"The charismatic-dependent relationship is adaptive toward keeping subgroups together as they range, foraging. If all members of a subgroup were equally self-assured, there would be more of a tendency for each individual to go it’s own way, and a lone animal or human is usually more vulnerable to attack.

"The more nervous, easily aroused, dependent chimpanzees, through their quick response to disturbance in the group or to danger from without, act to alert the less easily aroused, less observant, charismatic members. One or more of the confident individuals then respond to the situation, backed by the support of the more dependent members. Thus the response is more by group consensus than leader-initiated."

At the same token, if I am the most competent in the room I do resent not being the leader. Them's the breaks.

Should a 2 year old have equal say in household decision making as their 32 year old parent?

Should a first year med student who wanders into a patients room have equal sway in patient care as a specialist attending physician?

Should an intern be able to make decisions that a CEO typically makes?

Power imbalances can be mitigated structurally and through community norms based on humanistic principles. If an organization has some sort of "Rule of law" then this can damp down the application of arbitrary power by informal chains of command.

Power corrupts. This is why people need structure and limits. When people just start doing as they feel, the power to make their whims real becomes a corrupting power.