Barriers to Career Growth

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

The silent killer of careers isn’t lack of talent. It’s invisibility. At McKinsey, I once worked with a young analyst - sharp, diligent, always on top of deadlines. Her work was excellent. But in team rooms, she was quiet. In client meetings, she rarely spoke up. For months, leaders saw her as “reliable support” but not as someone to bet big on. Then one day, in a tense client workshop, things went off track. The partner asked a tough question. Silence in the room. And she stepped in. Clear, structured, confident. The client nodded. The meeting shifted. From that moment, everything changed for her. She wasn’t just the “hardworking analyst” anymore. She was trusted with bigger roles, direct client exposure, and faster growth. That’s the truth about careers. Most professionals assume promotions come from years of steady output. In reality, they’re often triggered by a handful of defining moments. The question isn’t just “Are you working hard?” It’s “Are you showing up when it matters most?”

I recently came across a post from a man arguing that people shouldn’t be upset about being asked to go back to the office full-time. His reasoning? “It’s not a big deal. We’ve done it before, so why all the complaints?” He even added, “I understand remote works really well with workers with children, but everything was fine before.” That statement stuck with me because, if you talk to working moms, the truth is everything wasn’t fine. Before remote work, many women were juggling full-time jobs, lengthy commutes, and the majority of childcare and household responsibilities. They were managing school drop-offs, doctor’s appointments, laundry, lunches, and everything in between—all while trying to maintain careers. Women were burnt out. Many left the workforce entirely because the system didn’t support them. Remote work didn’t fix all these problems, but it has been a huge step toward equity. It has allowed women to stay in the workforce, to continue growing their careers, and to better balance the demands of work and home. It’s provided some relief in a system with limited maternity leave, unaffordable childcare, and rigid workplace expectations. The idea that we were “fine before” ignores the reality for so many women. Remote work isn’t just about convenience—it’s about creating a more equitable workplace where women don’t have to choose between their careers and their families. Women already carry a disproportionate share of unpaid labor at home, from childcare to household management, and this imbalance often spills over into the workplace. It limits their ability to network, take on new opportunities, or work late without hours of planning and coordination. Remote work has helped ease some of this burden, giving women the flexibility to better manage their responsibilities while maintaining their careers. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a step toward addressing the inequities that women face both at home and at work. What do you think? How has remote work impacted your career or the careers of the women in your life? Let’s keep this conversation going. #remotework #workingmom

Women aren’t weak or slow — we’ve just been carrying too much, for too long. A few months ago, I was coaching a brilliant young woman in her early leadership journey. Sharp, strategic, self-aware — and still, she couldn’t shake off the feeling that she was “falling behind.” Why? Because her male colleagues seemed to move faster, take more risks, and rise more easily. But here’s what she forgot: She was not only leading at work. She was also managing a household, caring for aging parents, navigating microaggressions, proving her worth in every room, and still being told to “lean in.” This isn’t about excuses. It’s about context. Women aren’t behind because they’re incapable. They’re behind because they’re overburdened — with unpaid labor, emotional caregiving, cultural expectations, and invisible pressures that rarely get acknowledged. So the next time you think a woman is “not ambitious enough,” pause. Look again. She might just be tired of doing it all. Let’s stop measuring potential through a lens that was never built for women in the first place.

🏃♀️ Imagine a study on marathon performance that doesn't mention some runners are carrying 50-pound backpacks. That's the 2025 Women in the Workplace report from Mckinsey and LeanIn 60 pages on why women "want promotions less." Zero mentions of childcare, eldercare, or the invisible second shift. Their own data shows women and men are equally committed to their careers, over 90% on every measure. Young women under 30 has even more ambitious than young men. Latinas are the most ambitious group in the entire study. 🤔 So where does this "ambition gap" come from? Buried on page 10, in a small box, they note that women who decline promotion cite "personal obligations" at nearly double the rate of men. Then they move on. No follow-up. No analysis. No asking the obvious question: What are these "personal obligations"? 💔 I'll tell you what they are. 👉 They're the 2am feeding before your 8am presentation. 👉 The school pickup that can't be rescheduled. 👉 The elderly parent who needs a doctor's appointment during your board meeting. 👉 The mental load of remembering everyone's everything while being told you "lack ambition." The report measured ambition without measuring the invisible infrastructure women are running at home. 👉 Here's what the report should have asked: ⁉️ Do women with equal childcare support want promotions at the same rate as men? ⁉️ Do women with flexible work arrangements show the same career drive? ⁉️ Does the "ambition gap" exist in countries with subsidized childcare? (Spoiler: Research says no, no, and no.) Instead, they concluded women are less ambitious and moved on to solutions that don't address the actual problem. This isn't just a missed opportunity. It's a misdirection! ❌ Because when you diagnose "ambition gap" instead of "care gap," you get solutions like "women need more confidence" instead of "workplaces need to stop penalizing caregiving." You get women blamed for systemic failures. 📊 Here's what an honest report would say: ✅ Women aren't less ambitious. They're doing two jobs while being evaluated as if they're doing one. ✅ The workplace wasn't designed for people with caregiving responsibilities. It was designed for people with wives. ✅ Until we redesign the system, we'll keep "discovering" that women don't want what men want, when really, women just can't afford what men take for granted. That's exactly why we built "From Hidden Talent to Visible Leader", because the women I work with aren't lacking ambition. They're lacking a system that sees their full contribution. Next cohort starts end of Jan 2026. 👉 Join the waitlist: https://lnkd.in/gx7CpGGR 👊 Because women don't have an ambition problem. The workplace has a measurement problem, and it starts with reports that count everything except what actually matters.

For decades, women have been told their lab results are “normal.” But “normal” has rarely meant accurate—or even relevant. I've been thinking a lot about how reference ranges fail women. This is one of the simplest but most fundamental aspects we are intent on addressing with Xella's precision health platform for women. Most clinical reference ranges were built on 𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘅𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗽𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, where biological dynamics like menstrual cycling, pregnancy, and menopause were treated as “noise” to be excluded. That means the very data used to define “normal health” often left women out. A few examples that bring this to life:  • 𝗖𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗰 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻, used to diagnose heart attacks, were historically validated in men. Women naturally have lower baseline troponin levels, so for years, their heart attacks went undiagnosed or were labeled “atypical.” Only recently have sex-specific thresholds been adopted—and they’ve already improved detection rates for women.  • 𝗖𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗲, the standard marker for kidney function, reflects muscle mass. Because women have less muscle on average, the same “normal” range can mask early kidney decline in women—especially during pregnancy or menopause, when physiology changes dramatically.  • 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗙𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝗿𝗼𝗻 tell a skewed story: Early ranges treated menstruating and non-menstruating adults the same, and didn't account for the increased demands of perimenopause. We now know that low-normal ferritin in women—especially those with heavy cycles—can correlate with fatigue, cognitive fog, and reduced fertility even when technically “within normal limits." Meanwhile, iron deficiency is 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 regularly under-recognized and under-treated in these populations. These aren’t edge cases—they’re the legacy of building medical standards around bodies that don’t represent half the population. When we use reference ranges that ignore sex and life stage, we miss how hormones, immune function, metabolism, and aging interact differently in women’s bodies. Until our data reflects sex- and stage-specific reference ranges (let alone menstrual status, hormonal contraceptive use, and perimenopause stage!), too many “normal” results will continue to hide real health problems. Have you ever been told your lab data was "normal," only to find out later the answer was more complicated? I'd love to hear your experience. #WomensHealth #PrecisionMedicine #MultiOmics #ClinicalBias #HealthEquity #DataInclusion #DataBias #XellaHealth

I recently wished a senior woman I was coaching with would get fired. Not because she was bad at her job. Because she was too comfortable in it. No network outside her company. No visibility beyond her title. No presence anywhere that would survive a restructure. She had the role, the salary, the seniority. And absolutely nothing to fall back on if it disappeared tomorrow. This makes me furious. Not just at her. At myself. Because I see myself in her. I was that woman. Arrogant enough to think I'd always be in demand. Untouchable. Too busy being successful to prepare for a world where that success could vanish overnight. I didn't prepare. Then my first redundancy hit. And I learned what "safe" actually means: nothing. The data backs up what I learned the hard way: → Women are 1.6x more likely to be laid off than men → 70% of jobs are never posted - they're filled through networks → 85% of all positions come through personal connections → For the first time in 20 years, women lost C-suite seats in 2023 And yet. Senior women who think the position they have today will protect them forever. Who believe loyalty and performance are enough. Who haven't updated their LinkedIn in four years because "I'm not looking." You're not looking. But the market is always looking at you. And right now, it can't find you. The tremors you're ignoring: • You have no relationships with decision-makers outside your company • Your network is your team - people who can't hire you • You haven't posted, spoken, or been visible anywhere in years • Your entire professional identity lives inside one company's org chart You tell yourself you're secure. That's not confidence. That's complacency dressed up as stability. I've watched executives with 20-year tenures get walked out in 15 minutes. I've coached women who hit every target for a decade and still got cut. I've seen "safe" disappear overnight. The woman I wished would get fired? I wished it because a crisis might be the only thing that wakes her up. The way it woke me up. Harsh? Yes. But watching talented women sleepwalk into irrelevance while the numbers scream at them is worse. Your job isn't your safety net. Your visibility is. Your network is. Your ability to be known beyond your current role is. What have you been putting off because you thought you had time? #careerquake

During my time in the corporate world, there was one thing I learned early: Being strong, decisive, and ambitious as a woman made people uncomfortable. I was praised for performance and questioned for assertiveness which was necessary for leadership. I delivered results, but the feedback was always, “Let’s tweak your messaging” or “Let's fix X”, whatever “X” was, meanwhile, my male counterparts saying the same things, in the same rooms were called visionary. So when I came across the Heidi vs. Howard case study from Columbia, I didn’t need a research paper to tell me what I already knew in my bones: Most people still don’t like strong women. In 2003, Professor Frank Flynn ran a case study at Columbia. Same story, same resume, same success one name: Heidi Roizen. The other: Howard Roizen. Both were rated as competent. But only Howard was likable. Heidi was considered too aggressive and not someone you’d want to work with by some students (both males and females). Lead, and be labeled. Play small, and be passed over. We need to fix the system because it was never designed to support women in the workplace.

Women are not losing ambition; they are losing patience with environments that punish it. The real story is not an ambition gap, but a support, fairness, and respect gap. One of the earliest pieces of career advice I received was: “To progress, you need to have ambition.” Over 24 years in the corporate world, that's been a double edged sword - I have been praised for being driven and, in the same breath, criticised for being “too ambitious.” I have also sat in talent reviews where women were quietly written off as “not ambitious enough". In 2022, during a leadership review, a male colleague even said out loud: “Women don’t progress because they don’t have ambition .” 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 The latest Lean In and McKinsey Women in the Workplace report highlights a growing ambition gap: fewer women than men say they want to be promoted. Yet the same data make something else crystal clear: women and men are equally committed to their careers, and when women receive the same sponsorship, support, and stretch opportunities as men, the ambition gap largely disappears. So the issue is not that women suddenly woke up less driven; it is that many are looking at the “next level” and seeing more burnout, less support, and fewer real chances to succeed. In that context, stepping back from the race is not a lack of ambition - it is a rational response to a system that feels rigged. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝟮𝟬+ 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗽𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 For roughly the first 15–20 years, many women respond to blocked opportunities with even more effort and ambition: working harder & overdelivering. When doors are repeatedly closed with vague feedback like “lack of executive presence,” or “too emotional,” frustration accumulates. After decades of having to prove yourself again and again, it is not ambition that runs out; it is the willingness to keep playing a game where the rules feel opaque and uneven. That is one of the reasons so many experienced women leave corporate roles or step off the traditional ladder mid-career. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 The complete career advice is: protect your ambition by choosing workplaces where: Support systems, fair processes, and allyship actively enable women’s progression. Sponsorship, not just mentorship, is in place so that women are advocated for, not just advised. Policies, leadership behaviour, and culture reduce burnout. Because ambition without support does not magically create opportunity; it only creates exhaustion, cynicism, and burnout. What would your organisation need to change so that they would choose to stay and grow? #careeradvice ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have learned a lot during my 2 decades in the corporate world, mostly the hard way. Every Sunday, I share some of my learnings and what has helped me climb the corporate ladder while staying true to my values