Good question. If the person in leadership position is doing a good job, more people will dedicate their shares to that person, thus resulting in higher proportion of a bonus.

If a person on the 'top' does not receive sufficient votes, its an indication that he may not be doing a very good job.

When you say that, you're talking about offering incentives based on performance.

I worked in an executive position for many years and was on the board. No, it wasn't anything like the hypothetical scenario you present. But Performance Related Incentives (PRPs) were offered based on specific performance results.

Everything from the performance of individuals and the results was discussed at monthly meetings, and decided upon only with the consensus of all employees.

There were a couple of employees who were frequent recipients of such monthly incentives, as they continued to put in far more effort than the others.

While the results were there for all to see - it led to envy and problems in the workplace.

Additional thoughts on the distribution of tokens?

I think the concept of equal pay may work better when it is equal pay for equal work.