Why do people in business (Especially Business school Adcoms assume that leadership ability=business success and vice versa?

I have noticed that in the ideology of American management theory and MBA applications that there is the axiom that:
It is absolutely necessary that the entrepreneur or executive in charge has charismatic leadership qualities
To be successful as an entrepreneur, one must have extraordinary interpersonal skills and leadership qualities.

However, the following is the case: In the right situation, a person who would in theory lack the leadership to succeed in business can end up being a tremendous success, in the right niche. The way some management textbooks portray it, if the manager or executive lacks interpersonal skills, the employees will not do the work. However, there are millions of employees that will do their job at the required level or even at an excellent level regardless of whether or not their boss has excellent leadership. Millions of people despise their bosses or company and still do their work at a required, above average, or even spectacular level. Are the millions of sweatshop laborers, miners, and other workers in the world all inspired by their company or boss? You must know of many people who are excellent professionals who perform their jobs extremely well despite not being at all inspired or having actual confidence in their boss.
However, in reality I know of several cases of people who lack the theroretical interpersonal skills needed to make it in business, yet are extremely successful.

Case Study 1:I know of the CEO of a mid-level hedge fund who is worth 100 million dollars. In social situations, he makes every faus pass imaginable, looks geeky, has zero charisma, and is not much of a people person. However, he has the following things going for him:
In his niche he is able with his analytical skills to gain spectacular returns attracting investors.
Many of his top analysts work for him based on the funds reputation and their respect for his investing prowness, not because he is extremely savy at wooing them.
His routine employees do their jobs because the competitive pay is decent and they enjoy the work.
He has a right hand man ( that he compensates with equity in the fund) who has excellent sales ability that brings in the investors. Additionally, his trophy wife is ultra ultra ultra savy at bringing in business.

2.The head manager of the largest movie cinema in my city has poor ability to relate to people, gains zero respect from subordinates, and has no ability to inspire whatsoever. Yet her cinema brings in money like gangbusters. Why:
She has an excellent understanding of the dynamics of running a cinema. She is able to predict down to a tee, the exact amount of inventory to order for the concession stand to balance spoilage versus running out, is able to calculate precisely how often to show a movie, when to stop showing it, how many concession stand workers to schedule for any given new release date, weekend, weekday, how to schedule restroom cleanings down to precise hour, etc. She has such excellent planning and inventory-cash flow management ability, that she is able to have excellent numbers despite the fact that she often fires and replaces many people. It does not hurt that she has a few very hard working immigrant employees who for cultural reasons work hard for authority.

3.A job-shop manufacturing company owner. He is somewhat week communication skills, is not that interpersonally savvy, yet is very successful and has 20 million dollar business: Why: He is a wiz at the dynamics of the process of job shop manufacturing, and is able to produce excellent quality at low cost. Thanks to his excellent technical ability and understanding of the complex dynamics of inventory, cost, and the ability to plan the process of each job, he is able to win government bids and has a few very large long term customers. He has only average actual selling skills and his ability to lead and inspire is just OK.
Also in technology, there are countless stories of business teams where one founder is the geek and the other the leader/salesman. For instance, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak and Paul Allen of Microsoft was relatively weak in people ability compared to Bill Gates and Steve Balmer, yet Paul Allen made it.

Publicly documented example:

In The Big Short by Michael Lewis, there is a man with Asperger's Syndrome who predicted on a blog the 2008 GFC and exactly why it would happen. As a result of fame from his blog (before GFC) he managed to raise some investor money to start a hedge fund and made some shorts pre GFC and made his investors tens of millions of dollars. Since he has some social difficulties, he is not the leader type MBA programs are looking for, yet why is someone who has the smarts to predict the GFC, the savvy to find a way to short mortgages and the courage to take a position less of a business leader than some charismatic jock. If the above man were the head of any bank, credibility from making and profiting off such a brilliant call and money earned from it would mitigate a lack of a traditional leadership aura.

While MBA admissions ideology portrays leadership to business success what technical ability is to programing a computer or scientific ability is to being a successful scientific researcher, yet let us take three people who inherit a small charter airline with very different abilities:

1. Person one has excellent leadership abilities and inspires the workers to work longer and harder for less and the managers under him to be superachievers. His main quality is leadership and profits soar.

2. Person two has only okay team leadership abilities and is not the best at motivating and leading large groups, yet he has the fantastic interpersonal ability to sell one on one. Yes, this is a people skill, but to some MBA adcoms, even sales ability does not count as leadership. He gains a big contract ferrying people from Area 51 to a commuter airline base and profits soar.

3. Person three has only okay team leadership abilities and is also not at all an inspiring leader, yet they have an excellent grasp of world events and financial markets. They hedge the price of oil, which saves the firm millions allows them to lower costs and at the same time retain workers and even give them a raise in this economy. (Southwest Airlines beat the competition because they were smart enough to hedge with oil futures).

When you watch the Millionaire Matchmaker, you see many rich entrepreneurs on the show who are the geek type rather than the suave jock type that MBA adcoms prefer.

My main question is the following: Why is it that MBA programs and corporate companies view leadership as the key ingredient in business success? when:

A. Many business people with great leadership have failed at their ventures i.e. dotcom types who just had the wrong venture or people who had the charisma to get to be CEO but made idiotic decisions.

B. There are some very wealthy entrepreneurs and hedge fund managers who lack the leadership style MBA adcoms seem to state is necessary for business success yet they still seem to become extremely wealthy.

Instead of creating a stereotype of what a business leader should be why don't MBA programs admit anyone who has shown that they can make money in the business world, whether a traditional inspire subordinates to work harder leader type, a independent super-salesman, a bean counting nerd who improves inventory and cut costs saving their uncle Al's three store clothing chain, some geek who designs a trend following momentum market system who can document being short in 2008 and 2011, or some divorced mom who is one of Ebays top 1000 power sellers?

All of the above could in the right circumstance make great CEOS.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Thanks,