The Downtown Women's Club womensDISH blog

How to be Queen of the Tribe

In a recent article by friend of the Downtown Women's Club, Michelle Goodman, entitled Learn from the Opposite Sex at Work, there is a fabulous quote by Jan Combopiano, vice president and chief knowledge officer of Catalyst.

“Women have to prove they're ready for leadership, whereas men just have to have potential for leadership."

Click here to read the whole article.

Yes, once again, it’s the “women have to work twice as hard” speech.  I think my Dad first gave me that talk back in 1985 (and anyone watching poor Peggy Olson in Mad Men is reliving it on a weekly basis).  Yet, in most cases, i.e. traditionally male-dominated industries, it’s still true today.  However, here at the Downtown Women’s Club, we don’t waste any time complaining that we have to work twice as hard; instead, we focus our energy into doing it. 

Not sure how to get started? Here are five tips to help flex your leadership muscles.

1. Take on leadership roles no matter how small.  This can be in your office, in a volunteer role at an industry organization, at your kid’s school (Madeleine Albright parlayed that into some higher level appointments), in your church, or your kid’s local sports leagues.  Even if it’s not a high-profile role, it is all about getting comfortable delegating, communicating and decision making.
2. Don’t wait to be asked.  True leaders don’t sit back and wait for someone to nominate them to be a leader.  Speak up at the next meeting and volunteer to take charge.
3. Find a leadership role model.  Not everyone has the same leadership style.  Find someone whose style reflects your own. This can be someone you know, or even a public figure whom you may never get to meet. 
4. Make changes.  “Leaders” create change; “managers” maintain the status quo.  This is why many managers fail when placed in a leadership role – they don’t have enough leadership training or practice.
5. Don’t be confined by the past.  Many of us grew up with a certain idea of who a leader is.  The vision that comes to mind is a Caucasian, gray-haired male politician or ceo.  Doesn’t sound like a very attractive position these days, does it?  However, our last election proved that our country was ready to include women and minorities in the role of leaders.  

In Seth Godin’s Tribes: we need you to lead us, he states that almost everyone can be a leader if they find the right tribe and get over their fear of being criticized or failing.  This is why practice is important.  So, now that I’ve given you some tips, the onus is on you to go on out and become the Queen of your own tribe.

* * * *

Bonus Tip: Want a great way to flex your leadership muscles?  Get involved with the Downtown Women's Club.  We're looking for new and future leaders to head up chapters (DWC-San Diego and DWC-Detroit need directors), or even to start your own. Click here to download our free DWC New Club Guide* and find out how you can start practicing your leadership today.

*Includes information on how you can leverage your leadership role into affiliate revenue opportunities with our new affiliate program.

Five Lessons Learned from Ted Kennedy

As I write this post the planes carrying the body of Senator Kennedy and his family have just left Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts for Arlington National Cemetery where Senator Kennedy will join his brothers John and Robert.  These last several days have seen non-stop coverage of the passing of Senator Kennedy.  Sometime in the next week the jockeying will start over who will replace the Senator but for now many of us are just remembering and appreciating him.

I have two connections to Kennedy.  First, he served as one of my senators for most of my life.  As many have said, it will be strange not to have a Kennedy representing us.  Second, through his support the Center for Women & Enterprise came into existence.  Some of you reading this have hopefully benefited from the educational and technical assistance programs offered there.

In listening to the speakers at the celebration of his life last night and at the service today I was struck by several common themes which are lessons he leaves us with.  So I share what I take away from his life and hope some of you will add the lessons your learned.

1. The Senator always started with those things he shared in common with another not what separated them.  This enabled him to build consensus resulting in the passage of an extraordinary amount of legislation and was why he was known as a consummate negotiator.
2. Following from #1, Teddy, as many called him, never let it get personal. Because of this he could forge relationships and friendships with people who might be his adversary in the Senate or other governmental bodies.
3. He fervently believed in the greatness of others, encouraging them to be confident in their abilities, to believe in themselves.  At the service, Teddy, Jr. told a touching story about going sledding for the first time after losing his leg to cancer.  How with his Father’s encouragement he eventually made it up a steep slippery hill. 
4. Teddy enjoyed life to the fullest.  There will always be tough and sorrowful times but they are easier to bear with joy in your life.
5. The Senator was a servant leader...who rose each day asking who can I serve? 

With the Senator’s passing we each face a personal crossroads.  This was best reflected in the words of his niece Caroline speaking at the celebration of his life:

"Now Teddy has become a part of history and we are the ones who will have to do all the things he would have done, for us, for each other and for our country."

And so I challenge you…who will you serve?

Susan is a business advisor and consultant.  She works with CEO's to enhance their strategic decision making through improved financial intelligence and by creating their company's advisory board.  Susan is the author of the soon to be published Advisory Board Kit, a guide to assist business owners implement their advisory board.  Susan can be reached at susan@schammond.com.

Turn public speaking stress into success

As we gear up for this fall's Downtown Women's Club teleclass series, I thought we'd revisit some highlights of last spring. Note:  All 50+ teleclasses from the past two years are available for our DWC+ premium members.  Only $49/year to join and you receive over $1500 worth of teleclasses, ebooks, member profile, and opportunities to connect online and in person.

On May 14th, Stacey Shipman (one of our DWC-Boston co-directors) gave us some great insights into how to ramp up our public speaking capabilities:

Her tips (DWC+ Premium members can download the full teleclass from our teleclass library):

1.  Figure out what you are really afraid of.

• Is it real or subconscious?
• Is it pressure you're putting on yourself?
• Are you worried people won't pay attention?
• Fear = False Evidence Appearing Real.

2.  Practice.  Just do it.  When offered an opportunity, take it.  That's the only way to improve.

3.  Ask for Feedback. 

• Podcasts are great because you can listen back. 
• If there is a video of your speech, ask to see it.

4. Connect with your audience.

• Bring your authentic self to the speech.
• Find a common bond (this is something you can do when you mix and mingle before the speech)

5. Get some support.

• Coaches, Toastmasters, Classes, Workshops

6. Some tips for on the stage:

• Remember to breathe.
• Preparation is key.
• Understand that you can't please everyone.

Stacey Shipman, M.Ed. helps women experience less stress and more success in their personal and professional lives.  You can learn more about Stacey at www.staceyshipman.com.

Join as a DWC+ Member today and download Stacey's teleclass and many others.  Click here to see our upcoming schedule.

Meddling women bad for bottom line?

Just watching friend of the Downtown Women's Club, Karen Salmansohn on Fox TV to challenge a recent study from the Journal of Financial Economics that says having women on boards hurts companies.

The study claims that:

1. Women "meddle" when they are on a board.
2. Women fire non-performing male chief executives more.
3. Women force more oversight of finances, etc.
4. However, this has lead to less profits at some companies, and could affect the performance of companies who are doing well without anyone meddling.

I haven't read the actual study, but it's probably the same reasoning as to why women CEOs on fortune 500 companies often fail quicker than males: because they only get to be CEOs at already struggling companies.  My guess is that what is going on here is the same thing.  Only companies already in a death spiral are willing to try anything like taking on women directors.

Here's some quotes from the author of the study:

Daniel Ferreira, of the London School of Economics, who compiled the research with Renee Adams of the University of Queensland, said: 'This is a complicated picture.

'Our research shows that women directors are doing their jobs very well.

'But a tough board, with more monitoring, may not always be a good thing.

'Women behave more like independent directors - they are less likely to move in the same social circles as the chief executive or play golf together and so they are going to be tougher.

'Having women on the board makes the board tougher on monitoring chief executives, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better profitability and stock market performance.

'Indeed, we see that increased monitoring can be counter-productive in well-governed companies.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1205014/Why-meddling-women-boardroom-wreck-companys-performance.html#ixzz0NnAZgFP3

I know companies are judged on profits/financial performance, but did the study look at how employees fared at these companies?  Did they get family leave? Did they get more benefits?  Could that be where the money was going?

Of course, to ask those questions might mean that I'm "meddling".  But, all I could think of is that this could be yet another Scooby-Doo ending... The old guys annoyed by those gosh darn meddling kids. 

"I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids." - Scooby Doo Villain

Well, meddling may have hurt some companies' profits according to this one single study, but it sets the stage for better long-term governance. And, to that I just have one thing to say:

"Scooby Doobie Doooo!" - Scooby Doo

More about women bosses

The New York Times followed up its interview of Elle SVP, Carol Smith, with further discussion of her assertion that women make better managers.  In this weekend's Room for Debate, six others gave their opinions.  Here are a few highlights: 

Alice Eagly, chairman of the department of social psychology at Northwestern University.

So, are women better managers than men? In terms of their day-to-day actions, women managers should have advantages. But the answer is really not so simple because managers do well only if people accept their authority.

Leora Tanenbaum, author of “Catfight: Rivalries Among Women: From Diets to Dating, From the Boardroom to the Delivery Room.”

The best managers, female or male, are those who admit that the corporate structure favors men and who recognize their responsibility to help others follow in their footsteps.

Joanna Barsh is a director in the New York office of McKinsey and Company and co-author of “How Remarkable Women Lead,” to be published in September.\

One area where women can improve is to stop (yes) multitasking when our full attention is required. When you attempt to facilitate a phone conference while doing email, your brain switches between tasks, and you lose focus and energy.

Susan Pinker is a psychologist and columnist for the Globe and Mail in Canada. She is the author of “The Sexual Paradox,” about the roots of sex differences in the classroom and the workplace.

The readers’ complaints about difficult female managers that appear under the interview with Carol Smith make that clear: aggression is certainly more common among men, but for many reasons, the women who rise up the ranks may be on the more competitive and aggressive side — and their subordinates often feel it — especially the women who work with them.

Gary N. Powell is professor of management in the School of Business of the University of Connecticut in Storrs. He is working on the fourth edition of “Women and Men in Management” and is author of “Managing a Diverse Workforce” and editor of “Handbook of Gender and Work.”

Many people still see an incongruity between the female gender role and the leader role, which makes it harder for women to attain corner office positions and puts them in an unwelcome spotlight when they do. In 2006, after PepsiCo announced that Indra Nooyi would become its new CEO, the headline of the New York Times story was, “A Woman to Be Chief at PepsiCo.” No headline has ever announced “A Man to Be Chief at Acme Corp.”

Sharon Meers is co-author of “Getting to 50/50,” about working couples, and a former managing director at Goldman Sachs. She and her husband created the Partnership for Parity at Stanford Business School and the Dual-Career Initiative at Harvard University.

I’ve worked for many great men. But, in my experience, female managers are a special breed. We won’t know for decades if the differences are due more to nature or nurture but they are largely good — and stem from the fact that senior women are still outsiders.

Click here to read the full story.

So, as I see it, besides bringing all the collaboration, positive emotion, empathy and diligence into the workplace, women need to:

• Be accepted as authority figures
• Acknowledge that the chips are stacked against them, and help out others coming behind
• Stop multitasking
• Be as aggressive as the guys, but don't cross the line
• Learn to navigate the unwelcome spotlight
• Figure out how to accomplish all of the above while being an outsider.

And I didn't even include in this list the whole "trying to work in time off to have a baby" issue.  Wow, that's a lot to think about in addition to focusing on the bottom line, surviving a recession, etc.  Imagine what could be accomplished if both genders could put aside cultural biases and women could just focus on getting the work done.  Seems to me that a lot of energy is being wasted forcing women to overcome barriers that have no logical reason to exist ...

Are women better managers?

This is a question that Carol Smith, senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, answered with no hesitation in the affirmative in a recent interview with the New York Times. Now, normally, I'm not a fan of making sweeping generalizations like these.  After all, we've all seen as many bad female managers as male ones.  If anyone out there ever worked for or with a Queen Bee, you know what I'm talking about.  But, Smith really had some great comments in the rest of the article, so I gave some thought to her assertion. 

My take? When women are good managers, it's because they demonstrate that they have a certain skill set.  As she described it:

"In my experience, female bosses tend to be better managers, better advisers, mentors, rational thinkers."

No doubt any manager who demonstrates those qualities, male or female, would be good.  As for the men, we probably all agree that we've seen the following: 

Men love to hear themselves talk. I’m so generalizing. I know I am. But in a couple of places I’ve worked, I would often say, “Call me 15 minutes after the meeting starts and then I’ll come,” because I will have missed all the football. I will have missed all the “what I did on the golf course.” I will miss the four jokes, and I can get into the meeting when it’s starting.

Hmmm. Been there, heard all that.  However, one thing I think Smith misses, is that this banter is how guys get comfortable with each other.  When asked in the interview why more women aren't higher level managers, Smith responds that "she doesn't know."  Well, one possibility is that by missing out or abstaining from participation in this banter, women are not socializing with some of the people in the very position to help them out.

One point she made that I could totally agree with is:

Men also, they’re definitely better on the “whatever” side. Things tend to roll off their back. We women take things very personally. We’re constantly playing things over in our head — “What did that mean when they said that?” — when they mean nothing. And I’m certainly not immune to this. So there’s a downside to women.

So, we all, including Smith, need to work at this.  But, all in all, I think Smith had some fresh insights into the subject of male and female leadership. And, I enjoyed her frankness, but most of all, her conclusion: 

... I will say that working for all women is just as bad as working for all men. I hate an office where there aren’t men and women together. I hate it, hate it, hate it. Men and women together is the best.

Agreed.  But, I would add, diversity in ethnicity, economic backgrounds, and ages would also be helpful.

Trump: Take your role models and shove it.

I’ve been an Apprentice fan from the beginning and even liked the Celebrity Apprentice series.  I love the tasks and over the seasons Trump had won my begrudging respect.  I knew he had a spotty business record, but his ability to self-promote, create a new genre of product placement, and generally fire the right people for the right reasons was impressive.  I was even willing to overlook his blatant sexism and nepotism because, for the most part, women were treated fairly.  In addition, Ivanka is fairly impressive in her own right.  So, while I loved Carolyn and George, I was willing to accept Ivanka (as for her brother, …well, the jury is still out on that one).

In the grand scheme of things – as a business move, I have no problem with Trump picking Joan Rivers as the winner of Celebrity Apprentice.  It’s his show, she’s his friend, he won huge ratings and got his show picked up for another season.  That’s just business. People in charge get to pick who they want even if they have to create bogus reasons for doing so.  This happens in business and politics and even on the school PSO.  So, no, I don’t have a problem with that.

What I do have a HUGE problem with is Trump saying “Joan Rivers is a role model.”  FOR WHO????  In no particular order, here are the absurdities of Trump’s statement.  Note, I have to include Melissa in here, too, as the two are inseparable.

1. Not only was Joan Rivers rude and insulting to Clint, Brande and Annie, she went far beyond that.  Calling people “worse than Hitler” “stupid blondes” “white trash” “whore pit vipers” and accusing them of “mafia ties,” and so on is reprehensible.   But, why is it ok for Joan to do that, yet had anyone uttered an anti-Semitic slur or traditionally racist remark (“white trash” is racist as it does refer to someone’s skin and background) the show would’ve been cancelled (and rightly so). Yet, these women are role models?
2. In every other situation Trump has fired people who quit.  Joan walked out when Melissa was fired, but Trump let her back.  OK.  Smart move for Trump’s ratings, but again … for role models?  It’s ok to have a tantrum and quit? It’s ok to accuse everyone of scheming against you or your child with no proof whatsoever?  And, so what if they had?  Throwing tantrums is role model behavior????
3. Trumps inability to chastise Melissa for her meltdown was a disservice to Melissa and the viewers.  This is a child who has clearly been raised with “no consequences.”  She was not even slightly apologetic for her offensive behavior.  I found it totally bizarre that Trump let it slide, yet jumped down Jesse’s throat for calling Rodman stupid.
4. Trump’s sexism.  I’ve been willing to overlook this for however many seasons the show has been going on, but this time around you could literally see the damage it wrecks.  Every time he referred to Brande as “beautiful,” he was not only belittling Brande, but putting another nail in the coffin that was Melissa’s self-esteem.  He did more damage to that girl (and yes, Joan, I’m referring to Melissa as a “girl” because she seems to have stopped her maturity at age 13), with his fawning over Brande, than Brande and Annie could have ever done with any real or imagined “back-stabbing” of Melissa.
5. The Joan/Melissa co-dependency.  Many therapists say the “mother/daughter best friend” relationship that the Gilmore Girls had is not a good role model for mothers and daughters.  There needs to be boundaries between mothers and daughters. The Rivers duo is way beyond bizarre and clearly not healthy for either party, or as a role model for mother/daughter relationships.  Next stop … Grey Gardens. 
6. Trump changed the game.  Again, I’m ok with this.  It’s his show, he can look like an a*s if he wants to.  Nevertheless, the entire show was about raising money for charity (in fact, I’m waiting for The Daily Show-type montage of all the times he said that, then flashing forward to the final episode when he says it’s not just about raising money). So, Joan Rivers is a role model for winning a game that was changed to ensure that she won?  Gee, that’s a tough thing to do.  And while we’re at it, we never got the details about the three categories that she won.  No count-up/comparison of celebrities present, no details about what constituted a “better event experience,” etc.  They glossed right over those things.
7. Trump let Joan embarrass herself by going on about how Annie was a liar about why the designer quit.  Clearly, he must have known the truth, yet he let Joan berate Annie and then anointed her the winner. I’m actually embarrassed for both Trump and Joan.

Reading the tweets and blogs during and after the show, I was amazed to see all the Joan Rivers fans and the absolute hatred for Annie Duke.  I found this surreal and wondered whether I was watching the same show others were. 

• I still can’t understand why women hate Annie so much.  Here was one of the smartest women I have ever seen, handling herself professionally in some pretty extreme circumstances and beating the guys at a game they were always better at – raising money.  Sure she said, “I, I, I” and “Me, Me, Me” a lot, and that’s something she needs to work on.  But, she was probably edited to look worse than she really is.  And, if you approach this with the view that Trump was trying to ensure Joan won, he obviously did the worst hatchet job possible on Annie when it came to editing.
• Yes, she did say that she wished Joan would die.  Clearly this was inappropriate, but why Trump found something said in a private conversation (as private as one can get on a Reality Show) out of sheer exhaustion and frustration far worse than Joan’s public attacks, still doesn't make sense to me.
• Is it just me, or is everyone else still waiting to see the basis behind everyone's claims that Annie is "two-faced" and a "liar?"  I must have missed something this season, but it seems that there are a lot of folks tossing this around without any examples.  In fact, the only person who blatantly lied on camera is Joan Rivers. Besides, Annie is not two-faced at all.  You know she's about winning and all about Annie and if you can figure out how to work with that (as Brande did), then you have a winning team.  Unless you have Trump making the decisions.
• As always, I have to wonder if Annie had been a man would women have been as hard on her.  Admittedly, none of the celebrities other than Brande really came out as huge Annie supporters, and that’s likely due to the clash of Type A personalities, but one thing in Joan’s favor.  However, I noticed Natalie the golfer wasn’t on the final show; yet, I believe she donated an item to Annie’s auction.  She’s also probably one of the few “celebrities” on the show in which Joan Rivers could never factor into her future earnings.  Maybe Trump didn’t want any more Annie supporters around for the finale than he had to?  
• As for Brande, I agree with Trump - she is fascinatingly, captivatingly beautiful.  Regardless, I thought she handled herself well in the face of Trump’s sexist comments and while not a rocket scientist, she was no dummy when she chose to buddy up with Annie.  She could never have won Joan and Melissa over as they would never get past the fact that she looks like she does, and they pay a plastic surgeon to mess up what good looks they had in their own right.  I found Brande engaging and hope she ends up getting a talk show or something out this.   And, yes, I will now rethink any prejudices I may have had about Playboy bunnies.

Other random parting shots …

1. How come Herschel Walker didn’t get credit for what he contributed to that final event?  He was the brains. I had no problem with his selling all the tickets to a single buyer who then donated them to "the man/woman on the street."  This was a Trump attempt to level the playing field and to keep Annie from doing something similar. But perhaps the potential for protest was why it was overlooked. 
2. And, do celebrity impersonators = celebrities? So, again, maybe they slid this one under the carpet too, but Herschel, I'm impressed.
3. Kathy Griffin, I’m glad Trump counted your celebrity appearance as far greater than all of the celebrities at the other event - maybe you're now on the C list? But man, you’ve lost a few respect points from me for hanging out with the Rivers sisters (oops … mother/daughter team).
4. And, Piers Morgan, you let me down.  You clearly were in Annie’s court the week before, but maybe Joan Rivers can affect your career in some manner – and that’s what the show is about, saving, salvaging or sabotaging your career.  It’ll be interesting to see the fallout from this season and who is “stupid” enough to participate again next year.

But, you’ll have to tell me about it, because I sure as heck won’t be watching ever again.

Want to give to Annie Duke’s charity to make up for the travesty of the Rivers’ win?  Visit Refugee International. 

For more interesting thoughts on the travesty of Joan's win, including the possibility that a Trump sits on the board of Joan Rivers' charity, click here.

Are You Ready to Work with a Coach?

Did you know that individuals who engage in a coaching relationship can expect to experience:

• fresh perspectives on personal challenges and opportunities,
• enhanced thinking and decision making skills,
• enhanced interpersonal effectiveness, and
• increased confidence in carrying out their chosen work and life roles

These benefits have been identified by the International Coach Federation.

To give you even more perspective on this topic, I'm delighted to share with you a NEW podcast called: Are You Ready to Work with a Coach? It's a conversation between me (founder and Head Coach of InStep Consulting LLC) and Andrea Bradford. Andrea is also a seasoned executive coach and career management professional who helps clients value their personal strengths and define their professional goals.

In the podcast, Coach Colette and Andrea discuss the benefits of working with a coach to help achieve your personal and professional goals. We also share thoughts on how you can ready yourself to get the best results from a coaching relationship. One question that often surfaces is: "What's the difference between coaching and therapy?" Today, a prospective client asked me this in our introductory exploration call. I always say that coaching focuses on empowerment and on future actions. ICF offers this distinction:

• Therapy often focuses "on resolving difficulties arising from the past which hamper an individual's emotional functioning in the present"
• Coaching focuses on "action, accountability and follow through"

If you've ever considered hiring a coach, you'll definitely get some insights from this podcast. After you've listened to it, let me know your thoughts or if you'd like to learn more about our coaching programs. You can "tweet me" on Twitter - just search for Coach Colette. Or, you can arrange a free introductory call to discover if coaching is right for YOU!

Is it time for Citi to elect more women directors?

Today Citigroup, headquartered in NY City announced four new nominees for their board of directors.  And yes, you guessed it, all men.  Last week ION (InterOrganization Network), the organization that focuses on putting more women on boards, released its 5th Annual Status Report of Women Directors and Executive Officers.  The statistics on the how many women serve as directors and executive officers of public companies continue to show only small gains. 

While Citi currently boasts two women directors, Anne Mulcahy, CEO of Xerox and Judith Rodin, President of the Rockefeller Foundation, they haven't apparently read the Catalyst reports that show companies with more women and minorities on their boards perform better in the marketplace.

My takeaway of this current slate of nominees is that it’s business as usual.  Which leads me to ask:

• Would the meltdown of the financial services sector and the markets have happened if more women were serving on the boards of these former financial services giants? 
  

• Would the risky investment behavior have prevailed if more women were serving in the executive suites?

• Would the danger signals have been noted earlier had there been more women directors and officers?

What’s your take? 

P.S. Soon you will be receiving your annual reports if you own stock in a public company.  Check the list of board members and executive officers.  If there are no women or too few, visit the ION website for the steps you can take to make your voice heard about nominating more women.

American Idol a Gender Equity Model?

Well, there are many things to be criticized about American Idol, but gender equity isn't one of them.  This year, they have equality on the judging panel and they start out each season attempting to have gender equality among the contestants (although this season it's 8 men/5 women).  The results?  So far women have won 4 of the last 3 seasons. 

And, how about success after the show?  Arguably the biggest successes to date are Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood, and non-winner, Jennifer Hudson.  Don't hear much from Taylor Hicks and Ruben Studdard, do we?  The most prolific male Idol alum to date is actually non-winner, Chris Daughtry.

So, when given an equal playing field, women seem to do alright in popularity/talent contests. 

Now I just wish that we could find similar results in the corporate world.  Unfortunately, I was recently reminded of some sobering statistics about women as leaders from Barbara Kellerman in the Washington post:

• Women hold only 17% of U. S. congressional seats
• Women constitute only 23.2% of state executive positions
• Women are mayors of only 11% of the country's 100 largest cities
• Women constitute only 20% of American judiciary (and 16% of partners in law firms)
• Women constitute only 2.4% of Fortune 500 CEOs
• Women constitute only 15% of Fortune 500 board members
• Women constitute only 20% of key board committees such as audit, compensation, and governance
• Women earn only a fraction of what men earn: In 2007 the median salary for the 100 CEOs of the largest U. S. companies, all of whom were men, was about twice the median salary of the 100 highest paid women. Moreover the median bonus received by men was almost three times that received by women.

Of course, it's comparing apples to oranges to compare American Idol to Corporate America.  But, is it really?  Isn't American Idol, after all, a business venture?  Makes one think, doesn't it.

*Photo is an AP photo.