This is a totally fair point. There is a contribution from leadership. But to track back to what was getting me bothered, it's the implication when Professor X

This is a totally fair point. There is a contribution from leadership. But to track back to what was getting me bothered, it's the implication when Professor X is discussed or introduced somewhere that they personally thought up and wrote O(1000) publications. I know good PIs guide the research activities of their groups as well rather than just creaming off publications. But while I understand where you're coming from, stepping back and thinking about it 'authorship as a reward for leadership' could be a sign of unhealthiness in academia. Why can't authorship mean authorship and leadership be recognised separately? 'Professor X runs a highly successful lab of N researchers, who produced M papers last year, and manages a budget of Z dollars.'