Journal of
Human Resources Education
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
William J. Heisler, Ph.D., Editor
Articles
“Tolerance” in HR Education
C. W. Von Bergen and Diane Bandow
A Comparison of Pedagogy and Androgogy in
the Development of an Undergraduate HRM
Course
Jennifer Mencl
Misconceptions about HRM Start Early
Thomas Timmerman
Career Corner
Joann M. Eisenhart, Ph.D. , Senior VP,
Worldwide Human Resources, Manager and
Operational Support, Pfizer Inc
Book Summary
The Culture Fit Factor: Creating an
Employment Brand that Attracts, Retains,
and Repels the Right Employees
by Lizz Pellet
Sorrell College of Business
Troy, Alabama 36082
E-mail: [email protected]
“TOLERANCE” IN HR EDUCATION
C. W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Diane Bandow
Troy University
ABSTRACT
Promoting tolerance has become a key weapon in battling prejudice and bias in multicultural
training but has had its meaning hijacked over the last generation. Tolerance has changed from
the classical definition of incorporating grudging forbearance and indifference toward others
and their beliefs and practices to the neo-classical meaning suggesting that every individual’s
beliefs, values, behavior, and truth claims are equally valid and worthy of acceptance. This
change has alienated many who value equality and fairness and may have limited the
effectiveness of human resource initiatives because the neo-classical meaning itself is intolerant.
This paper proposes an approach to human resource education which offers authentic tolerance
incorporating respect, dignity, and openness to persons, but not necessarily their values or
practices.
INTRODUCTION
Contemporary American society is composed of a variety of ethnicities, races, beliefs,
religions, and lifestyles—and this heterogeneity is still developing. Such differences have led
historically to increased levels of prejudice, bigotry, ethnocentrism, segregation, and reduced
levels of cohesiveness and communication among groups and between individuals (Leonard &
Levine, 2003). Additionally, American culture has become an increasingly adversarial one in
which individuals are encouraged to elevate themselves by debasing conflicting viewpoints
(Dreher, 2008). In response to such harmful attitudes, behaviors, and other forms of social
isolation and exclusion many organizations have implemented diversity training programs to
address such ethnocentricity (Fiske, 1998).
In these training initiatives it is common to hear that such demographic mixtures are
praiseworthy, non-exclusionary, liberating, and positive, and that individuals should recognize
and acknowledge such differences and be inclusive and open to differences and value, embrace,
endorse, and celebrate them (e.g., Greenberg & Baron, 2008). Trainees are advised to appreciate,
affirm, accept, approve, and respect diverging opinions, views, and behaviors and to be tolerant
(Nieto, 1996; Pless & Maak, 2004; Rynes & Rosen, 1995). Tolerance is a widespread practice as
reflected in the 369,000 web entries obtained from the Google search engine when “teaching
tolerance” was entered (Teaching Tolerance, n. d.).
Within the last generation tolerance has risen to the apex of America’s public moral
philosophy (Horton, 1996). Today, it is believed that a good, moral person is, above all, tolerant
Journal of Human Resources Education
1
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
(Tolerance.org, n. d.). Tolerance seems like a core human virtue, essential for democracy and
civilized life. Indeed, its absence is at the root of much evil: peer cruelties, unjust discrimination,
hate crimes, religious and political persecution, and terrorism (Lickona, 2002). But if tolerance is
defined, as it often is, as “the ability to accept the values and beliefs of others” (Lickona, 2002, p.
1), it poses a dilemma because it is unrealistic to think that people will uncritically approve all
practices and perspectives.
We address this controversial topic and posit that tolerance means that as individuals we
may acknowledge different values and actions of others yet need not embrace and accept them.
After providing definitions of tolerance, a presentation of intolerance and political elite
relabeling is offered, followed by a discussion of tolerance in organizations. The paper concludes
by offering authentic tolerance as a key element of human resource education that emphasizes
respect and dignity of others rather than required acceptance of and agreement with their beliefs
and behavior.
MEANINGS OF TOLERANCE
The origin of the word tolerance is the Latin term tolerare, which means to bear or
endure, suffering through without action in response (Odell, n. d.). This meaning was continued
in Webster’s Dictionary (Gove, 2002) initial definition of the term as involving a capacity to
endure with pain or hardship—fortitude, stamina, forbearance and restraint. Thus, tolerance
meant putting up with something one found objectionable. In other words, something repugnant,
offensive, disagreeable or distasteful is allowed to exist without significant action on the part of
those to whom it is odious. It involves recognition that a civil society must include a willingness
to bear with people whose ideas and practices are not merely different, but believed to be wrong.
Webster’s secondary meaning of tolerance defines it as a permissive or liberal attitude
toward beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own. This is the dominant
view of tolerance today (McDowell & Hostetler, 1998; Odell, n. d.; Stetson & Conti, 2005).
Thus, the idea of tolerance has undergone a gradual change in definition from the obligation not
to tolerate the immoral to the requirement to accept the legitimacy of the morally different. It has
been largely redefined by those seeking to broaden what it means to endure while diminishing
that which is defined as offensive and objectionable. In this paper the term “classical” represents
the original definition of tolerance and “neo-classical” represents the secondary and more recent
definition of tolerance.
Classical Definition of Tolerance
Traditionally, tolerance incorporated the idea that everyone was entitled to his or her
own opinion and that people were to acknowledge others’ beliefs and practices without
necessarily agreeing, sympathizing, respecting, or sharing in them; it involved bearing or putting
up with someone or something not especially liked (McDowell & Hostetler, 2005). Within this
view individuals support the right of others to hold disparate opinions, have dissimilar lifestyles,
and be different—while not accepting others’ behavior as correct for themselves or society.
Journal of Human Resources Education
2
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
Classic tolerance means the ability to hold on to one’s convictions while recognizing the
right of others to hold on to theirs. Classic tolerance is not acquiescence, but recognition of
difference. Classic tolerance has nothing to do with accepting another person’s belief, only his or
her right to have that belief. It is similar to Voltaire’s famous words: “I detest what you write, but
I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write” (Guterman, 1963, p. 143).
Thus, classical tolerance differentiates between what a person thinks or does and the person
himself or herself (Stetson & Conti, 2005).
Neo-Classical Definition of Tolerance
More recent American understanding of tolerance and what the authors refer to as neoclassical tolerance promises members of minority and marginalized groups something more:
respect, acceptance, and agreement with their beliefs, values, and practices in order to help them
maintain the essentials of their identities and ways of life, and to help them to feel welcome and
comfortable in the societies where they live (Walzer, 1997). Neo-classical tolerance is
immediately suspicious of the idea that something may be offensive, and in the event it is, rejects
the idea that one is free to express that distaste (Birrell, 2003). To evaluate something as
questionable or wrong and publicly say so is considered intolerant, insensitive, and offensive.
Thus, tolerance has evolved from abiding the objectionable to affirming the rightness of the
nonconventional and nontraditional. Contemporary views of tolerance appear to be interpreted as
“accept everything” (Weissberg, 2008, p. x).
Mistaking toleration for affirmation occurred in the United Nation’s (UN) decision to
declare 1995 “The Year of Tolerance.” In the UN’s declaration, tolerance was defined as
“respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of
expression and ways of being human. “… It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism
....” (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1995).
INTOLERANCE AND ORGANIZATIONS
In the lexicon of neo-classical tolerance, respecting an individual means accepting,
appreciating, and approving their ideals and practices. To disapprove of others’ beliefs and
behavior is to risk being branded narrow-minded, oppressive, and intolerant. Those who are
intolerant are said to be ignorant, divisive, and prejudiced. They are labeled ideologues and hate
mongers—deplorable persons worthy of censure. Those who hold principles and firmly held
beliefs are considered legalistic individuals with non-negotiable doctrinal convictions.
Consider the requirement of endorsing organizations’ beliefs and values. Albert
Buonanno was fired from his job with AT&T Broadband after he refused to agree to portions of
the company’s employee handbook that he felt violated his religious beliefs. All employees were
required to sign a written acknowledgment that they had received AT&T’s new employee
handbook and sign a “Certificate of Understanding.” The certificate contained a statement that
the employee signing it “agreed with and accepted” all of the terms and provisions of the
handbook, including its policies and rules. The handbook contained a provision that “each person
at AT&T Broadband is charged with the responsibility to fully recognize, respect and value the
differences among all of us,” including “sexual orientation.” However, Mr. Buonanno’s firmly
Journal of Human Resources Education
3
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
held religious beliefs regarding the homosexual lifestyle prevented him from condoning or
approving the practice of homosexuality. Mr. Buonanno shared his concerns with his immediate
supervisor and informed him that he had no problem declaring he would not discriminate against
or harass people who were different from him, including homosexuals, but that he could not sign
the statement because it contradicted his sincerely held religious beliefs. Mr. Buonanno
indicated, “As a Christian, I love and appreciate all people regardless of their lifestyle. But I
cannot value homosexuality and any different religious beliefs” (Henle & Holger, 2004, p. 155).
Buonanno was informed that AT&T would terminate his employment if he refused to sign the
certificate. He declined to sign the certificate and was immediately terminated.
Mr. Buonanno filed suit for wrongful discharge and a federal district judge ruled against
the company and acknowledged that an employee did not have to adopt an organization’s beliefs
when they contradicted the worker’s firmly held religious beliefs. The judge awarded the
plaintiff and former employee, Albert Buonanno, $146,260 in damages (Buonanno v. AT&T,
2004). The Rutherford Institute, which sponsored the litigation, summed up the importance of
the judge’s ruling with the following comment: “Employees shouldn’t be forced to forswear their
religious values in the name of tolerance” (Hudson, 2004, p. 1C).
Yet, not all beliefs and behavior must be accepted. The phenomenon of tolerance is
almost universally recognized by both critics and supporters as central to the liberal tradition
(Murphy, 1997; Oberdiek, 2001) and, for the most part, only those principles, sentiments, ideas,
and political attitudes approved by the shrill and intrusive cultural and political intelligentsia
with their aura of self-assured moral and intellectual superiority must be endorsed.
These elites are “found among academics and intellectuals, in the literary world, in
journals of political opinion, in Hollywood, in the artistic community, in mainline religious
institutions, and in some quarters of the media” (Bennett, 1994, p. 26), and are more powerful
than their numbers would normally allow because they are looked upon as trend setters in areas
such as moral values, political principles, fundamental ideas, and important truths. They write
articles and books, give speeches, make movies, report stories, and often interpret events that
define the permissible and the impermissible, the acceptable and the unacceptable, the preferred
and the disdained; in short, they are the filter through which many Americans are informed about
events. These individuals also have more immediate access to the media and more opportunities
to influence private citizens and society.
Such pundits garner public support in large part because of their ability to frame and
reframe public discussion (Hunter, 2006). Framing involves more than simply taking positions or
arguments about an issue. It involves constructing an issue (e.g., affirmative action, welfare,
nuclear power, health care reform): it spells out the essence of the problem, suggests how it
should be thought about, and may go so far as to recommend what (if anything) should be done
(Entman, 1993). Framing/reframing involves advocates’ attempts to impose their own meaning
on matters of political and moral import (Gamson, 1992).
AUTHENTIC TOLERANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS
Authentic tolerance, as proposed here, lies on a continuum between classical tolerance
which suggests enduring the loathsome while also rejecting the individual and their beliefs, to
Journal of Human Resources Education
4
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
neo-classical tolerance implying nearly blank-check acceptance of differences between people
and the values they hold (see Figure 1). Authentic tolerance allows for respectful discussions of
differences but rejects the grudging forbearance and rejection characteristic of classical tolerance
as well as the unilateral acceptance and approval required by neo-classical tolerance. Authentic
tolerance encourages open discussions from which increased understanding for all positions may
develop and insists on respect for all persons while supporting the right of others to have
differing opinions and practices that do not demand endorsement.
Figure 1. Authentic tolerance relative to classical and neo-classical tolerance
Classical----------------------------------------Authentic--------------------------------------Neo-classical
Tolerance
Tolerance
Tolerance
(endurance)
(respect)
(acceptance)
While at times it may be proper to engage in wordsmithing, spin doctoring, or
framing/reframing (Watzlawick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974), a generally more appropriate action
would be to affectively and cognitively engage in dialogue with someone who is different or
believes differently. Most Americans care little about the subtleties of framing/reframing by
partisans and pundits (Luntz, 2007) and so one way to address understanding is to listen to others
and treat them with respect and dignity as individuals concerned about important issues.
Authentic tolerance, somewhere between the classical and neo-classical definitions, involves
treating people with whom we differ neither with indifference or endurance nor appreciation or
acceptance but with civility and dignity even as it is recognized that some conflict and tension is
inevitable (see Figure 1). Individuals should be shown a basic respect as human beings even if
they hold beliefs many people may not respect. People do not lose their dignity because they
believe implausible, even offensive, things.
The authors argue, as does Hallemeier (2006), for charity toward others with whom there
is disagreement—a charity that includes respect for the other and the acceptance of the other
person as a basic object of moral concern. Charity permits conflict and criticism of others’
beliefs and practices, but it limits the ways in which this conflict can be pursued based on respect
for the person (Swanton, 2003). We believe that asking people to accept and appreciate values
and behaviors that violate their conscience is improper and so developed the idea of authentic
tolerance which revolves around respect and dignity of the individual without necessarily
agreeing or accepting his or her practices or values. Key components of authentic tolerance
involve dialogue and openness to others.
Of course, some may feel that there are certain beliefs or practices that are so
unacceptable that they are unwilling to enter a dialogue with those who keep them. Even so, the
temptation to reflexively categorize alien customs and practices as contemptuous or immoral
must be resisted. Such a judgment may reflect the limits of our own horizon, rather than the truth
of someone else’s point of view. Steven Covey (1989), in his highly regarded text, The Seven
Habits of Highly Effective People, refers to a similar concept when he suggests, “seek first to
Journal of Human Resources Education
5
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
understand, then to be understood” (p. 235); i.e., to better communicate, people must first
actively and empathetically listen to others and understand their situation and concerns and to see
the world from the other person’s perspective before presenting their viewpoints and ideas.
The authentic tolerance suggested here, emphasizing respect and charity is the simple
etiquette of public life that helps maintain the dignity of people and is crucial to citizens’ quality
of life. Authentic tolerance allows differing views to have an equal right to exist, not necessarily
an equal share in truth. These are different issues. Is it intolerant to claim that the sun is the
center of our solar system because others might think that it is the earth? Are scholars considered
intolerant when they believe one hypothesis to be true and another false?
Individuals can be authentically tolerant without accepting another’s beliefs—only the
right of others to have those beliefs. Denying differences is not helpful while acknowledging the
possibility of disagreement gives people the freedom to challenge others with whom they differ.
This opens possibilities for constructive conflict which can improve organizational productivity
(Berstene, 2004). In organizations individuals should be inclusive of people but not necessarily
their beliefs and behaviors. People should listen to and learn from all, but are not obligated to
agree with all. It is sad when it is believed that tolerance, respect, charity, and dignity imply
never saying or doing anything that might upset someone. Indeed, Barrow (2005) goes so far as
to say that those who indicate that they are being offended by an interpretation engage in
“…. one of the supreme self-serving acts. Taking offence, when it means treating one’s
personal hurt as grounds for punitive response, involves a refusal to show tolerance, to
allow freedom or to play fair—for why should you be allowed to say what you want,
when others are denied that right by you?” (Barrow, 2005, p. 273).
DIVERSITY AND TOLERANCE IN ORGANIZATIONS
Easley (2001) discussed how diversity training programs have had limited success
because they do not really address organizational issues and may have conflicting messages from
management. Riccucci (1997) also noted the failure of diversity training programs, possibly
related to the “one shot deal” that might consist of an afternoon seminar, for example, with no
follow-up training to reinforce the key issues. Perhaps one notable example of why diversity
programs have failed would include forcing people to change as demonstrated by the focus on
white males (Riccucci, 1997) when white males were described in negative terms; in fact, entire
diversity programs were developed around what is wrong with white males (Von Bergen, Soper,
& Foster, 2002). This is certainly an indication of intolerance when people cannot be accepted
and included for what they are and are required to change to “fit in”. Authentic tolerance does
not require individuals to change their beliefs or to accept that which is offensive or unacceptable
to them, but to truly respect and include those with differences. This is not about giving up
individuality but about allowing people to be diverse. Neo-classical tolerance as described in this
paper forces acceptance of a set of norms to “belong”, thus dishonoring the initial intent of
diversity.
Why, then, is authentic tolerance essential in organizations? Watad and Perez-Alvarez
(2007) explained the importance and role of knowledge sharing in organizations and how some
Journal of Human Resources Education
6
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
people may not share opinions and ideas, afraid of being wrong or judged negatively by
coworkers. The authors noted that managers must encourage employees to share opinions and to
create an environment sensitive to diversity since failure to do so may create a liability for the
organization. Environments where employees are included and respected through authentic
tolerance are more likely to provide higher productivity than those in which neo-classical
tolerance forces people to accept social norms and opinions with which they may not feel
comfortable or with which they may openly disagree. We believe it is unproductive and
inappropriate to ask a worker to appreciate values and behaviors that violate his or her
conscience. It is indeed ironic that neo-classical tolerance forces individuals to give up their
personal beliefs when diversity itself focuses on acceptance.
IMPLICATIONS
Organizations would do well to establish a culture of authentic tolerance which goes
beyond the typical diversity training exhortations of being more tolerant, valuing and
appreciating differences, and endorsing the belief that that everything is different—not better or
worse—but equal, and that a person’s viewpoint is automatically wrong (intolerant) if it rejects
the equal validity of all opinions. Multicultural training must move beyond such simplistic
perspectives and recognize that there may indeed be significantly dissimilar values, beliefs, and
behavior of program participants that may not be readily reconciled and that encouraging
trainees to value, endorse, affirm, and celebrate differences and to appreciate, respect, and accept
diverging opinions and ways of life is unrealistic and may create additional problems and
difficulties for the good work that diversity programs are designed to do. How can individuals be
asked to accept all people’s values and practices when they may believe that some of those ideas
and behaviors are wrong? How, for example, can one ask supporters on opposite sides of the
abortion and homosexuality debates to accept the validity of each other’s perspectives? Such
contradictory views cannot both be correct.
President Barack Obama spoke of such an ideological tension when he delivered the
commencement address at Notre Dame University in the spring of 2009 amid much public
controversy and protest demonstrations. Some “pro-life” persons thought that the president
should not be invited to speak at a Catholic university because his “pro-choice” position on
abortion is inconsistent with Church doctrine, and many objected to the university awarding him
an honorary degree. The President devoted a section of his address to the protests—not on the
merits of one abortion position over another, but rather on public discourse; i.e., on how
Americans should engage in public debate on issues with which they fundamentally disagree.
Mr. Obama observed that while opposing views would and should be presented with passion and
conviction, they could be done “without reducing those with differing views to caricature”
(Obama, 2009). Then he suggested a model: “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words” in
the context of “... friendship, civility, hospitality and especially love” (Obama, 2009). These
words are remarkably consistent with our concept of authentic tolerance.
Note that respect is accorded to the person. The view that no person’s ideas are any better
or truer than another’s is irrational and absurd. It would be inappropriate to tolerate such things
as racist, sexist, or hate speech. This view is consistent with renowned psychotherapist Albert
Ellis’ (2004) concept of unconditional other-acceptance which declares that one is not required
Journal of Human Resources Education
7
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
to “… tolerate the antisocial and sabotaging actions of other people…. But you always accept
them, their personhood, and you never damn their total selves. You tolerate their humanity while
disagreeing with some of their actions” (Ellis, 2004, p. 212, italics in original).
Authentic tolerance speaks clearly to the need for human resource education and training
for all employees and in particular managers who oversee day-to-day processes with employees.
Organizational leadership and managers should demonstrate the effectiveness of authentic
tolerance on a daily basis so other employees can understand behavior expectations beyond
human resource training and education efforts. For example, an organizational culture that
supports neo-classical tolerance would require everyone to agree with the values, beliefs and
practices of others may reduce employee contributions and set a dangerous precedent that only
some opinions are acceptable. This may create a repressive environment which does not
encourage ideas or thoughts from everyone, thus reducing the number of ideas, employee
participation, and even employee morale. Those who believe they are being forced to accept that
with which they disagree may also resist other changes. When all opinions are not heard there
may be less than effective decision-making, reduced productivity and disengagement; complaints
may also increase. There may also be potential situations where perceptions of discriminatory
practices and EEO issues could arise with individuals.
Implementing authentic tolerance in organizations would require a close examination of
both the organizational culture and human resource education and training practices to determine
how differing beliefs, values, and practices are currently handled in both the workplace and in
education efforts such as training programs. Once an organization has an overall understanding
of current practices, clarity on what specific goals relative to authentic tolerance needs to be
provided and integrated into leadership and management behavior and human resource training
conducted by the organization or by contractors. Specific goals would need to be identified and
aligned with behavioral requirements for all employees including all levels of managers; tracking
these goals with consistent measurement practices and requiring accountability on yearly
evaluations would support efforts to move to an environment where all employee opinions can
be discussed openly and with respect but without repression or forced acceptance.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Historically, the classical view of tolerance involved grudging endurance and simply
allowing differing viewpoints without necessarily agreeing with them. It was not a particularly
noteworthy quality but tolerance is now considered the supreme virtue of U.S. society
(Hallemeier, 2006) and seemingly one of the few non-controversial values today (Kreeft, 2007).
Nearly everyone in American society accepts the significance of tolerance. It is a powerful
selling point for any theory or practice that can claim it. Nowhere is this more evident than the
prominence given to tolerance in education and training programs addressing issues of diversity
(Vogt, 1997).
The ascendance of tolerance occurred as its definition was hijacked by partisan pundits
who wanted to downplay differences and emphasize impartiality across a number dimensions,
from equality of races, sexes, ages, ethnic groups to equality of beliefs, values, practices,
behaviors, and lifestyles. Disagreement with such opinions led to accusations and charges of
Journal of Human Resources Education
8
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
intolerance. Cultural restraints and traditions of mutual respect and common decency that
allowed individuals to debate civilly among themselves, despite their differences, are fast
disappearing. As evidenced by the earlier AT&T case, organizations need to take a close look at
how their diversity strategies deal with tolerance. If the organizational focus favors the neoclassical definition of tolerance, then there may be potential legal problems. We need authentic
tolerance in order to address, with honesty and civility, that which divides us. To speak from
one’s conscience and convictions, which flows from free speech and religious freedom, is not
bigotry as many pundits have indicated. Since individuals are influenced by conflicting
viewpoints often seen in the media, care must be taken to ensure that neo-classical tolerance is
not preventing participation and limiting productivity.
Authentic tolerance as incorporating dignity and respect for individuals without
necessarily sharing in or appreciating others’ beliefs and behavior must supplant the classical and
neo-classical views. Individuals can be truly tolerant without accepting others’ thinking or
convictions. Inclusiveness should not demand that differences be denied. Authentic tolerance
employs respect and dignity for the person but does not require accepting another person’s
belief—only his or her right to have that belief.
The proponents of the neo-classical view of tolerance argue that individuals are free to
believe whatever they like but that they should just keep it private. Rather than keeping beliefs
private, however, the authors agree with sociologist S. D. Gaede who said, “I cannot be mute
about my convictions. . . . It is precisely those convictions that committed me to truth and justice
in the first place” (1993, p. 54). Authentic tolerance does not mean the acceptance and
endorsement of all human behaviors; there are intolerable behaviors, meant to ruin the very
expression of tolerance, such as the propagandas of the fascist or racist types.
All citizens—not necessarily their beliefs, behavior, or values—should be accorded equal
respect in their pursuit of their idea of the good. The idea of a truly pluralistic society where
differing views have an equal and legal right to exist should be vigorously pursued, but not a
society where ideologically driven interest groups and political and cultural elites require all to
accept their worldviews and where disagreement is misconstrued as bigotry, stupidity, and
hatred, and where tolerance simply means forced acceptance. The words of noted English
philosopher William Rowe are fitting: “… those who are most eloquent in demanding freedom
for their own views and practices are the first to deny freedom of thought or action to their
neighbours” (1930).
Finally, it is worth noting that our conceptualization of authentic tolerance is supported
by Eastern philosophical thinking. Asian societies, particularly countries like China, Japan, and
South Korea, stress building harmonious interpersonal relationships through avoidance of
conflict, deference to authority, and compliance with social norms. This is based on the teachings
of Confucius for whom tolerance implies harmony without conformity (Jiang, 2006). This
Confucianism-based principle is clearly consistent with authentic tolerance advocated in this
paper. As such, there are important implications of authentic tolerance not only for human
resources in general but also for specific situations such as cross-cultural managerial practices.
Managers in charge of multinational firms with operations in Asian countries traditionally
influenced by Confucianism would be well-advised to take heed of the proposed concept of
Journal of Human Resources Education
9
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
authentic tolerance and develop their corporate diversity programs accordingly. The more
culturally diverse an organization becomes, the more need there is for authentic tolerance to
support not only true inclusion and respect, but higher levels of productivity. Authentic tolerance
can likewise contribute to organizational effectiveness by examining differences in opinion that
are not suppressed by a need to conform or fear to participate. As Berstene (2004, p. 9) noted,
“…. where everyone agreed on everything there would be no change.”
__________
C. W. Von Bergen, Ph.D., is the John Massey Professor of Management at Southeastern
Oklahoma State University, Durant, Oklahoma, where he teaches a number of business and
management courses at both the graduate and undergraduate levels. Dr. Von Bergen also has
over 20 years experience in consulting across a variety of industries addressing a number of legal
issues related to human resources. Contact: [email protected].
Diane Bandow, PhD, is the Global Campus Chair of Graduate Management for Troy University.
She teaches management courses at the graduate level. Prior to joining Troy University she
retired from AT&T with twenty-two years of experience in several divisions, including Bell
Laboratories. Her research interests are varied, focusing generally on organizational behavior
and IT. Contact: [email protected].
REFERENCES
Barrow, R. (2005). On the duty of not taking offence. Journal of Moral Education, 34, 265–275.
Bennett, W. J. (1994). The de-valuing of America. Colorado Springs, CO: Focus on the Family
Publishing.
Berstene, T. (2004). The inexorable link between conflict and change: Conflict can be managed
to create a positive force for change. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 27(2),
4-9.
Birrell, J. R. (2003). Relativism and the New Meaning of Tolerance in America’s Culture Wars.
Retrieved June 18, 2008, from
http://www.meridianmagazine.com/ideas/030319relativism.html
Buonanno v. AT&T, (D. Col. 2004).
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dreher, R. (2008, August 3). All that we hold sacred. Dallas Morning News, 4P.
Easley, C. A. (2001). Developing, evaluating and managing diversity in the new millennium.
Organization Development Journal, 19(4), 38-50.
Ellis, A. (2004). The road to tolerance: The philosophy of rational emotive behavior therapy.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Journal of Human Resources Education
10
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43, 51-58.
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357-411). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Gaede, S. D. (1993). When tolerance is no virtue: Political correctness, multiculturalism and the
future of truth and justice. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.
Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge.
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Behavior in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson/Prentice-Hall.
Guterman, N. (1963). A book of French quotations, with English translations. [A line in a
February 6, 1770 letter from Voltaire to M. le Riche]. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Hallemeier, J. P. K. (2006). Tolerance, Respect, and Charity: A Virtue-ethical Account of
Interaction with the Other. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from
http://www.dominican.edu/query/ncur/display_ncur.php?id=3113
Henle, C. A., & Holger, R. (2004). The duty of accommodation and the Workplace Religious
Freedom Act of 2003: From bad policy to worse law. Labor Law Journal, 55, 155-165.
Hudson, K. (2004, April 6). Diversity suit loss for cable titan. The Denver Post, p. 1c.
Hunter, J. D. (2006). The enduring culture war. In J. D. Hunter & A. Wolfe (Eds.), Is there a
culture war? A dialogue on values and American public life (pp. 10-40). Washington,
D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Jiang, Y. H. (2006). Confucianism and East Asian public philosophy: An analysis of “harmonize
but not conform.” Paper presented at The 68th Public Philosophy Kyoto Forum UNESCO
International Conference, Kyoto International Conference Hall, April 29-May1. See also
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~jiang/PDF/D11.pdf retrieved August 9, 2008.
Kreeft, P. (2007, January 27). A refutation of moral relativism—Transcription. Argument for
relativism: Tolerance. Retrieved June 18, 2008, from
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm#5
Leonard, J. S., & Levine, D. I. (2003). Diversity, discrimination, and performance.
Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, University of California, Berkeley.
Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-091-03/
Lickona, T. (2002). Making sense of tolerance and diversity. The Fourth and Fifth Rs, 8, 1-3.
Journal of Human Resources Education
11
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, it’s what people hear. New York,
NY: Hyperion.
McDowell, J., & Hostetler, B. (1998). The new tolerance: How a cultural movement threatens to
destroy you, your faith, and your children. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.
Murphy, A. R. (1997). Tolerance, toleration and the liberal tradition. Polity, 29, 593-623.
Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Obama, B. (2009). Obama Calls for ‘Common Ground’ on abortion at Notre Dame. Retrieved
July 25, 2009, from
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/index.html#cnn
STCVideo
Oberdiek, H. (2001). Tolerance: Between forbearance and acceptance. Lanham, MA: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Odell, M. (n. d.). An American idol: “Oxymoronic” tolerance. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from
http://www.ablazerevolution.com/PDFs/AnAmericanIdol.pdf
Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and
practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 129-147.
Riccucci, N. M. (1997). Cultural diversity programs to prepare for Workforce 2000: What’s gone
wrong? Public Personnel Management, 26(1), 35-41.
Rowe, W. (1930). Tolerance. The Philosopher, 8, unknown page numbers. See also the
following web site retrieved on July 17, 2008,
http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/tolerance.htm retrieved July 17, 2008.
Rynes, S., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived
success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247-270.
Stetson, B., & Conti, J. G. (2005). The truth about tolerance: Pluralism, diversity, and the
culture wars. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Swanton, C. (2003). Virtue ethics: A pluralistic view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teaching Tolerance. (n.d.). Search term teaching tolerance entered in Google. Retrieved July
10, 2008, from
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=teaching+tolerance&btnG=Search
Tolerance.org. (n. d.). Fight hate and promote tolerance. Retrieved February 5, 2007, from
http://www.tolerance.org/index.jsp
Journal of Human Resources Education
12
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (1995, November
16). “Declaration of Principles on Tolerance Proclaimed and Signed by the Member
States of UNESCO on 16 November 1995.” Retrieved May 20, 2008 from
http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/tolerance.pdf
Vogt, W. P. (1997). Tolerance & education: Learning to live with diversity and difference.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, B., & Foster, T. (2002). Unintended negative effects of diversity
management. Public Personnel Management, 31, 239-251.
Walzer, M. (1997). On toleration. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Watad, M. M. and Perez-Alvarez, C. (2007). Knowledge sharing and cultural diversity among IT
people: Implications on knowledge management initiatives. Proceedings of the Academy
of Information and Management Sciences, 11(1), 49-53.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and
problem change. New York: Norton.
Weissberg, R. (2008). Pernicious tolerance: How teaching to “accept differences” undermines
civil society. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Pub.
Journal of Human Resources Education
13
Volume 4, No. 1, Winter 2010