British Values Spotlight: Mutual respect and tolerance

As part of British culture, we are urged to respect the differences that each of us brings, while building on our commonalities.

‘Mutual respect and tolerance’ is one of the fundamental British values set out by the UK government. As a subset of this, the freedom to hold other faiths and beliefs is protected in law.

In essence, this means acknowledging that we don't all share the same ways of thinking and should respect (or at least tolerate) the beliefs of others instead of trying to impose our own.

The moral worth of every individual

For the seeds of this British Value, we can say "danke" to the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued in the 18^th Century that mutual respect stems from the fact that each of us is capable of using our reason to come to our own conclusions on matters that concern us.

Kant thought that each of us could, and should, use our reason to respectfully debate, discuss and collectively improve our thinking; all while bearing in mind the humbling thought that none of us holds a monopoly on truth. While there may be no requirement to actively celebrate ideas with which we disagree, we should at least tolerate them respectfully.

The paradox of tolerance

But isn’t there a paradox here? In the 1940s, as Nazism was spreading across Europe, the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper warned of the ‘paradox of tolerance’. He noted that for a tolerant society to thrive, it must promote and respect diverse and diverging viewpoints, but it also must draw a line if those views would themselves lead to a fundamentally intolerant society.

So, while British citizens are required to respect and tolerate the ideologies, beliefs and traditions of others, the UK’s Prevent strategy requires us to root out the intolerant extremism which poses an existential threat to our communities, organisations and which would reject the fundamental British values of democracy, rule of law and individual liberty.

We can be too tolerant, it seems. But is there a limit on respect?

Is it respectful to talk about ‘human resources’?

Kant's idea that mutual respect starts from treating each other as ends in themselves and never as means to an end is rather lovely, but it does raise questions about its application in the workplace. In almost any work setting, there is a practical need to view employees as a means to achieving organisational ends.

While there is an inherent tension between treating employees as ends in themselves and using them as instrumental resources, we can perhaps move towards more respectful treatment when we offer employees greater autonomy around how they work, act fairly and consistently, encourage open dialogue, foster a psychologically safe environment and refuse to discriminate.

And perhaps most importantly, when organisations are able to embody a deeper purpose that aligns with the values of employees, those employees are more likely to be content to agree implicitly be used as means to achieving that end.

This tension of whether organisations see their people primarily as ends or means is perhaps reflected in the re-branding of many ‘HR’ departments. While ‘human resources’ rebranded itself in the 1980s to signal a harder edged approach and move away from the ‘fluffier’ ‘personnel’ of the 1960s, the pendulum is perhaps swinging the other way today as employees look for more purpose from an increasing number of ‘people’ departments.

Whatever you call it, the ever-changing name of this function and what is represents about the organisational values and philosophy behind it is a debate that Kant would no doubt have enjoyed; with the greatest respect, of course.