The fact that leadership is necessary (which I do not deny) does not imply that some particular share of the resulting surplus value should go to said leadership. The share of surplus value captured by capital is something we get to decide as a society, and the idea that "as much as capital can manage to capture" is a natural and just share is a pervasive and pernicious lie.
But of course it implies exactly that. People should be rewarded for their skills and their contribution to the success of the company, which means that lion's share of profits goes to those on top. And no, we as a society don't get to decide that, because companies are privately owned by individuals, not by society as whole. Why should society decide how should I spend my money?
Yes, reward them for their skills and work - not what they can capture of someone else’s hard work. It is an article of faith in some quarters that someone who manages to put themselves in a position where they can skim the labor from employees or renters somehow means they are a wealth creator. Usually though, these “wealth creators” are just capturing wealth generated by someone else.
