The highlight of my day, nay my week? Watching Richard Branson serve airline passengers dressed in full flight attendant drag.

Branson reportedly lost a bet to a “frenemy” and former employee, AirAsia CEO Tony Fernandes. Two years after the deal was struck at the 2010 Formula One event in Abu Dhabi, Branson finally made good on his word. He served up drinks on a flight from Australia to Malaysia this weekend sporting lipstick, freshly shaved legs, and a fetching red skirt suit.

Branson tipped a full tray of orange juice on Fernandes, who declared that his skills as an attendant were “rubbish.” Branson was immediately fired after the six-hour flight.

The Virgin Group sent us a few additional photos taken on the flight if you’re in need of a good laugh.

On a more serious note, Branson is a prime example of a business leader taking an innovative approach to a more traditional industry.

We recently ran a contributed piece from an entrepreneur who was invited to spend three days with Branson in South Africa. One of the major lessons learned? “Don’t just experience fun and enjoy after 5 p.m.” As Branson makes clear with his publicity stunts, work should not be rigid and uninspiring.

It’s been a few years since VentureBeat’s editors dived into San Francisco Bay to celebrate a traffic milestone. Inspired by Sir Branson, any ideas for our next stunt? 

Images courtesy of the Virgin Group // Video via USAToday

After winning a competition, I had the chance to fly down to South Africa and spend three days with my idol, Richard Branson.

It all started in 2011, when Branson released a book “Screw Business as Usual,” where he argued that for-profit businesses should play a role in addressing today’s social and environmental challenges. To celebrate the release, he asked startups from around the world to submit their business model and explain how it will change the world for the better.

Over 500 companies submitted their application, and my own company Raise5 was selected as the winner. We help people sell their skills and talents in exchange for donations to their favorite non-profit.

On returning from South Africa, I put my thoughts down on paper. Here are five things I learned from the world class entrepreneur and founder of The Virgin Group:

Embrace adventure — go where others don’t

The thing that’s immediately obvious about Richard is his love for adventure. Whether it’s in the business world, or in the jungle, Richard simply loves to go where others normally don’t. During one of our safari trips, he picked up a giant millipede and giggled as it crawled all over his head (see above). I realized on the trip that while many people are attracted to the glory of being a successful entrepreneur, Richard really cherishes the process of getting there, and that seems to make all the difference.

Don’t be afraid to question conventional wisdom

During one of our dinners together at Ulusaba, Richard shared his perspectives on the world, including the issues of conventional corporate culture and the failing war on drugs. We even spent some time speaking about the issues facing my birth country of Iran. Richard’s attitude was all about bringing power to the people. He is pretty much the same in person as he is on television. I would describe him as a gentle rebel. He’s kind, humble and down to earth, and yet he still loves to shake things up and openly challenge the world.

Trust and Delegate

During our trip, Richard mentioned that the job of a leader is to focus on the big picture, and delegate work to the appropriate members in his team. During the 3 days with him in Ulusaba, you would rarely see him checking his email, and making calls. Clearly, the Virgin Group is in good hands, and it’s also clear from Richard’s relaxed demeanor during the trip that he genuinely trusts the people on his executive team. He explicitly mentioned to me that a leader should be able to remove himself from the organization, and everything won’t fall apart.

Challenge yourself and redefine failure

At one point, Richard spoke about the 600 or so companies that the Virgin Group has launched over the years, and 100 of them are still active today. While some people saw this as 500 failures, for Richard, it was an ongoing challenge to improve the rate of success. He said, “You won’t know what will work ahead of time, you just have to know that as long as you keep challenging yourself, you’ll be at your best.”

Work can be fun

We should always celebrate the little things in life, and all the milestones in our businesses. At lunch, Richard read to us this email from his Virgin Galactic team on their successes in testing one of the rockets. The email was very emotionally charged and heartfelt. While reading it, you could tell that Richard was savoring the moment. Don’t just experience fun and joy after 5pm or on vacation. Love what you do!

Shayan Nahrvar is the co-founder of Raise5, an organization that allows individuals and groups to fundraise for charities and non-profits through micro-volunteering.

He is an outspoken critic of standard business practice with the belief that in addition to profitability, social responsibility must be weaved into the fabric of every business.

This is a guest post by Eran Laniado, the managing director of BMN!.

Has this happened to you? You needed to consult with a friend about an important matter, but when you finally met, you realized that he was hardly interested in your problem. Even worse, he half-heartedly gave you vague and remotely related advice. Could it get more frustrating?

Similarly, a CEO may feel that the board of directors does not help the company. She may be right — board meetings could be a waste of time; board members may be unproductive or burdensome; in the worst cases, lack of board cooperation may prevent a successful exit. Kevin Rose got an offer to sell Digg for $60 million a few years ago, but his board rejected it. Digg was sold for mere $500,000 back in July 2012.

Board ineffectiveness often stems from board nomination mistakes. Here are five big mistakes that are often made when choosing board members — and, maybe more importantly, tips on avoiding them.

1. Wrong People on the Board

Board members can be great resources who provide support, knowledge, and access to unique professional networks. Unfortunately, not all board members offer such value.

For example, some board members prioritize the interests of the investors or founders whom they represent far above those of the startup.

Scott Kurnik, an experienced entrepreneur and investor, advises not to nominate to the board anyone reporting to the CEO. Interestingly enough, he also suggests putting the founder’s best friend on the board.

Additionally, one should be careful of five types of dysfunctional board members as defined by Jack and Suzy Welch: The Do-Nothing; The White Flag (will do anything to avoid confrontation); The Cabalist (driven by personal agenda); The Meddler (dwells incessantly on details); and The Pontificator (only enjoys hearing himself speak).

How to avoid this mistake:

• Carefully consider board nominees and ask for feedback from people who have worked with them.
• Appoint at least one independent director, loyal to the company only.

2. Misalignment Regarding the Board’s Role

Boards of directors have many fiduciary and legal responsibilities. Still, boards often have additional roles, correlated with the venture’s stage.

At early-stage startups, members should support the management (without micro-managing it). For example, they may help guide product decisions or provide access to recruits, customers, and investors. Ideally, board members could also mentor founders. More established startups, however, may need a different type of assistance related to scaling sales, engineering, logistics, and other functions that no longer fit into a garage.

The above roles differ from those at publicly traded companies, where board members extensively monitor the firm’s performance and confirm that the management does not put its interests before the company’s (“the agent problem”).

Matt Blumberg, the CEO of Return Path, provides a useful summary of what makes awesome board members.

How to avoid this mistake:

• Check whether the candidate has board experience with firms of similar stages and needs.
• Discuss with the candidate expectations of the board’s role and responsibilities.

3. A Homogeneous Board

It is important not to form a board of too similar profiles (e.g., all are engineers or all have similar VC backgrounds) and to diversify your startup to confirm that the various required skills are in place.

David Roth, the co-founder of AppFirst, described recently how the need to balance the board guided his startup’s decisions.

Aileen Lee of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers has an interesting argument, that the next board member should be a woman, especially if women compose a significant portion of the venture’s users.

How to avoid this mistake:

• List the skills and experience needed from the board (Product design? Customer acquisition? Partnerships? User experience? A great rolodex?).
• Consider rejecting solid candidates whose skills and experience are common within the board in favor of candidates who possess the missing skills and attributes.

4. Too Many Board Members

An entrepreneur once complained, “My board keeps on growing.” VC-backed startups often encounter this problem when a new round of financing entitles investors to board seats. Sometimes, “observer rights” increase the number of attendants even more.

At some point, a board’s growth has diminishing returns. For a startup, a ten-person board will rarely be as engaged and helpful as a smaller one will. Further, the logistics (assembling everyone, arranging one-on-one time with the CEO before board meetings, etc.) become exponentially more complex. Fred Wilson from Union Square Ventures thinks a board of five members is ideal. He recommends no more than 7 board members (two founders, one to three VCs, and one to two other industry professionals).

How to avoid this mistake:

• Negotiate the number of future board seats entitled with investors in the shareholders agreement.
• Prefer nominees who will agree to leave the board when it grows or when their skill sets become less relevant.
• Consider building a board of advisors to access additional experience without increasing the size of the board of directors.

5. Poor Organizational Fit

Some board relationship problems can harm the company severely. For example, board members who get involved in day-to-day decisions instead of supporting the management (or replacing the CEO, when necessary) can inhibit the CEO’s ability to lead.

Another problem occurs when board members accustomed to aggressive corporate cultures meet a CEO for whom “aggressive” equals “rude.”

Furthermore, pushy board members can cause CEOs to commit to unrealistic plans. It’s true that CEOs are responsible for their own decisions, but they can still be unduly pressured, especially when the board member is an investor (whom an inexperienced CEO may feel obligated to please).

Last, some board members may be professionally adept, but they do not show interest in mentoring the management, nor can they successfully interact with other members, bond, or build team spirit.

Steve Blank provides a painful example of poor relationships between one of his ex-students and the chair of his startup.

How to avoid this mistake:

• Check each candidate’s track record (tenure, reasons for leaving, relationships developed) as board member at other firms.
• Replace board members who negatively impact the board’s internal relationships. This is not easy, but in extreme cases, it is necessary.

Eran Laniado advises multinational firms and mentors entrepreneurs. He gained corporate experience as VP of Business Development & Strategy of a NYSE traded firm and as a member on boards of directors. He writes about strategy, business models, and innovation on his blog on bmnow.com and can be followed at @EranLan.

Board meeting image via Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

This guest post was written by Mitch Rosich, a partner at Athenian Venture Partners.

I’ve worked with many IT companies over the course of my career. Between two decades of experience in product and engineering development and a decade in venture capital, I’ve experienced working with a variety of leaders, some more effective than others.

IT startups need a lot of positive ingredients to get off the ground, including a sustainable vision, focused and realistic goals and, perhaps most important, a deep management bench. Since it is just starting to build towards the future, the IT startup needs a leader with a set of attributes that can contribute to leading the company to success. In the startup stage, the company is constantly evolving and lessons are being learned, and the CEO must be able to show the way during this change, sink with the ship, or be cut loose so that the right leadership can steer clear of the perils being faced.

Based on working with dozens on C-level executives, here are some characteristics that I have identified that contribute to producing an effective IT startup CEO:

• Experience growing a small, preferably venture-backed, company
  The reality is that the skills needed in a large company don’t always translate into success at a small start-up. We have found situations where CEOs who operated effectively within the infrastructure of a large organization cannot manage within the fluidity of a more bare-boned organization. Conversely, CEOs with start-up experience tend to be more adaptable without an established framework already in place to ground them and guide them.
• Demonstrated execution ability
  A start-up is all about execution and getting to the end goal as quickly as possible. Some CEOs are strategic, and some are tactical.  A more strategic CEO may be able to look at the big picture, yet not be able to get from where they are at present to the end goal. This ability to execute plans is absolutely critical in a small company environment.
• Ability to attract and retain top talent, and experience leading such talent
  The saying “A managers attract A talent, and B managers attract C talent” is absolutely true. This takes knowledge and experience on the CEOs part, but also respect. Management teams want to work for CEOs whom they respect and admire. Certain CEOs have this reputation, and they draw others in. This is absolutely critical. In a small company, a CEO also has to be willing to pare down the poor performers. No one can ever be 100 percent perfect with hiring. While leadership respect is earned through good hires, others in the organization gain as much or more respect when ineffective employee situations are dealt with quickly and professionally.
• Vision and ability to adapt and change if the vision is off-target or market conditions change
  Plans are very rarely perfect the first time around. With a start-up, effective CEOs must have a unique vision, and see things that others don’t. They must be able to solve problems in unique ways. However, even visionaries are rarely 100 percent correct in what they perceive the market conditions to be, and what will drive customers to their product. A good CEO must listen to what his or her customers are saying, and accept that their vision may have to change and adapt to such customer-driven market conditions. In other words, the CEO must recognize the need to change, and be willing to change.
• Ethics, integrity, confidence and ability to earn trust and respect
  Small companies are inherently transparent – everyone sees what everyone else is doing, from top to bottom. Similar to ineffective job performance, questionable ethics and integrity also can’t be hidden from the rest of the team.  Because the expectation amongst most start-up employees is that everyone is working hard and fully committed to the company’s success, if integrity is compromised in any way – particularly by the top leader – the effect is more profound. Too often, the people with true integrity leave, and the ones without it stay – resulting in a corrupted culture often heading down the path of disaster. Sometimes VCs find out about this in diligence – for example, during document review in which ethical breaches by the prospective portfolio company are uncovered – which will most likely result in the VCs walking away from the deal.

Mitch Rosich began consulting for Athenian Venture Partners in 2000, joining the firm as a partner in the IT investment practice in 2002. In addition to a decade of technology venture capital experience, Rosich has over two decades of industry experience in product and engineering development, and in the management of 3 start-up technology companies, including Omnia, which Rosich and his team sold to CIENA for $498M. Rosich has been awarded 11 computer technology patents for software and hardware, 8 of which have been used in commercial applications. Currently, he represents Athenian as a director on the boards of Manta Media and Comet Solutions, and as an observer on the board of Sendio.

So Apple had a disappointing quarter, even though it was surprisingly good compared to last year and the company is paying its first dividend to investors since 1995. Naturally, investors punished the company by stripping more than five percent from its stock price in after hours trading.

It’s times like these that I’m tempted to ask: Aren’t you people ever satisfied?

“Yes, only in the U.S. could this be called a bad quarter, but Wall St. is Wall St,” said Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg, in a tweet.

I had a similar reaction reading about the curiously “mixed” legacy of Apple cofounder Steve Jobs in Wired. According to this story, some people are troubled by Jobs’ reputation as an overly-demanding tyrant almost as much as they’re inspired by his legacy as a genius entrepreneur.

Apparently these folks are doubtful about whether they should emulate the man who created two incredibly successful companies, rescued one of them after others nearly wrecked it, then went on to completely rebuild a handful of industries, including personal computers, MP3 players, cellphones, media distribution, and tablet computers. Why? Because he could be kind of demanding.

Make no mistake, Jobs casts a long shadow across Silicon Valley and the rest of the tech world. Apple is like the pole star for innovation here, a role that Hewlett-Packard once held but relinquished years ago in a string of ill-conceived acquisitions and embarrassing scandals. It is both a model for other companies to emulate and a vast source of technological talent and wealth that helps feed the entrepreneurial ecosystem.

But it’s not so easy to find anyone who is actually disturbed by Jobs’ jerky side. Most everyone recognizes, I think, that Jobs was a flawed human being, and that in some ways those flaws were also essential to his success. His uncompromising nature made him a terrifying figure to some; Apple employees were often afraid to get in the elevator with him.

“He just had the volume turned up really high,” said Don Thorson, the chief executive and co-founder of Swipp, when I asked him about his experiences working with Steve Jobs. Thorson was at Apple from 1984 to 1989, and while he didn’t work closely with Jobs, he viewed first-hand how the man’s intensity led others to excel.

“For me and my colleagues, he gave us permission to be our very best,” Thorson said. “His default position was that there’s something left in the tank. And you should give it to me, because I’m the guy who’s going to appreciate it.”

Aaron Levie, the founder of Box, told a similar story to Wired. “My lesson from Jobs,” Levie said, “is that I can push my employees further than they thought possible, and I won’t rush any product out the door without it being perfect.” That approach, Levie acknowledged, comes with some “collateral damage,” presumably hurt feelings and damaged relationships.

“Steve Jobs was the one guy who looked at that big picture and could see how to transpose it to one that suited him, his company, and his customers,” Chris Tolles, the CEO of Topix, told me. Tolles competed with Jobs in the early days of music distribution online, when Tolles was at AOL Music and Jobs was just starting to build the iTunes Music Store. “He was able to work with partners and break the Gordian knot of getting music into the hands of consumer and setting the seeds of making Apple the world’s most valuable company, whilst doing exactly what the music business feared the most, yet in turn probably giving them the best deal they were going to get.”

Most people choose not to pursue work with the same intensity. I think that’s wise. Not everyone has the same consuming passion to change the world, and without that, a Jobs-like intensity could easily turn into pointless tyranny. If your goal is simply to make a billion-dollar company, I suggest you put the tantrums on a shelf and focus on what really matters. (Hint: It’s not money.)

Similarly, Marissa Mayer’s plan to take a “few weeks” of working maternity leave strikes me as nuts. If I did that, I’d regret it forever. I already spend too much time away from my kids. But you know what? I don’t have Mayer’s technical talent, obsessive drive, or apparent lack of a need for sleep.

I think we should let the Marissa Mayers and the Steve Jobs of this world be as crazy as they need to be in their efforts to make a dent in the universe. But expecting everyone to work around the clock while placing relentless demands on all those around them? That’s the real tyranny.

Subscribe to Dylan’s Desk and get this column in your inbox every week! Want to see what you’re missing? Check out my past columns.

Top photo: Matt Yohe, via Wikipedia

Have you taken inventory of your coworkers recently? And have you noticed the lack of women, and specifically women in leadership roles within the science, technology, engineering and math (or STEM) fields? Why is that?

To me, the definition of a leader is someone that looks at the big picture, takes action, guides and directs a group and is strong enough to stand alone in the decision making process. Women by nature are born leaders.

We are taught at a young age to think of others and take on responsibility. There are plenty of highly respected women leaders throughout the world; however, there needs to be more women leaders in STEM. As Harry Truman once said, “Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.”

It is important for more women to take on leadership roles in the STEM fields. Women leaders can attract and, as mentors, help guide more women toward rewarding careers in these fields.

The value of mentorship is immense. Finding a mentor early on can do wonders for building confidence and adding to one’s job satisfaction. The people who we choose as mentors need to have the capacity and capability to lead us toward success. A mentor is not only someone who is willing to take the time to teach us techniques and processes, but also someone who takes an interest in our long term advancement.

Because this person can see one’s potential, a mentor is willing to go beyond job duties and put in the extra work to ensure that we gain the understanding that is needed to progress.

Women need to be confident in their abilities before anyone else will be. If not, women will be unable to prove to others that they are capable of a role that they have been hired to fill. A women’s confidence is her lifeblood. Without it, women begin to second guess that the right decisions were made regarding their careers, which, in turn, inhibits them from making clear choices moving forward.

Maintaining confidence at all levels throughout your career is important, especially as a leader. Showing a lack of confidence helps others buy into the notion that women do not belong in the STEM fields.

Early in my own STEM career, there were times I just wanted to go into the bathroom and cry — but I didn’t. Instead, I took a deep breath and refused to let others intimidate me.

As women, we need to let our work do the talking. Showing someone that we are capable and confident in our work speaks much louder than words. By constantly performing our jobs at a high level, we will prove our abilities and help build our own confidence.

Women are gaining numbers in traditionally male-dominated fields, but we are still significantly outnumbered in STEM occupations. Getting talented women into male-dominated careers is one struggle, while keeping them is another.

The issue is especially apparent in STEM careers, which are extremely important to the global economy. Attracting and retaining more women in STEM careers will help tremendously to improve diversity, maximize creativity, and boost competitiveness.

Having people with different mindsets, capabilities, and imaginations on production teams improves the creative process and helps to minimize avoidable mistakes. Products rooted in science and technology are likely to better meet the needs of both men and women if the products are designed by a team comprised of both genders. It is a matter of designing products that are compatible with a broad audience; it is a matter of safety; and it starts with attracting more women into STEM careers and STEM leadership roles.

As a society, we learn about the world and advance our well-being through science and engineering. The United States may be known around the world for its higher education, but compared to many other leading and steadily emerging countries, we lack a strong focus on educating scientists and engineers.

One significant reason that we have fallen behind is that we do not encourage our female students to pursue career paths in science, technology, engineering or math. This needs to change, as the lack of women in STEM fields will continue to plague our country until all students, regardless of sex, have adequate opportunities to explore math and science throughout elementary, middle, and high school.

If we want to attract the best and brightest minds into the fields that will move us forward, we can no longer look to only half of the population. More women can contribute to our field and we can help make that happen.

As women become more prevalent in STEM careers, more and more young girls will begin to recognize the additional career opportunities open to them. With more women in the field, it will become more evident to young girls what they, as scientists, technology professionals, engineers or mathematicians, can offer the world.

Without being able to see this link, they will continue to have problems envisioning certain positions as viable possibilities, even if they have some intrinsic interest in the subject matter. If girls cannot visualize themselves in STEM careers because they have never seen women in those positions, they will be much less likely to ever use their innate aptitudes and abilities in a math or science oriented specialty. That will truly be a loss of gigantic proportion, for our women, our profession and our country.

What will your role be in changing the face of STEM?

Karen Purcell, P.E., is the founder and president of PK Electrical, an electrical engineering, design, and consulting firm in Reno, Nevada. She is the author of Unlocking Your Brilliance: Smart Strategies for Women to Thrive in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math.

Top image courtesy of Kurhan, Shutterstock

Why is this such a stubborn issue? Why aren’t more women making it to (and staying at) the top?

The answer may lie in a deeper understanding of why women leave and of what they bring to the table.

Women now represent about half of the hiring pipeline, entry-level positions and total workforce. But at each level of management, women represent a lower percentage.

According to research from Catalyst, while women represent 47.6 percent of today’s workforce, in the Fortune 500 in 2011 they represent only 14.4 percent of executive officers, 7.6 percent of top earners and 3.2 percent of CEOs. The professions reflect the same pattern. Catalyst reports, for example, that in law firms women make up about 4 percent% of associates but only 19 percent of partners.

Where do women go between the entry and upper levels? They leave. All relevant research confirms that women have higher attrition rates than men.

Even if women don’t literally leave, they disengage, stall out or just quit climbing. “Leave” is shorthand for all of that. And, when they literally leave, few drop out of the workforce; most go to another employer or start their own businesses.

There is lots of focus on the issue. Last spring the Wall Street Journal devoted several pages of ink to the question, “Where are all the senior level women?” A new Catalyst research report shows the problem is not that women aren’t doing the right things to get promoted. Those who do still lag behind men. A recent article in McKinsey Quarterly concludes that the problem lingers because it arises from “invisible mind-sets.” I agree.

The “quit rate” of women is hardly a reason not to hire and support women. It is a reason to try to keep them. The business case for gender diversity in leadership is compelling.

Companies with a balance of men and women leaders do better on most financial measures — return on equity, return to shareholders, stock price, etc. They tap into a huge women’s market. They attract the best talent from the gender-diverse talent pipeline. Gender diversity is simply good business.

To increase retention rates of women, business leaders need to understand why women leave.

The first cause people tend to name is work-life balance, the fact that women generally spend more hours a week caring for children and aging parents. This factor is obviously real. But it is overblown.

First, not wanting to burn bridges when they depart, smart women often use the common and acceptable reason, they “want to spend more time with family,” rather than talk about other factors. Second, research shows that work-life balance becomes less tolerable when there are other factors at play.

These factors lower the engagement of women, which lowers retention and bottom line results. Both Catalyst and the Center for Work Life Policy divide the causes of women leaving the business world into “pull factors” (like family care) and “push factors,” negative elements about the work environment or job. Two major push factors involve:

• Acceptance: Women not feeling fully valued or accepted, and
• Advancement: Women feeling they can’t advance or succeed.

There are two drivers of these feelings:

• The “comfort principle” and
• An unconscious preference for how leadership and excellence look.

Neither is malicious, intentional or usually even conscious. But they create barriers for women. Making them conscious can cause barriers to fall.

The Comfort Principle

Access to informal networks is key to getting great work assignments and therefore great experience and exposure that lead to promotions. The “comfort principle” can create a barrier to full access for women. It is a natural phenomenon; we like to spend time with people like ourselves.

Speaking personally, given a choice, I’d prefer to go shopping or share a bottle of wine with my women friends than play golf or hang out in a cigar bar with men. I don’t judge men for preferring to hang out with men more than with me. Gender differences at work can create discomfort rather than comfort.

But “hanging out” enables the development of trust and relationship. The people who come to mind when we are handing out great assignment or giving our time as a mentor are naturally those with whom we are most comfortable.

We can’t (and shouldn’t) legislate away the comfort principle. What we can do is bring it to the conscious level.

Leaders can pause and monitor whether the comfort principle is influencing to whom they give assignments, whom they mentor and to whom they give a second chance when things don’t go perfectly. Then they can balance the benefit of diversity to their team and organization with their own comfort.

In other words, awareness can assure that the comfort principle doesn’t result in less access for some groups.

An Unconscious Preference

The builders of American business were primarily men. They got there first. It is natural that ideas of leadership and excellence have a more masculine than feminine flavor.

Studies show that “leadership” is associated with words that are characteristic of men more often than women. In fact, when women exhibit some of these traits, they are not favorably received. In evaluating a woman, men may find her approach unfamiliar and may judge her style rather than focus on the results she delivers.

Leaders can stop and notice whether previously unconscious preferences are influencing how they evaluate a woman. They can take the time to understand differences in masculine and feminine approaches, and the strengths and limitations of each. Then they can appreciate and value both.

Invisible Mind-Sets

Both the comfort principle and unconscious preferences are part of the “invisible mind-sets” named by McKinsey. The starting point for removing these mind-sets and the barriers they cause is awareness.

By becoming aware of the barriers and of the strengths of both masculine and feminine approaches to work, leaders can assure that women and men feel accepted and valued and feel they can succeed. The result will be higher engagement, higher retention and a better bottom line.

Business Consultant Caroline Turner, former senior vice president of Coors Brewing Company (the first woman to hold a position at that level at the company) is releasing Differences Work: Improving Retention, Productivity and Profitability through Inclusion on January 9th, 2012. In Difference Works, Turner points out how the lack of gender diversity in the workplace, particularly in the C suite, has significant impact on a business’ productivity and bottom line.

Stanford professor and author Bob Sutton looks at the hallmarks and strategies of that rare breed in this Entrepreneur Thought Leader Lecture given at Stanford University. While traditional management theory indicates that monitoring employee monitoring and processes is the path to greatness, his own research shows just the opposite. Over-management, in fact, can stifle the creative process.

http://ecorner.stanford.edu/swf/player-ec.swf

(Can’t see the video? Click here)