Ordinarily, a leader is perceived to be distinctive. Many images depict leaders as higher, larger, or further along toward some objective. In order to downplay the hierarchical implications of leadership, writers have made numerous attempts to introduce egalitarian values, since leadership itself can come across as unjust or unfair, contrary to an egalitarian ideal. The egalitarian will prefer an alternative, either an alternative to leadership altogether or an alternative image of leadership that suggests equality. We assert that there is a conceptual difference between leaders and followers. We also claim that inequality is inevitable, useful, and even necessary. Properly accounted for, inequality is also just - to elevate a single person to a position or status of leader, so long as that leadership enjoys legitimacy, dependent on purpose, and so long as that leadership remains subject to checks and balances. Maybe we need a model of leadership as mutual inequality.