PMS and the Workplace

Abstract

Surprisingly, few studies have been reported regarding the effects of premenstrual syndrome (PMS) in the workplace. Given the increasing number of working women, it is important to ask whether PMS has any significant effect on work behavior. The purpose of this review is to consider selected PMS research in order to integrate the more relevant work-related findings and suggest how employers might best use this knowledge.Keywords: premenstrual syndrome, workplace, work behavior, working women.The popular press and scientific journals have increasingly featured articles on premenstrual syndrome (PMS). With an increasing number of women working, it is appropriate to ask whether PMS has any significant effect on work behavior. If it does, then the issue becomes how to minimize any resulting negative consequences. In addition to diagnostic and other methodological problems, however, a stigma surrounds so personal a topic. Moreover, a question exists concerning the extent to which an employer should be involved with such a personal matter. This question is compounded by the insistence of some researchers that PMS has its roots in psychological, not physiological, factors. The purpose in this review was to consider selected PMS research in order to integrate the more relevant work-related findings and suggest how employers might best use this knowledge.Whether talking to men or women, laypersons or professionals, it is easy to find widespread popular support for the notion that women routinely experience both physical and emotional changes corresponding to their monthly menstrual cycles. Of particular concern are those changes occurring in the "premenstrual" phase, i.e., the days just prior to the onset of menstruation. In reviewing the relevant literature, there are numerous articles in both the popular press and scientific (medical and psychological) journals dealing with these changes.

PMS in the workplace: Dispelling the myth of cyclic dysfunction

“…Women with perceived PMS reported poor health and work experiences across the cycle, but seemed to use the PMS label to account for persistent stress, ill-being, and work impairment which did not worsen around the time of menstruation. Given these findings, and in contrast to Phillips & Bedeian's (1989) suggestion that the problem of PMS in the workplace be acknowledged, it is time that this myth was dispelled. Not only was no evidence of cyclic dysfunction found; the perception of having a cyclic disorder was consistently linked with health and work problems.…”

“…Watkins (Wall Street Journal, 2 2 January 1986) estimated that PMS cost US industries 8 per cent of the total wage bill; while Parker (1960, cited in Phillips & Bedeian, 1989 put the annual cost of premenstrual absenteeism at around $5 billion. Phillips & Bedeian (1989) admit there is no evidence that PMS affects employee behaviour, but suggest that, since most people believe the opposite, employers should acknowledge PMS as a workplace problem.…”

PMS in the Workplace: Myth or Method?

“…Hardie (1997), in an article titled "PMS in the Workplace: Dispelling the Myth of Cyclic Dysfunction," claimed to provide evidence that menstrual cycle status has no effect on female employees' work performance. In doing so, she opened and closed her presentation by referencing our earlier work, published in this journal, in which we (Phillips & Bedeian, 1989) offered that there was yet clear-cut scientific evidence that premenstrual syndrome (PMS) adversely affects workplace behavior. She further stated that we nonetheless held that because most people believe the opposite, "employers should acknowledge PMS as a workplace problem" (p. 97).…”

“…We have previously offered suggestions for future research into the effects of PMS on workplace behavior (Phillips & Bedeian, 1989) and will, thus, not do so again. Recognizing the difficulty of PMS research, we do applaud Hardie's effort to extend previous findings concerning the effects of PMS on job performance.…”