The logic is inescapable. Men get on better than women at work, so if women want to succeed in the workplace they simply have to become men.

Sounds crazy, right? Then why are there two pieces of news out recently saying just that?

The first is based on a book Code Switch: How to Talk So Men Will Listen. It argues that in this imperfect world, exhibiting female characteristics will do you more harm than good at work. Amongst its tips were not to take male banter seriously, try to dress in a more masculine way, and to offer one word answers.

It echoes the second piece of news out today from the US that even a male sounding name can help, as women with more masculine names are more likely to be promoted in the legal world. Apparently a woman called Cameron is three times more likely to become a judge than one called Sue.

This is an interesting notion. I'm pretty sure that changing your name to something less threatening, acting like grunting bloke, sycophantically laughing at personal insults and dragging up as a chap would probably help a woman be accepted as one of the boys - women in plenty of professions have had to accept this as the norm since they were reluctantly let in through the doors.

But this shouldn't be how women are made to behave.

Women and men are different. They behave differently. They bring different skills to the workplace - just as each person is different. If women have to be men in order to get on, all the skills traditionally associated with being a woman will be hidden. No-one will have the courage to be empathetic, communicative or multi-task, and the working world will be a poorer place for it.

In the end it comes down to whether we follow the rules to get on, or challenge them to make the world a fairer place.

Its a tough call..... should I go for Cameron, Alex or Sam?