Cited by 37Social and Intergroup PsychologyHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationGender Diversity and Inequality

Tolerance: A Neglected Dimension in Diversity Training?

Open access
Gebert, Diether, Buengeler, Claudia, Heinitz, Kathrin·2017·Academy of Management Learning & Education

Abstract

To reduce discrimination and achieve a sustainable integration of an increasingly diverse workforce, organizations invest considerable time and money into diversity training. Despite these efforts, corporate diversity training oftentimes is not effective, as it does not sufficiently enable training participants to constructively deal with diversity. We specify the underlying barriers to learning that may cause diversity training to fail: The trainees’ tendency to keep quiet about their thoughts or to voice them in a dogmatic manner, which is likely to lead to latent or manifest conflicts, hindering learning. We also show why the currently dominant diversity-training models—labeled according to their objectives as “equal opportunities,” “integrating minorities,” and “inclusion via ‘me’ within ‘we’”—do not suffice to overcome these barriers to learning, largely due to dysfunctional beliefs of the trainers, as these shape learning processes, and thus, training success. Proposing that tolerance acts as a vehicle to overcoming the barriers to learning in diversity training, we introduce a training model focused on fostering tolerance and sustained by tolerance-supportive trainer beliefs. We discuss training measures that could aid the development of tolerance in trainees, limitations of our tolerance-centered diversity training, and venues for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amle.2015.0252

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gebert, D., Buengeler, C., & Heinitz, K.
Affiliations
  • Tongji University (CN)
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
Venue
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Published
2017-09
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
415-438
ISSN
  • 1537-260X (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9585
OpenAlex
W2541747962
Cited by
37
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
5.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Academy of Management Learning and Education (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
tolerance, diversity training, barriers to learning, equal opportunities, inclusion, workplace diversity, organizational integration, training effectiveness, dysfunctional attitudes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review