The hidden tax on women in tech: Masking, nervous systems, and sustainable performance

Tech prides itself on efficiency and optimisation.

We refactor code, automate workflows, and patch vulnerabilities in real time. But there is one performance issue that rarely makes it into sprint planning or quarterly OKRs.

Masking is the invisible labour of conforming to dominant workplace norms. For many women in technology, it means constantly calibrating tone, managing perception, suppressing natural responses, and staying composed in environments that are fast, ambiguous, and socially coded.

It is the hidden tax they pay to belong.

On International Women's Day, we celebrate representation, promotions, and leadership milestones. But if we are serious about equity in Aotearoa's tech sector, we need to look below the dashboard and examine the system load underneath.

What is masking really costing your team – and your business?
For women, particularly neurodivergent women, masking can include managing sensory overload in open-plan offices, rapidly context switching while appearing calm, softening direct communication to avoid backlash, over-explaining to prevent misinterpretation, and performing social ease at networking events.

None of this appears in a job description. Yet it consumes significant cognitive bandwidth and emotional energy, especially for those already carrying a high baseline load.

Imagine a senior engineer leading a lade-night incident response. By 9am she's with team in stand-up, steady and solutions focused. Throughout the day she translates ambiguity into clarity for others and agrees to 'one more quick call' because the team is stretched. 

Externally, the metrics show she's a high performer; internally, her nervous system has been running hot for days. She's in a state of sustained activation and it's not sustainable.

For organisational leaders, this isn't a culture issue alone; it's a systems design flaw, and in a talent-scarce market that's a business risk.

What happens to performance when the nervous system is under threat?
Humans do their best thinking when they feel safe.

When the nervous system detects threat, through urgency, ambiguity, social judgement, or overload, attention narrows and working memory declines. The brain shifts into short-term survival mode and creativity and strategic thinking take a back seat.

Conversely, when the nervous system is regulated, cognitive capacity expands, decisions improve, communication steadies, and recovery accelerates.

Organisations cannot scale innovation on a chronically dysregulated operating system.

5 ways to design better systems
If we want different outcomes, we need better architecture to achieve upgrade performance.

1. Reduce ambiguity in the system
Ambiguity creates background threat; clarity frees up processing power. Document priorities, define what "done" means, share decision logs., and make trade-offs explicit. 

2. Reduce social and sensory overload
Not everything requires a live meeting. Use written updates and protect deep work time. Constant real-time interaction increases both social and sensory load.

3. Build flexible communication protocols
Create multiple channels for contribution: written input, smaller forums, structured agendas. One-size-fits-all communication is inefficient, and expensive in human energy.

4. Improve meeting optimisation
Calm meetings improve both code quality and cognitive quality. Clearly state the purpose of the meeting, invite written questions and make cameras optional. 

5. Track invisible workload
Measure meeting hours, after-hours urgency, and who carries "glue work." If you can track latency in a system, you can track human load too. What you measure shapes behaviour.

If high performance has a cost, who's paying it?
On International Women's Day, consider this:

High performance comes with a cost, but who is absorbing that cost?

Sustainable performance means designing workplaces where women, including neurodivergent women, can contribute at full capacity without burning themselves out. 

Because if belonging requires constant self-regulation just to stay in the room, the issues isn't individual resilience, it's system design.

And every good technologist knows: when the system is flawed, you don't blame the user. You fix the architecture