David Bohm sets out three basic conditions for Dialogue:
And this:Participants must suspend their assumptions. ‘What is essential here is the presence of the spirit of dialogue, which is in short, the ability to hold many points of view in suspension, along with a primary interest in the creation of common meaning’ (Bohm and Peat 1987: 247). Suspending an assumption does not mean ignoring it, but rather ‘holding it in front of us’ ready for exploration. (This links very closely with Gadamer’s view of pre-judgements).
Participants must view each other as colleagues or peers. Dialogue occurs when people appreciate that they are involved in a mutual quest for understanding and insight. ‘A Dialogue is essentially a conversation between equals’ (Bohm et. al. 1991).
In the early stages there needs to be a facilitator who ‘holds the context’ of dialogue. ‘Their role should be to occasionally point out situations that might seem to be presenting sticking points for the group, in other words, to aid the process of collective proprioception, but these interventions should never be manipulative nor obtrusive’ (Bohm et. al. 1991). They continue, ‘guidance, when it is felt to be necessary, should take the form of "leading from behind" and preserve the intention of making itself redundant as quickly as possible’.
Leadership as status (bigger office with a free carpart) is different to leadership as function.
Leadership that holds onto itself and it's goals in the wrong way hinders dialogue.
In my thinking anyway.
I have chosen to actively use the term leadership in my work. Emergent leadership (based on who you are and your expertise - not mere formal position) - Servant leadership (As in the work of Robert Greenleaf) Hero to Host (Margaret Wheatley) - I see this as reclaiming the role from where it has been ruined by politics, power and money.
But I've not read the readings Cindy. I may be way out of left field. :-)