The tolerant leader must also be intolerant: how could this work?

In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper introduced what he called the paradox of tolerance: if a society is tolerant without limit, its tolerance will eventually be destroyed by the intolerant. His argument was not a call for authoritarianism but a reminder that openness survives only when it is actively protected. A community that refuses to set boundaries ultimately loses the very conditions that make openness possible.

Although Popper was writing about political systems, the same dynamic plays out consistently inside organisations. Teams want to be inclusive, flexible, and psychologically safe. Leaders want to give people autonomy and space. Yet when harmful behaviour goes unchallenged, often in the name of being “fair”, “kind”, or “tolerant”, the culture slowly bends around the behaviour that causes the most friction. This is how cultures drift: not through dramatic events, but through small acts of tolerance that accumulate over time.

Conflict is often the first sign that something in the system needs attention. Most workplace conflict is not about personality; it is about behaviour. Someone interrupts repeatedly. Someone uses humour that excludes. Someone avoids accountability, leaving others to carry the load. A high performer behaves poorly, and leaders look away because “they deliver”. In each case, conflict emerges because someone wants something to change. Popper’s insight helps us see this clearly: when leaders tolerate behaviour that undermines safety or fairness, that behaviour becomes the cultural norm. The intolerant, or simply the inconsiderate, set the tone for everyone else.

Communication is usually the first tool leaders reach for, and rightly so. Popper argued that intolerant ideas should first be met with rational argument and public scrutiny. In organisational life, this translates into naming behaviour early, explaining its impact, and inviting dialogue. Amy Edmondson’s research on psychological safety reinforces this: teams thrive when people can speak up, challenge ideas, and raise concerns without fear. Clear, respectful communication is the first line of defence.

But communication alone cannot carry the full weight of culture. When behaviour persists despite feedback, leaders must move beyond conversation. Otherwise, communication becomes a ritual rather than a mechanism for change. This is where boundaries come in — the organisational equivalent of Popper’s claim that a tolerant society must reserve the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Boundaries are not punitive; they are protective. They safeguard the team’s ability to collaborate, the psychological safety of individuals, and the organisation’s ability to deliver on its purpose. A boundary might be as simple as “We do not interrupt each other in this team” or “Humour that targets individuals is not acceptable here”. Boundaries are how leaders defend the conditions that allow tolerance, diversity, and inclusion to flourish. Without them, culture becomes permissive rather than inclusive.

Clarity plays a similar role. Edgar Schein, one of the most influential thinkers on organisational culture, argued that culture is shaped by what leaders pay attention to, reward, and tolerate. Silence is a form of reinforcement. Ambiguity is a form of permission. When expectations are unclear, teams fill the gaps with workarounds, avoidance, and whispered frustration. Clarity about expectations, norms, and consequences is the antidote to cultural drift. It is not rigidity; it is the scaffolding that allows people to work with freedom and safety.

Real‑world examples show what happens when tolerance goes too far. Uber’s early culture, for instance, prized performance and aggression. Leaders tolerated harassment and exclusion because the company was growing fast. Eventually, the intolerant behaviours became the culture itself, requiring a complete leadership overhaul. The BBC’s failure to act on concerns about Jimmy Savile is another stark example: organisational silence allowed harm to continue for decades. And on a societal scale, New Zealand’s response to the Christchurch terror attacks, including the Christchurch Call, illustrates Popper’s principle in action: a tolerant society must not tolerate violent extremism.

These examples, though very different in scale and consequence, point to the same truth. Tolerance without boundaries is not neutral. It is dangerous.

Leaders often feel torn between wanting to be compassionate and needing to protect the team. Popper’s paradox offers a way through this tension. It reminds us that it is entirely possible, and often necessary to be deeply tolerant of difference while being completely intolerant of behaviours that harm others. This is not hypocrisy. It is stewardship. Good leadership is not about avoiding conflict; it is about using conflict as a site of learning, accountability, and cultural protection.

This is especially important in public sector organisations, where responsibilities extend beyond performance to include stewardship, fairness, and equity. A culture that tolerates harmful behaviour cannot uphold these commitments. To serve the public well, organisations must protect diverse voices, ensure psychological safety, prevent exclusion, and maintain boundaries that uphold mana and dignity. This is the organisational expression of Popper’s insight: to protect openness, we must be willing to draw lines.

In the end, the paradox of tolerance is not just a philosophical idea. It is a practical leadership principle. Tolerance without boundaries leads to permissiveness. Boundaries without tolerance lead to authoritarianism. Healthy culture lives in the space between where leaders communicate clearly, intervene early, and protect the conditions that allow people to thrive. The real question is not whether leaders should be tolerant or firm. The real question is what must be protected so that everyone can belong, contribute, and do their best work.