Developing inclusive leaders with religious literacy in the workplace

Overview

When religious extremists attack civilians in places like Germany, Brussels, and France, Muslims in the United States feel agony twice (Hellyer, 2016). The first is the same agony their neighbors feel: the agony of seeing their country attacked by offenders who misapply and abuse religious beliefs to warrant gruesome actions and attacks against the innocent (Hellyer, 2016). The second agony is often theirs to carry alone: the agony of being religiously profiled in the airport or from being profiled as supporting the attackers because they are Muslim (Hellyer, 2016).

Several public incidents highlight how conflict around religion has created a breeding ground for myths, insolation, profiling, misunderstanding, and even hate. A 2016 US presidential proposal to bar foreign Muslims from entering the country has had a polarizing impact on those who are Muslim. An August 2017 protest in Charlottesville, Virginia included marginalizing chants of “Jews will not replace us.” The year 2017 represented the largest 1 year increase of anti-Semitic incidents in US history. Regardless of one’s political affinity, public debates and confrontations can have rippling effects beyond political discourse. Consider that these debates can represent employee beliefs that have the potential to bleed into coworker encounters in the workplace and cause conflict, marginalization, and discrimination related to religion. These religious conflicts have the potential to create a level of workplace prejudice and discrimination that can hamper employee engagement, employee commitment, and the accomplishment of organizational goals.

Consider how it might impact an organization if, because of employees’ religion, they were profiled and reacted to in a way that perpetuates double standards about who is a real threat and who is an imaginary one based on prejudice (Malik, 2012). Perhaps the clearest examples of this manifestation include the religious, racial, cultural, and ethnic demographics of those who have actively engaged in terrorist attacks against Americans in the United States. These attackers have often had other religious backgrounds then being Muslim. The evidence includes the racial and religious backgrounds of those who perpetrated the mass shooting of nine African American church attendees by Dylan Roof in South Carolina, the mass shooting at Parkland High in Florida, the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, the mass shooting in Las Vegas, and the Oklahoma City federal building bombing. To many families and communities, the Oklahoma City terror attack is just as devastating at the terror attack of September 11, 2001 (9/11), and yet Christian, white males like Timothy McVey are not religiously and racially profiled in the manner of other religious groups.

The public narrative is that Muslims who commit violence are considered the norm among Muslims, whereas Christians who commit violence are treated as individuals. For example, members of ISIS consider themselves to be Muslims, and members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) consider themselves to be Christians. In 2014, a Virginia leader of the KKK classified the organization as a nonviolent Christian organization and stated that he considered it a falsehood that the KKK is a violent organization (Ashtari, 2015). KKK members have crosses on their robes, burn crosses to terrorize others, have firebombed African American churches, and have a history of bringing Bibles to attacks that have harmed and murdered men, women, and children. The KKK has a history of terrorizing, threatening, torturing, and killing people of color and of Jewish faith. Yet Christians are not being questioned by politicians or co-workers, and no public figure has proposed that they be banned for their faith. All Christians are not asked to carry the burden of the behaviors of the members the KKK, and yet those of other faiths are not given that same courtesy. These same conflicting, missing mutual courtesies and negative public narratives can manifest themselves in workplace discussions, interactions, and dialogs. These issues create a thorny landscape for conflict and a new normal for organizational leaders who now need new organizational and managerial focus areas and skills.

Shocking is Louisiana Congressman John Cooksey’s comment, “If I see someone come in that’s got a diaper on his head and a fan belt wrapped around that diaper on his head, that guy needs to be pulled over” (Ibish, 2003). The crux of the problem is often a lack of knowledge and understanding of those who are of a different background, culture, or religion. When elected government officials engage in this very public stereotyping behavior, it outlines the very narrow mainstream view of Sikhs in the United States as being radicalized—and, worse, suggests that many people who are engaging each other do not even know the basic religious differences between Muslims and Sikhs.

In today’s workplace, a lack of understanding and literacy about people of different religions encompasses a social construction of race and religion with a conflicting capacity for a negative public narrative of “what Muslims are” and “who they are” according to a characterization of non-Christians, which paints them with a broad brush (Malik, 2012). Within this context, race and religion function as an uninformed, uneducated manifestation of a collective group identity, which purports the view that all members of that group share a singular cultural and religious belief system (Malik, 2012). Moreover, the dominant group structures uninformed conversations about race and religion in ways designed to benefit itself, assigning itself the highest ranking while demoting others to lower social standing (Malik, 2012).

Since 9/11, race and religion have served as demarcating boundaries for which groups are favored or embraced and which groups should be ostracized or feared in Western society (Malik, 2012). The construction of racial and religious superiority can be infused into culture and the workplace in ways that serve to sustain racist beliefs and religious misunderstandings (Burrell et al., 2009). Problematic for leaders in the workplace is how employees can develop false assumptions that can negatively influence their interactions with others of different backgrounds and faiths (Steinberg, 2001).

Former NBC Nightly News anchor Tom Brokaw called Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim entry into the United States an intolerant and fear-mongering perspective that follows down the path of some of the most shameful events of intolerance in history, including the confining of Japanese Americans into internment camps after Pearl Harbor, the Nazi genocide of Jews during World War II, and the historical discrimination against African Americans in the United States (Marans, 2015). He went on to quote historical substantiation of past events, human abuses driven by fear and prejudice to dictate policy and shameful behavior in all spaces, including the workplace (Burrell, 2015).

Labeling

In the field of sociology, the act of labeling is often used to differentiate one group of people from another, often thereby discriminating against and stereotyping people (Becker, 1963). According to Rahim (2010), this characterization of a group of people based on assumptions, personal or social opinions, religious perspectives, isolated behaviors, or any other unfounded evidence can be very harmful and damaging to the person, the group and (with respect to this research) even community agencies.

Obviously, the US population, which includes leadership employees at all levels of organizations, is concerned about safety and terrorism. However, the narrative that justifies profiling and prejudice about who is a real threat is often in conflict with the actual backgrounds and religions of those that have engaged in mass shootings and domestic terrorism in the United States.

The frustration-aggression theory was an early attempt to understand prejudice (Dollard et al., 1939). This model suggests that prejudice is a form of displacing aggression and anger from in-group members onto out-groups. Hogg and Cooper (2003) define prejudice as “a socially shared judgment or evaluation of a particular group including feelings (affect) associated with judgment” (433). Stephan and Stephan (2000) outline how the integrated threat theory explains the underlying mechanisms of prejudice in terms of behaviors, thoughts, and intergroup relations. According to Stephan and Stephan (2000), the basic assumption of this theory is that perceived threat from an out-group is at the core of negative attitudes and prejudice toward the out-group.

Adams and Joshi (2010) assert that a discussion of religious oppression should not focus specifically squarely on “Individual dimensions of faith and belief, but [rather] on the societal role of religion in justifying and helping to maintain a social system characterized by religious domination and subordination” (228). An image that comes to mind is the idea of religious supremacy and religious oppression where people who are outside of one’s faith tell others what that faith is and believes as a result of the public narrative about that religion, which is often viewed as the other. Consider that a level of oppression could even be as simple as attempting to change, or not embracing, someone else’s religious values or beliefs because they are different from one’s own (Burrell et al., 2009). It could be as extreme as threats; the desecration of religious symbols and objects in public to express that another’s religion is un-welcome; and/or behaviors that apply rigorous force in suppressing views that are different in efforts to purge organizations and communities of nonconforming or differing religious practices and views (Adams and Joshi, 2010). These behaviors can manifest in the ways employees engage each other in the workplace—and can require an advanced level of leadership skills and training to minimize the potential damage. That damage can be as severe as lawsuits or employee turnover, and can also result in employees being marginalized and bullied, which can consequently result in their becoming disengaged (Burrell, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009).

Whether acknowledged or ignored, these cultural and religious considerations have not only changed how employees should be treated and managed, they have also caused a complex cultural evolution of the workplace itself (Burrell, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009). While many people might believe that having open and public religious activities and viewpoints is appropriate in the workplace, the growth of religious and cultural diversity in America has changed the nature of managing in the workplace and has increased the need for new subject matters with regard to leadership and diversity training (Burrell, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009).

Figures 1 and 2 are pictures of real bumper stickers seen on vehicles in the parking lots of two organizations in Virginia and North Carolina.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Real Bumper Sticker.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Real Bumper Sticker.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Interfaith and Religious Diversity and Inclusion (DNBIFI) model.

Imagine how a Muslim or Jewish employee would feel if they entered their company’s parking lot and saw one of these bumper stickers on a co-worker’s car. Anti-Semitic incidents in the United States increased by almost 60% in 2017—the largest increase of any year to date (Shugerman, 2018). According to the Anti-Defamation League, bomb threats against Jewish institutions have increased 41% in 1 year (Abramson, 2018). In 2012, a gunman shot five Sikh worshipers because of assumptions about their religion (Anderson, 2017). The Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports that since 2001, more than 20% of the EEO complaints were connected to religious discrimination. The EEOC annually investigates bias against Muslims, even though they only make up less than 2% of the US population (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). These public incidents manifest themselves in the workplace in several ways that require leaders at all levels to mandate new training and new areas of knowledge in order to mitigate negative outcomes.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring and firing or with regards to any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job-differential, adverse treatment specifically based on religion, such as removing an employee from a customer contact position because they wear a turban or another outward indicator of religious faith. In addition, Title VII requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees unless doing so would cause more than a minimal hardship on the operation of the employer’s business (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his/her religion (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018).

In the 2016 fiscal year, there were 3825 EEOC charges filed based on allegations of religious discrimination—up from 3502 in the 2015 fiscal year. There has been more than a 50% increase in cases filed with the EEOC from 2006 to 2016 (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2018). These EEOC cases include the following examples:

In 2015, Samantha Elauf sued Abercrombie and Fitch. She claimed that because she wore a head scarf, Abercrombie and Fitch did not offer her a job because her religious identity violated Abercrombie’s “look policy.” In his opinion, Supreme Court Justice Scalia outlined that the company was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law. (Liptak, 2015)

These cases demonstrate the complex nature of managing and leading employees of diverse religions in the workplace in a reality in which most mandatory organizational diversity training fails to properly inform or expose leaders (at all levels) to interfaith education and religious literacy (Burrell et al., 2009).

The inclusive workplace is guided by a set of values that drive its policies and practices (Burrell et al., 2009). Using an ecosystems perspective, this section describes these values as they pertain to varying organizational levels, from the micro to the macro level (Rahim, 2010). An organization’s actions, like a person’s behavior, are informed by its values, whether explicit or implicit (Burrell, 2015; Rahim, 2010). Traditionally, leadership diversity training and related conversations have had a strong focus specifically on gender, race, and ethnicity (Burrell et al., 2009). However, diversity has evolved today to include and address other dimensions of difference (Burrell, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009). These evolving components of diversity and difference include challenges to traditional viewpoints about marriage, discussions about the nature of gender identity, and public confrontations of the structures and systems that hinder the inclusivity of multidimensional identities, including religious beliefs or other ideologies (Burrell et al., 2009). Because diversity is complex, it is imperative that organizations provide training and education and that they establish ongoing engagement and training and monitoring processes to develop, at every level, leaders who respect, support, celebrate, and tolerate an organizational culture that is diverse, respective, and inclusive (Burrell, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009; Hubbard, 2008).

Traditionally, the American leadership approach to diversity has been for people of different races, colors, and religions to assimilate into homogeneous American customs, values, and religions (Burrell et al., 2009). Historically, immigrants and minorities were expected to deemphasize their own cultural, religious, and language familiarities so that they fit in. The burden of change was always placed on immigrants and minorities to assimilate (Burrell et al., 2009). This expectation carried over to the workplace, where organizations historically expected those subordinates who were different to bear the burden of adjusting or attempting to camouflage those parts of their identity that differentiated them culturally, racially, and religiously to fit in (Burrell et al., 2009; Hubbard, 2008). The approach was that cultural assimilation was the process that best ensured cohesiveness—because, without it, there would be organizational incongruence (Burrell, 2015; Thomas, 1991). The diversity problems related to many religions in the workplace are not caused by the changing composition of the workforce itself, but rather by the inability of work organizations to truly integrate and use a heterogeneous workforce at all levels of the organization (Burrell et al., 2009; Thomas, 1991).

These complexities are a byproduct of the evolving definition of the word “diversity” (Hubbard, 2008; Thomas, 1991). During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, diversity in organizations meant increasing difference: providing access to people who had historically been denied access to certain rights and benefits to which other groups undeniably had access (Anderson, 2005). Diversity in the 1970s evolved to a stage where the number of marginalized groups gaining access to new workplace job opportunities increased, diversity evolved into responding to difference where experiences of diversity and its impact on how individuals were treated or mistreated started to become more widely addressed (Anderson, 2005). In the 1980s, the definition of diversity expanded to include incorporating difference into the fabric of the institution itself (Anderson, 2005). Diversity also meant learning about difference through a curriculum that included courses on learning about the “other” (Anderson, 2005). The definition of diversity evolved into understanding the complexity of difference including the multidimensional identities that people claim, which places them in multiple groups simultaneously (Sue, 2010).

Managing today requires leaders to understand conflicting viewpoints about the power in difference and the place that social justice or equity efforts have in challenging systems that privilege one group over the other (Wytsma, 2017). Often, historical perspectives have the propensity to manifest in interactions that influence how employees feel valued or devaluated in the workplace (Burrell, 2015). According to Sue (2010), tolerance, or being tolerated, is not the same as being embraced and fully included. According to Hubbard (2008), true diversity and inclusion establish an architectural framework that has to be built into an organization’s foundation, core values, and leadership culture in a way that it becomes aspect of the organization’s strategic vision around employee talent management.

The importance of employee engagement

The challenge of having to conceal important aspects of your culture, background, and religion in order to fit in is expected. The result is often people living a divided life in which they feel forced to ignore or defy their values in order to fit in and be accepted (Palmer, 2008). Consider a workplace where an employee feels the need to hide their religion, is harassed for their religious beliefs or is bullied. Will the impact of those interactions make that employee more willing to bring their best self to team projects and work assignments when they must navigate an environment of micro-aggression and marginalization? A Gallup survey showed that more than half of the American workforce claims to be disengaged at work (Gallup, 2013).

Disengaged employees cost the United States $450 billion to $550 billion in lost productivity per year (Sorenson and Garman, 2013). Interactions in which employees feel that they are being mistreated can have some lasting effects on employees and their sense of belonging and worth in the organization (Sue, 2010). The “looking glass-self,” a concept created by Charles Cooley (1902), supports the theory that individuals learn to see themselves, their acceptance, and their worth based on how others view them and interact with them. According to Rahim (2010), the “looking glass-self” is the idea that all individuals can feel worthy or unworthy, accepted or not accepted, and included or not included, based on how others interact with them and treat them. Under this theory, stereotyped individuals often withdraw and even isolate themselves in ways that can integrate the label forced upon them by others as their identity or sense of self-worth (Rahim, 2010).

Organizational commitment is the traditional concept through which researchers have sought to better understand employee turnover based on how employees feel connected or disconnected to the organization and its culture (Sumner, 2018). Organizational commitment is driven by employee interactions and experiences. These interactions and experiences, which could be positive or negative, influence the level of employee organizational loyalty as it relates to their intentions to leave or to stay the organization (Sumner, 2018).

Additionally, business sustainability is also impacted by employee development and employee stability, which means that employee turnover is often driven by a workplace culture that either highly engages or fails to effectively engage their employees. Research by the Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) found, “Religious and spiritual diversity should not be just about human resource policies and practices. An organization’s ability to recognize, embrace, and function in a religious and spiritually diverse world is critical to its sustainability strategy” (SHRM, 2008). This means that organizations that are not inclusive, flexible, and respectful to those of diverse religious and spiritual values could potentially have employee turnover issues, religious discrimination lawsuits, and disengaged employees, all of which could negatively influence organizational productivity and organizational results (Sumner, 2018).

Consider when employees leave an organization. For a salaried employee paid $60,000 annually, it will cost the company anywhere from $30,000 to $45,000 to hire and train a replacement. This number could be higher if an employee has more specialized job skills and expertise (Boushey and Glynn, 2012; Kantor, 2017). It typically costs a company about one-fifth of an employee’s salary to replace that employee. While it usually costs businesses more to replace employees who are the highest paid, costs are not typically less significant for replacing low-earning employees. According to Boushey and Glynn (2012) for workers who earn less than $50,000 a year (a category which includes three-quarters of all US workers), a typical turnover cost is 20% of the worker’s salary (Boushey and Glynn, 2012). This reality has long-term implications for business profitability.

A study by SHRM (2008) regarding religion and corporate America found that a growing number of employees are bringing their religion and spirituality to work. Among its key findings, “employee morale and employee retention are most affected by having a workplace that provides religious accommodation for its employees” (SHRM, 2008). The spiritually related diversity of organizations was found to be notable, with 64% reporting some degree of religious/spiritual diversity among their employees (SHRM, 2008). An individual’s sense of workplace spirituality and their high feelings of comfort in the organizational climate has been found to be a critical factor in the level of employee commitment and satisfaction (Kolodinsky et al., 2008: 465; Sumner, 2018). Meanwhile, personal spirituality has been found to be “positively related to intrinsic, extrinsic, and total work rewards satisfaction” (Kolodinsky et al., 2008: 465).

According to Sorenson and Garman (2013), highly engaged organizations that have the ability tap into the collective intelligence, expertise, and contributions of more employees perform considerably better than those organizations that fail to do so as effectively. The concept of employee engagement describes the degree to which employees are involved with, dedicated to, enthusiastic about, and passionate about their work (Gruman and Saks, 2011; Sumner, 2018). Effective employee engagement refers to creating a positive, nurturing, and satisfying culture for employees in a way that leads employees to actively express and invest themselves emotionally, cognitively, and physically in their role performance (Rurkkhum, 2010). Although there are slightly different views in defining employee engagement (Sirota et al., 2005), in the human resources literature, employee engagement is generally agreed to be a psychological facet that encompasses energy, enthusiasm, and engrossed effort (Gruman and Saks, 2011; Sumner, 2018). Researchers commonly describe engaged employees as individuals who are highly energized and highly resilient in performing their jobs; who put their heart into their jobs with persistence and willingness to invest effort; who exhibit strong work involvement along with experiencing feelings of significance, enthusiasm, passion, inspiration, pride, excitement, and challenge from their work, and who fully concentrate on and immerse themselves in their work without noticing that time passes (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Sumner, 2018).

A workplace’s psychological climate is based on an individual’s perceptions or interpretations of organizational environments—including structures, processes, and events (McHugh, 2014; Sumner, 2018). It pertains to the degree to which an individual feels that the environment is psychologically meaningful and safe enough to influence motivational, affective, and attitudinal reactions (Baltes et al., 2009; Sumner, 2018). According to McHugh (2014), collective intelligence in an organizational context can be defined as the phenomenon that occurs when a collective, acting as such, has greater intelligence than it would have had if its members were to be acting as individuals or groups (where “intelligence” refers to an ability to solve problems). This happens when there is a collaborative and inclusive climate where all individuals’ ideas, perspectives, and contributions are valued and utilized (McHugh, 2014).

This is a monumental challenge, as performance excellence depends on the organization’s ability to direct employee behavior toward collective goals. This requires the ability to create a safe and inclusive place where individuals of diverse backgrounds, cultures, genders, races, and religions are valued and respected (Burrell, 2015). These challenges have forced organizations to seek and develop leaders with higher levels of awareness, comprehension, knowledge, and sensitivity concerning the importance and value of diversity (Burrell, 2015; Hubbard, 2008). Fry and Egel (2017) state that an organization’s ability to grow, survive, and compete in a competitive environment is often dependent on how organizations develop a learning and developmental culture that can adapt to change.

Eilertsen (2017) states that today’s progressive and forward-thinking organizations focus on creating organizational cultures in which all employees feel their opinions, experiences, and viewpoints are valued and respected. Doing so requires a huge shift in how organizations honor, value, and support the diverse experiences and backgrounds of their employees (Eilertsen, 2017). For business leaders, embracing authentic leadership that values to human development (including their own development) requires a more evolved servant-oriented leadership framework that respects and values diverse experiences and perspectives in ways that have compassion for the whole person (Eilertsen, 2017).

To do so, however, requires awakened and highly enlightened servant leaders (Greenleaf, 2003) with an authentic connection to higher moral principles—heightened awareness and sensitivity to the plight of others in ways that place tremendous value on everyone’s ability to contribute (Eilertsen, 2017). Servant Leadership approaches are different and sharp contrast to the ego-feeding conventional model that functions on the premise that employees are there to serve their manager (Eilertsen, 2017).

To accomplish the necessary shift, a number of thought leaders have challenged employees on every level to critically understand the importance and value of fostering positive and constructive workplace relationships and interactions in the organizational culture on every level. Relevant this perspective is Sue’s (2010) research on the impact of damaging interactions and marginality in the workplace; Hubbard’s (2008) work on how to maximize and leverage diversity in organizations; Chapman and White’s (2012) research on the importance of valuing and appreciating employees; Robert Greenleaf’s work on the importance and benefits of becoming a servant leader (Greenleaf, 2003); Branham’s (2012) perspectives on the hidden reasons why employees leave; and Whitney and Trosten-Bloom’s (2010) insights on the value of appreciative leadership. Today, progressive and inclusive organizations are instilling this belief by establishing the conditions and cultures that encourage individuals from diverse backgrounds and religions to feel welcomed and valued (Burrell, 2015). The result is often the creation of a learning culture (for leaders at all levels) in ways that make places of employment become dynamic learning organizations (James, 2017).

According to James (2017), learning occurs and is shared at every level of the organization. As more and more learning about best practices and new ideas is shared throughout the organization, the organization improves its chances to adapt and grow (James, 2017). This growth necessitates new systems and ways of managing growth (James, 2017).

Ultimately, organizational leaders need to foster discussions among people of diverse backgrounds and religions through training activities, collaborative projects and partnerships in ways that encourage them to get to know each other and gain better levels of understanding through constructive interactions rather than destructive misunderstandings (Burrell et al., 2009). This approach should become a key aspect of diversity and inclusion as well as of employee engagement activities (Burrell, 2015; Sumner, 2018).

Leadership should encourage positive interfaith engagement at work

The importance of focusing on building positive relationships, trust, and appropriate communication skills in interfaith, inter-religious, and intercultural dialogue is critical in managing conflict (Shafiz and Abu-Nimer, 2011). Developing literacy and understanding of those from diverse religions is a critical aspect of building effective interfaith dialogue (Patel, 2016). When considering interfaith dialogue, Shafiq and Abu-Nimer (2011) state that those who might be fearful of interfaith dialogue may view such a dialogue as being “an act of disbelief in their own religion” (14). Religious literacy and interfaith dialog in the workplace is not about placing employees in situations where they themselves may feel as if they are being required to disbelieve in their religion. Shafiq and Abu-Nimer (2011) outline that interfaith dialogue is not meant to unify religions, but rather to educate and engage those of different faiths in a curious but constructive manner. It assumes that participants do not have to abandon their own religion to fully become immersed in the comprehension of, and in learning about, others’ religions (Shafiz and Abu-Nimer, 2011).

According to Shafiq and Abu-Nimer (2011), the purposes of interfaith dialogue are to struggle against negative conditioning and fanaticism and to open the door for listening, communication, and respect. Interfaith dialogue means holding on to one’s own faith while simultaneously trying to understand another person’s faith (Patel, 2016). It demands honesty and respect from participants, so that all individuals may present their religions sincerely (Patel, 2016). Uniformity and agreement are not the goals; rather, the intent is to use collaboration to educate in ways that allow people to better understand, respect, and appreciate the tenants and customs of those of diverse religions that could be similar to their own or diverse from their own (Abu-Nimer, 2011). The result is that well-intentioned and constructive engagement creates a fertile ground for understanding that is based on truths instead of stereotypes, inaccuracies, negative sensationalism, and discriminatory profiling (Patel, 2016).

It is critical to remember that religious discrimination claims and lawsuits are areas for legal liability for organizations. Thus, training that helps leaders and employees at all levels understand, respect, and appreciate the perspectives of people with diverse religious beliefs is critical to creating and inclusive and respectful of organizational culture (Burrell et al., 2009). This new area of engaging employees requires leaders to move beyond tolerance to embrace and include people of diverse and minority religions (Burrell et al., 2009). This is because striving for toleration may, in fact, have undesirable consequences. Something that is tolerated is usually something one finds unsatisfactory (Niebuhr, 2008). To “tolerate” means to endure, to suffer or to put up with a person, activity, idea or organization of which or whom one does not approve (Niebuhr, 2008). Thus, advocating tolerance may result not in intergroup understanding but, rather, may sanction group isolation, breed intergroup resentment and result in a certain type of paralysis (Niebuhr, 2008). When groups are tolerated, there is no need to go beyond toleration to respect—because there is no requirement of understanding. Since toleration implies this sense of nonapproval, too much toleration may breed resentment rather than an acceptance or real recognition of the other group (Niebuhr, 2008).

A driving force behind understanding the definition, practice, and idea of religion is the concept of religious literacy (Burrell et al., 2009). On a superficial level, religious literacy is similar to cultural competence in that it is about having a level of respect for those whose practices are different from one’s own (Patel, 2016). This respect for others who are different and who practice different faiths is important for good citizenship (Patel, 2016). On a more complex level, religious literacy is important for understanding diverse religions in an accurate and truthful sense (Patel, 2016). As such, education on religious diversity or religious literacy honors and attends to individuals’ knowledge and ways of understanding in a way that is driven by respect; thus it forms the foundation for effective interfaith dialog and action (Patel, 2016). People often identify culturally with their religion; elitist, coercive, deriding actions can lead to tremendous hurt, offense, and conflict (Patel, 2016). Patel (2016) explains that structured and facilitated engagement and discussions can be a useful approach for deeper moral consensus in ways that perpetuate the likelihood of collaboration and respectful engagement over that of abrasive confrontations.

The authors propose the use of the Darrell Norman Burrell Interfaith and Religious Diversity and Inclusion (DNBIFI) model, which provides a developed framework that itself provides a roadmap for promoting constructive dialogue and engagement (see Figure 3).

Darrell Norman Burrell Interfaith and Religious Diversity and Inclusion (DNBIFI) model