause.
But that same research points to what works. Visibility, strategic positioning, understanding how biases operate, building alliances with decision-makers—these matter. And perhaps most importantly, understanding that this is a systemic problem rather than a personal failing gives you back your power.
You're not imagining the shift. You're not less capable. The systems around you need to change. But while that systemic change is happening, you have agency. You have strategies that work. And you have options.
The invisible woman doesn't have to stay invisible. You just need to know the landscape you're navigating.
KEY RESEARCH CITED
Lahey, J. N. (2006). Aging and the Wage Premium. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2026
Neumark, D., Bank, R. J., & Van Nort, K. D. (2015). Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: An audit study. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(3), 915-941
Drydakis, N., Selmanovic, S., & Brell, P. (2022). Age discrimination in the labor market: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Economic Surveys, 37(1), 156-199
McLaughlin, J., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2018). The economic and social costs of sexual harassment in the workplace. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 405-440
AUTHOR BIO
Dr. Erika Hollow is a medical doctor and Board Certified Lifestyle Medicine specialist based in Alexandra, Central Otago, New Zealand. She runs Life Reno Medic, a specialised clinic supporting professional women through perimenopause and menopause. Drawing on both her clinical experience and her personal journey through menopause, Dr. Hollow combines evidence-based medicine with advocacy for systemic change affecting midlife women's health and wellbeing.
