Gender imbalance of corporate executives is not a great social problem

The following is a comment I posted in a response to an article in the Star Tribune about a Sheryl Sandberg's book 'Lean In' encouraging women to be more aggressive in climbing the corporate ladder to become leaders in the business world. 

I have a hard time seeing as a social problem needing a national conversation the fact that any group is lagging behind another group in the race to having the most members classified as overpaid, paper pushing executives.  My view here is sort of the opposite of my view on unions where people should think "maybe I can rise with the help of Unions to where I am as well paid as they currently are."  But in the case of this article my thinking is that nobody should be paid, or given the credit for a corporations results or any subsequent knock-on effects for the country, what CEO's of large corporations are, regardless of gender.  When looking at compensation in the business world, in general it seems like it is those that get paid the most are those that accomplish the least in terms of materially affecting the wealth of the nation.  I mean, taking the example from the article, what exactly would have been accomplished in that hypothetical meeting in San Francisco other than a lot of jawboning?  What is Zuckerberg and Facebook accomplishing in their lockdowns other than creating a better Rube Goldberg social networking device? -- All people want to do on FB is share what they're doing in comments and photos -- it's not complicated.  The national conversation that is needed is not that we need to find ways to make sure the one percent that is enjoying an even greater share of the pie is more evenly divided between men and women.  It's not as though the world is going to be a better place if there is more female Gordon Gekkos.  The national conversation that is really needed is to figure out how the material wealth of this nation can be distributed in a fair and just manner that at the same time incentivises activities that further improves the material condition of the nation.  And yes, if that system is really fair and just then by default there shouldn't be any discrimination based on gender, race or any other group.  But insofar as the sort of gender discrimination described in the article and book exists, it exists because we are not living in a meritocracy but rather in the business world it is more of what I call an 'Office Politocracy' where the ability to navigate relationships within the office successfully is all that is incentivised in the business world.  It sounds like the author of the book in question is merely suggesting more women 'lean in' and be more aggressive at marketing themselves as some confident figure that people could rely on as a strong leader.  Never mind that they may be just as good as any man at steering the corporate ship into a reef -- at least they did it with confidence!