leaders eat last?

when we talk about leadership, of course the first thought came across most people would be that a leader should always put the people whom he lead before himself; whatever decisions he made, whatever the directions he paved, shall benefit the people he lead first. as said by Simon Sinek himself, leaders should eat last.

the idea of this leaders eating last is basically brought the argument of that, when people you lead cannot function to their full potential towards the goals to be achieved together, basically you shall ruin the efficiency and also discard the higher chances of attaining the goals of the pack.

however, there is another idea to that, but very much contradict and simply disarm the logic behind Simon's idea. it's the leaders shall need to be fed adequately first before any of them he lead gets anything. now i had been believing too deep with Simon's idea and somehow felt the violated and in absolute cringe state upon being thrown with the former proposition. but, as classic and cliche as it is, we can never judge a book by the cover. there is actually some points which i found easily make sense.

so the idea is really a mirror to Simon Sinek's; a leader shall have first whatever he finds he need before handing over the remaining to his associates since in any pack or any squad, leader is the paramount of all. should the leader fail to lead, fail to provide, then all of the associates shall be jeopardised. should the boat was captained by a man who don't know well enough the direction it supposed to be heading, then they shall simply in seconds, lost in the pacific isn't it? hence why logic somehow make some sense to it. leaders are also entitled to some pleasures for himself to ensure his state of mind are really firm towards the goal and his thinking ability shall function impeccably and optimised to his full potential. then come the chances of kleptomania embedded among these leaders isn't it?