While women are equipped with the necessary skills to perform well as leaders, they are not exercising “the ability to self-promote.” They hesitate getting their accomplishments known to the people in the highest rungs of the organization resulting to their inability to get the support they need to advance.

This was one of the findings of the latest Conference Board of Canada report released May 2013. Donna Burnett Vachon and Carrie Lavis authored Women in Leadership: Perceptions and Priorities for Change which is based on the results of a national survey of more than 800 men and women as well as in-depth interviews with female leaders and women who are aspiring for these positions.

The research revealed that the problem does not stem from a women’s leadership style which is anchored primarily on consensus, collaboration, and teamwork. In fact, they receive high marks as leaders, with 74 percent of women and 73 percent of men in both management and non-management roles agreeing that “women and men make equally effective leaders.” They even perform better than their male counterparts in business-oriented and people-oriented competencies.

The issue lies, in part, with a woman’s confidence or lack thereof. Compared to men who are more aggressive in putting their names forward for positions where they do not have the requisite skills or experience, women tend to “self-select out.” That is, they don’t generally take on projects or positions that allow them to advance “unless they feel certain they already have all of the skills required.”

But women are also walking a tightrope when it comes to self-promotion, the research points out. Current cultural norms don’t look too favorably on females who are proactive and aggressive in flaunting their qualifications to advance as “she runs the risk of alienating her audience.” Not speaking up, on the other hand, will also mean not getting noticed as “it’s likely that no one else is going to do it on her behalf.”

The study authors stressed that this is where mentors, sponsors, and advisors play a crucial role. They give women visibility by allowing them to “let their skills shine in front of the people who make decisions about advancement and career growth opportunities.” 

Aside from leadership abilities, the 2013 CBC report also examined the leadership attitudes, organizational opportunities, and career advancement motivation that affect women’s ability to ascend to the ranks of senior management. Their findings show that “attitudes about the need for more women in senior management are still polarized along gender lines.” Some strategies for change include getting the board of directors involved by making woman’s advancement a priority; making sponsorship programs of emerging women leaders transparent; and providing more family-friendly policies in the workplace. Still, the researchers conclude that more women are needed in senior management roles before significant change is felt: “A shift in attitudes will only come when we stop seeing a woman in senior management as the exception and start seeing her as the norm.”

I may have to say good-bye to coffees.

Not the caffeinated beverage, per se. I subsist on 5 to 6 of those a day, but the activity of “having coffee” in an effort to network with a potential business associate. In my mind, enjoying a cup of coffee while engaging in stimulating conversation remains one of my favorite activities of all times. Add to that equation an iced caffeinated beverage on a patio in the summertime and you have my personal definition of nirvana. Why wouldn’t I try to turn that into a productive, work-related activity?

Yet, after some quick calculations it appears that these coffee meetings cost me much more than the few thousands of dollars I’ve certainly spent on the actual beverage in the last year. It’s the reason why at the end of week, I sometimes grapple with where my time went.  So clearly, I need to either make the time count or cut back on these meetings.  I decided on the latter.

Few dispute the value of strong connections and the hard benefits they result in. According to Harvard Business School, 65-85 percent of all jobs are found through networking.  Social (or relational) capital provides value that translates into economic gain for companies and individuals alike.

Yet creating these networks – or even networking effectively — can be challenging and may require more effort than simply having a coffee.

Between off-line events and social media options, it sometimes feels that all we do is socialize and network with little result. According to one report, Americans spend 16 minutes out of each hour on social applications.  So while it appears we are more social than ever, the return on investment for these activities can be difficult to define.

Women in particular struggle with networking.  They don’t always have access to informal, male networks and their strategies. 

For example, women’s networks tend to be strong but smaller in size and men’s broader networks helps with their upward mobility.

“Women and men tend to network differently,” observed Anne Day, founder and president of Company of Women, a network for entrepreneurs in the GTA.  “For women it is more about building relationships, while for men it is much more transactional,” she added.

Ms. Day believes the key to successful networking is listening. Find out what interests the other person and then figure out how to help them to open the door  for future reciprocity.

And don’t forget your own ask.  Dr. Athena Vongalis-Macrow, a senior lecturer at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia analyzed the networking behaviors of 74 working women and discovered that while they demonstrated an “ethos of sharing” they were less likely to collaborate on work-related projects. They also were ineffective at clearly articulating their goals. These two components remain critical to building a relationship.

“The key to successful networking is developing a strategy of win-win,” explains Leigh Mitchell, president and founder of Women in Biz Network, an online and offline community.

“You should be always thinking of how you can help the person you are connecting with and let the natural progression of how that person can help you evolve. I believe those who help others always win in the long run,” she adds.

Perhaps an even more daunting obstacle that both women and men face – which brings me back to my coffee conundrum – comes down to a lack of time.

Toronto-based Katy Pedersen, who formerly worked for AOL in a product management role but is currently in-between jobs, laments the lack of networking opportunities during proper business hours.

“I struggle to network because of my family obligations,” admitted Ms. Pedersen. “My husband and I both have or had incredibly demanding careers. We’d run home from work for 2 hours with our son before his bedtime, and then both of us would be back to work at 8 p.m. to wrap our respective days.”

To work around the time crunch,  Ms. Pedersen  is a huge fan of LinkedIn. (As proof that social media plays a strong role in business networking, I discovered Ms. Pedersen through a tweet published to my Facebook page, which she responded to and engaged in our interview exclusively via Facebook chat.)

Ultimately, the strength of networks – digital or physical – comes down the strength of individual relationships. While I may have over 1200 LinkedIn contacts, I’m not sure how many I could turn to if I needed support.

“(Networking) is not about is how many business cards you collect,” insisted Ms. Day.

“I would rather chat to two or three people and get to know them than flutter around the room trying to connect with lots of people.”

Clearly, successful networking comes down to finding the right platform where you can both find ways to connect and assist others while articulating your own goals and needs.  The recipe will be different for each person, but it needs three parts: meet, get support and reciprocate.

One of the world’s richest men finally offers his perspective on women and the workplace. In an exclusive essay for Fortune Magazine

While he acknowledged that the American “political and economic system that unleashes human potential to an extraordinary degree” is the main reason behind the country’s current progress, the 82-year old tycoon also pointed out that this was done with only half of its workforce. He writes: “For most of our history, women — whatever their abilities — have been relegated to the sidelines.”

He cited examples from his family where his sisters were led to believe that for them success was to be equated with “marrying well” while he was told that the opportunities of the world were his for the taking. He also wrote about the late Katharine Graham, former CEO of the Washington Post Co., who Buffet describes as having been “brainwashed…. to believe that men were superior, particularly at business.” While Graham was able to get past the brainwashing to eventually hold the reins of the Washington Post, Buffet relates that “her self-doubt remained, a testament to how deeply a message of unworthiness can be implanted in even a brilliant mind.”

Thankfully, these “funhouse mirrors” are slowly being shattered, and Buffet calls on the self-interest of fellow males to help shatter the remaining barriers that women still face: “Fellow males, get onboard. The closer that America comes to fully employing the talents of all its citizens, the greater its output of goods and services will be. We’ve seen what can be accomplished when we use 50% of our human capacity. If you visualize what 100% can do, you’ll join me as an unbridled optimist about America’s future.”

But not all, however, view the billionaire’s opinion in the same light. In the Roosh V Forum, the thread about the said piece showed varying negative reactions. Exactaking thinks that the whole essay “basically supports the whole feminism=cheap labor theory.” Hades agrees, writing: “Like a lot of people he does not give much of a shit about laborers, only that by increasing the labor pool it makes labor cheaper. Spot on.” Meanwhile, n0000 mentions five downsides of “employing 100% of people as worker drones….1. Massive healthcare costs due to lower quality of food because the mom isn’t home to cook for the family. 2. Lower iq due to poor nutrition means less innovation, more crime. 3. Single parent families cause increased crime, poverty. 4. Weaker families due to kids spending less time around parents. 5. A culture focused on instant consumption instead of saving for the future.” 

Other sectors, like the Women in Manufacturing, however, lauded Buffet’s piece. Calling it “motivational” the group also thanked him “for taking a stand for women and reminding the country how important we are for the future of America’s prosperity.”

I recently fulfilled my annual, obligatory field trip with my son’s class. Each year I attend only one and it marks the beginning and end of my involvement in his school. On this trip, my son’s friend sheepishly admitted to me that he thought our nanny was my son’s mother. Many mothers would wince at those words but I laughed and realized how comfortable I am with my role as a full-time working mother. Our nanny makes a great surrogate in my absence and I feel no guilt over my early morning meetings, the occasional travel or even my lack of culinary skills. Not even a bit.

This wasn’t always the case and statistically speaking, many women feel torn with their dual roles. A 2009 Pew Study showed that a large percentage of men and women alike believe that the ideal scenario for young children is a mother who works part-time or not at all.

I often dwell on this notion of mother’s guilt, why we have it and why it appears so many working fathers do not. The prevailing logic behind it appears to suggest that working full-time hurts children but that theory falls short. A comprehensive report by the American Psychological Association analyzed research conducted over the last 50 years on the impact of full-time working mothers on children and concluded that they were no more likely to have academic or behavioral issues.

In fact, working mothers are often healthier and happier than their stay-at-home counterparts.

With all the overwhelming evidence, it’s time to put an end to working mother guilt and when better to do this than on Mother’s Day.

I’m not the only one supporting this. In Finerman’s Rules, CNBC TV personality Karen Finerman recently published book of business “secrets” for her daughters, she advocates letting yourself off the hook more often by giving yourself permission to fall short on some of your ideals. She doesn’t cook, doesn’t clean and doesn’t care about it. “Figure out what it is you do a half- assed job at, or hate, and let it go,” she wrote.

Petra Kuret, managing director of Accenture in British Columbia acknowledges how difficult it can be to let go of guilt but believes that it helps if to have insight to know what your priorities are at different points in your professional and personal life.

“Give yourself permission to make the other things a priority or focus at a later time,” advises the mother of a 9-year old son and 6-year old daughter.

“As women, I find we are hardest on ourselves (and unable) to let go of the guilt, be comfortable with the decision we have made and move on,” Ms. Kuret added.

Some of her ease with her dual-role derives from the perspective that parenting has inherently helped her professional life. Being client-centric, argued Ms. Kuret, shares many similarities with being children-centric. “If I walk in my client’s shoes, I am far more effective in partnering with my clients and delivering value,” she explained, adding that walking in her children’s shoes allows her to figure out how to better engage them.

Alleviating guilt carries many benefits, but most importantly it allows you to enjoy your professional choices and more actively embrace ambition.

“I’ve always been ambitious, which should not be seen as a “dirty word” when associated with women,” admitted Lisa Kimmel, general manager of Edelman in Toronto and the mother of a 9-year old son and a 7-year old daughter.

“As a mother to a young daughter, in particular, I think that it’s important to demonstrate to her that you can find it rewarding to be both a mother and a successful professional.  When she asked me recently why I couldn’t be her a nanny, I explained that, when she’s older, if she so chooses and finds a career about which she is passionate, she’ll also want to make time for both,” said Ms. Kimmel.

Jennifer Witzel’s children also sense her enthusiasm for her career, which positively impacts their perception. The vice president of taxation at Scotiabank said her 10-year old son and 8-year old daughter think it’s “cool” that their mom is a vice president, even if they mistakenly believe that means she works with President Barack Obama.

Ms. Witzel herself drew inspiration from strong female role models, including her grandmother, who along with her husband managed one of the first convenience stores in Canada, located in Kitchener, Ontario in the 1950s. Works, she recalls, was as much a part of her grandmother’s life as baking or playing card with her grandchildren.

“Although my career slowed down a bit when my children were younger, the lessons learned from being a parent have propelled me further along my career path than I would have gone had I not had children at all,” added Ms. Witzel.

So instead of falling prey to the guilt-induced marketing opportunity presented by commercialization of Mother’s Day, I suggest waking your mother up to the following words: You are doing everything just right.

We all worry about whether or not we’ll get along with our colleagues. Will they be friendly, will they be mean, will they be fair? But did you ever turn the question around and ask yourself if you are a good colleague? Here are five questions to help you figure out if you are a fun person to work with.

Are You Open?

Your colleagues have to know about you, your temper, your preferences and your habits in order to be able to adapt themselves to you and to build a pleasant working relationship. Try and be open with them. If a situation poses a problem to you – your colleague’s music is too loud, you don’t like the way someone speaks to you, you feel that a situation is unfair, etc. – , try to address the problem immediately. If you can, avoid telling on a bothering coworker. Try and talk him of her out and see if there is any way you both can settle your problem without getting a manager, supervisor of boss involved.

Do You Gossip?

You saw the new girl extremely drunk in a bar last week-end… You’ve heard that this guy from that department just recovered from this terrible disease… And apparently, that woman just cheated on her husband with someone from the office… What do you do with such stories? Do you tell them to everyone or keep them to yourself? We all committed the sin of gossiping at some point, but try and think: What if it were me that people gossiped about? While you shouldn’t kid yourself (people probably did, do and will gossip about you) try and show some respect and keep rumors to yourself. Stick to the Socrates’ three filters’ rule: Ask yourself if what you’ve got to say is either True, Good or Useful. If it’s neither one of those, don’t bother saying it. Not only is gossiping creating a negative work environment, it also makes you look bad.

Are You Fair?

Will you be tempted to take credit for someone else’s idea if the situation presents itself? If someone made a mistake, will you bring him or her down in front of others? Will you have the same standards for yourself than you have with others? Be careful! Being fair in a work environment in crucial.

Do You Treat Everyone Equally?

Naturally, we’ll have a tendency to show better manners and to present a more polite face to supervisors or superiors. But that doesn’t mean that you have to treat every one else badly. In fact, show the same regards to your coworkers, no matter what their status is. You never know how the situation can turn out to be; someone you misjudged may get an unexpected promotion, or you might just get downgraded. Be kind, friendly and pleasant to every one: It’ll pay off.

Do You Do Your Work Effectively?

There is nothing more annoying than a lazy coworker, especially if your job involves a lot of team work. Make sure you do your homework, so to speak, and that you do not rely on others to perform task that are assigned to you. Try and be proactive, and to come up with new ideas frequently. Meet your deadlines and work hard.

In Conclusion: Be Yourself (And Don’t Sweat It)

Do not overstress yourself with getting along with your coworkers. It is impossible to be liked by all and vice versa. Don’t try too much. Just be yourself: It’s the best – and probably the only – way to be a great colleague!

Mireille Fiset is a travel, music and theater enthusiast. She wrote for the stage and television, and is now working as a freelance blogger for Standard Life, a leading long-term savings and investment company, providing retirement planning advices.

Have you ever used a word so often that it’s lost all meaning?  Leadership has turned into one of those words for me.  Even asking, “what does leadership mean to you?” sounds like a pompous question thrown into an awkward team building session or an SAT preparation test.

A quick poke around the Internet would lead most to believe that leadership remains inextricably tied to Steve Jobs, Sheryl Sandberg or even Pope Benedict – both seen as oracles but for wildly divergent reasons. Women and men both have it, so it seems, but it manifests differently.

So I’ve decided to wipe the slate clean and start from scratch to being to re-examine this elusive word that remains a constant in business jargon.

The first real hint of insight came from candidly written book called Lead Yourself First, by Vancouver-based leadership expert Michelle Ray.

Leadership is a mindset, not a title, according to Ms. Ray. It has everything to do with values and little to do with corporate climbing.

Despite the book’s cover of a business woman donning boxing gloves — which led me to believe this would be yet another management book telling women to fight their way to the top — Ms. Ray preaches introspection. She shares her war stories about turning into a corporate slave, dealing with charismatic managers who fall short on their promises and being subjected to a screaming boss that literally followed her inside the ladies room to continue yelling, while she cowered in a stall. I simultaneously laughed and cringed.

But what do these tales from the trenches have to do with leadership? If you argue that leadership is way of thinking, rather than a job description, the word begins to take shape.

“My premise is that for everyone to view leadership as a state of mind rather than a job title. Especially in these times, it’s incumbent of all of us to see ourselves as leaders of our lives,” suggested Ms. Ray.

In other words, leadership means knowing your own values and being able to translate that into a vision for yourself and others. If you think of it as navigating a ship, there could be a hundred on board or you might be alone but how do you chart its course and keep it from sinking?

Rather than glean inspiration from the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, Ms. Ray draws examples from more relatable individuals, like Stan a security guard at the Regina airport. Stan shared his story about losing his son to suicide, then his job and marriage. Despite this, he set a course to pull his life together, perform well at his role and positively impact those around him. He demonstrated strong personal leadership skills by recognizing the importance of character.

“A leader is someone who is clear about their values and applies them on a regular basis. In other words, having values and living by one’s values are two distinctive propositions,” said Ms. Ray, adding that leadership has little to do with moving up the management ladder or even being in the workplace.

This idea that leadership connotes a characteristic rather than a skill seems to resonate. I asked Carrie Kirkman, president of Jones Group Canada, to describe the essence of her leadership, which she distilled to one word: courage.

“I’ve never been fearful in any job that I’ve had. If I believe something, I am like a dog with a bone,” admitted Ms. Kirkman. To illustrate, she recalls a point in a previous role, as the general merchandise manager of the women’s apparel business at HBC. When the company was sold in 2008, Ms. Kirkman believed that provided the company with a window of opportunity to signal a change to the marketplace and demonstrate how the company could evolve. Some of the company’s leadership was skeptical but Ms. Kirkman stood her ground. The ability to have independent thought and vision under the umbrella of a large corporation stood her out from the crowd, she believed.

That gift of influence is a key component of leadership, according to Cindy Novak, president of Communication Leadership Network, which provides solution to build leaders and their team.

“Managers direct or tell people what needs to be done while leaders achieve outcomes by influencing others to work to achieve a common goal,” said Ms. Novak, who believes that leaders accomplish this through a combination of strong communication skills and the ability to demonstrate empathy.

“The bottom line is that leadership requires a different set of competencies than being a great manager,” asserted Ms. Novak.

Settling on the definition of leadership is a tough riddle to crack. What is missing, Ms. Ray said, is the idea of taking charge of yourself.

“A title on a business card or a placard on a desk or door does not automatically make someone a leader,” she said. “It may give the impression of self-importance and achievement, however, the title alone is not enough.”

Leah’s foray into journalism began in Jerusalem where she worked as a magazine writer. She explains: “I ended up writing a few great stories while I was there. So that actually set me on my way to becoming a journalist. When I returned to Toronto… I bullied my way into a job at Reuters because I thought I would be a war correspondent. That never panned out but that was my early dream.”

Instead, Leah propelled Reuters to the digital world, a feat in itself. And although she did not initially think a lot about women’s issues back then, she “started noticing more trends in media” which led her to conclude that “major media companies, especially ones that were focused on business and high-end analysis weren’t speaking to women the way I felt they should.”

Advertising and getting a specific readership are the main motivations of many media companies, Leah explains, which lead them to treat their female audiences in less flattering ways: “They weren’t speaking to them as intelligent professional beings. They were speaking to them as if they were only mothers, or only interested in topics like divorce and celebrity content and popular health.” This was clearly not in consonance with her experience where the women she met and still interact with are much more intelligent than the women audiences that media companies seemingly catered to.

Writing her weekly column Women at Work, which appears on The Globe and Mail, also confirms this. More importantly, she tells Sharon that her column is also an avenue to get her message across: “I would only write the column because it’s in the business section and my personal bias is to get more photos of women in the business section and more bylines of women in the business section and highlight more women in the business section. Because only when you consistently see women highlighted in the business section will it become the norm to think of women as successful business leaders.”

And Leah believes she is seeing change not just in her column but in the way media companies are putting more emphasis on the issues that affect women in business. The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, and of course, The Globe and Mail are now showcasing articles that focus on this topic.

When Sharon prompted for possible solutions to putting more women in business sections, Leah believes that proactivity and a change of mindset are integral: “We need to change our mindset and start seeing women as influential business leaders. And I love meeting top women at the height of their game who call themselves visionaries, who call themselves leaders, because once you start embracing that model and once you start embracing that title, it really does move the needle a little bit.”

After her stint at Reuters, Leah founded Femme-O-Nomics “with the mandate to advance women in business.” Her goal for the site is to produce high-end intelligent content that reaches out to professional women. She also recently launched r/ally, which she describes as “a gamefied application that really encourages people to share goals, offer support, and build better business relationships in a much faster way.”

Leah believes that the number one challenge that professional women are facing right now is the “subconscious bias that permeates almost everything we do.” While finding the solution is tough, she believes content plays a determining role: “I really think the more we focus on female success stories, the more it changes our perception of what we expect women to be in our current environment.”

Leah’s success tip: “Be fearless, audacious and work outside of your comfort zone. If you find yourself getting too comfortable, you are not pushing yourself hard enough and it’s time to take bold action.”

Follow Leah on Twitter @Femmeonomics .

To subscribe to the Extraordinary Women TV newsletter to get the latest on guests and show updates, go to http://www.extraordinarywomentv.com/.

When the federal government finally announced the members of an advisory council to get more women on corporate boards, I admit, I actually felt rather cynical. Where other countries have examined the dearth of women on corporate boards in depth, issued recommendations, put policies in place and in some cases enacted legislation, Canada has stood pat, resting on its early standing as one of the world leaders, sliding a bit more each year. It took 13 months to assemble the 23 business leaders capable of bringing us into the global conversation on board gender diversity and the group has until the fall to make any recommendations.

Yet, arriving late at this global party on board diversity carries some unique advantages, among them the ability to learn from other country’s mistakes and cherry-pick the best of the international community’s initiatives to create a uniquely made-in-Canada solution.

As an active spectator on the board diversity discussion, I’ve noticed a palpable hunger for change among business leaders, female and male alike and, anecdotally, the idea of quotas does not appear to strike the same fear in the business community as it once did.  But quota legislation is not the only way to make progress. The key is to act quickly.

In 2009 and 2010, we ranked 6th among 23 industrialized nations, according to GMI ratings of women on boards. By 2011 we slipped to the 9th spot and may continue to decline. According to a TD Economics Special report, released in March, women make up only 11 percent of directors on the S&P/TSX Composite Index.  The report also states that nearly three-quarters of the corporations on the S&P/TSX Composite Index have either no woman on their board or just one.

The report describes this lack of progress as “troubling to economists” since it “implies a market failure to appreciate the skills and perspectives that women can bring to the table.” I’m not the only one advocating for quick action.

“Hopefully, the committee will quickly turn its attention to how many and how fast,” said Sonia Baxendale, who sits on several boards, including Foresters Insurance, The Hospital for Sick Kids Foundation and The Toronto French School.

“Canada continues to lag in this area (gender diversity on boards) and we have a great opportunity to finally play a leadership role. Our goal should be to leapfrog others and demonstrate our commitment to the value of diversity in all aspects of society,” she added.

Ms. Baxendale, who formerly held board roles with First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados), CIBC Trust Co and CIBC Asset Management Inc. believes Canada’s first step should be to set targets, increase transparency and have companies disclose their results. If that doesn’t achieve the “desired results” quickly enough, Ms. Baxendale suggests moving toward more affirmative action.

Former Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, who lists among the 23-committee members, has high hopes that the group will find a practical way to increase the representation of women on boards.

“There are lots of people talking about this but we have made rather pathetic progress in creasing the number of women on board of public companies in Canada,” admitted Mr. Manley. He believes that many share his aspiration to see better representation of women on boards but Canada has been yet unable to identify a practical way to approach the problem in order to see more concrete results. While the idea of a uniquely Canadian solution greatly appeals to him, Mr. Manley would be content with a foreign-made solution, so long as it worked.

“At this point, we have to admit that nothing we’ve done has worked so we need to be open to new ideas from within or outside,” he added.

Other advocates for more women on boards agree that now is not the time to play catch up but set the example for other countries to follow. Stephanie MacKendrick, who has been pushing for more women on corporate boards for over 15 years as a not-for-profit leader, invoked the words of the Rona Ambrose, the minister for the Status of Women, and her view that we don’t need another study or a report but “action-oriented strategies to move the dial in the right direction.”

“There is so much research on the benefits women bring to boards, in terms of better governance, corporate performance and competitive edge, it’s time for the debate to stop and the progress begin,” insisted Ms. MacKendrick, who has launched a search practice exclusively to place women on corporate boards.

“Canada can use the learning of other jurisdictions to get itself back into the leadership position that it once held,” she added.

Another benefit to arriving late to any party is the opportunity to make a dramatic entrance.

So here’s my unsolicited advice to the committee, who has until the fall to make their recommendations: be bold, be precedent-setting bold.

There is no secret formula to getting women into leadership positions after all.

Joanna Barsh, Sandra Nudelman, and Lareina Yee report in the McKinsey Quarterly April 2013 issue that companies only need to follow four principles if they want to advance women to the top. These insights were gleaned from the interviews they had with chief executive officers, human resource heads, and high-performing female executives in 22 U.S. companies that have been successful in its gender diversity efforts. If your company is trying to put more women in leadership roles and you’re not making any headway, perhaps these four principles are missing:

1. Make gender diversity a personal issue.

CEOs and senior executives, especially, have to be emotionally involved in getting women to the top. They must believe that both women and men can lead. That conviction can come from family upbringing, from personal experiences, or from their own value systems. If those in the top ranks make gender diversity a personal crusade and back up their cause with real action, then those in the lower echelon will follow. The bottom line, the authors write, is: “Numbers matter but belief makes the case powerful.”

2. Nurture a culture of gender diversity.

The companies that championed the cause of gender diversity share a common thing: Putting women at the top was already part of the fabric of their culture. They had a policy of inclusion that dates back decades that it was already part of their value sets. Also, they did not only focus on women but “changed the way employees interact and work with one another, a shift that benefits women and men alike.” Gender diversity programs only give the initial impetus. It has to be lived each day by everyone in the company so that it becomes ingrained in their culture.     

3. Put a system in place to make gender diversity the norm.

Gender diversity can’t be achieved overnight. Neither can a company have more women leaders if they don’t go about it systematically. From talent development to succession planning to measuring results to check for progress, there has to be a clear system for everyone to follow. This can be in the form of sponsorship or tying “gender diversity to talent planning and compensation in order to drive results.” If someone is going to be held accountable for the lack of female representation, outcomes are bound to be more evident.

4. Put more women on boards.

The authors’ research “suggests a correlation between the representation of women on boards and on top-executive teams.” In top-performing companies, board members (both male and female) serve as mentors or sponsors to promising women leaders. Through constant discussions and follow ups with top executives, they also sustain progress the company has made on gender diversity. The authors conclude: “[C]ompanies committed to jump-starting gender diversity or accelerating progress in achieving it should place a priority on finding qualified female directors.”

Efforts to get more girls on the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) track have suffered a setback—in New York City, at least. Al Baker of The New York Times

These are also the schools that admit students based solely on the results of a specialized admissions test—a factor that is seen to have contributed to the gender imbalance. This is apparently supported by the fact that there are more girls than boys in the other selective schools—Bard High School Early College, Millennium High School, Beacon High School, Edward R. Murrow High School, and Townsend Harris High School—in New York City that use “criteria beyond the admissions test.” At the Fiorello H. La Guardia High School of Music and Art and Performing Arts where grades and auditions or artwork portfolios are used as the basis of admission, girls make up 73 percent of the student population.

But there are other reasons that could explain why there are still a few women interested in pursuing studies in— and eventually a career in— the STEM fields. In their 2010 report entitled Why so Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, the AAUW cited various social and environmental factors. One of the studies used by the report “found that gender differences in self-confidence in STEM subjects begin in middle school and increase in high school and college, with girls reporting less confidence than boys do in their math and science ability.” 

A 2007 Press Release by the National Science Foundation also ran along similar lines but also blamed the “persistence of stereotypes” for turning off the interest of girls in STEM: “In elementary school about as many girls as boys have positive attitudes toward science. A recent study of fourth graders showed that 66 percent of girls and 68 percent of boys reported liking science. But something else starts happening in elementary school…. The persistence of the stereotypes start to turn girls off, and by eighth grade, boys are twice as interested in STEM careers as girls are…”   

For Karen Purcell, founder of an electrical engineering, design, and consulting firm, starting them young is just one way to fix the roadblocks in getting more women in STEM fields: “More than that, it would help young women understand that their gender shouldn’t determine the career path they choose and that pursuing a STEM career doesn’t make them any less feminine.”