A couple of responses have questioned the effectiveness of the approach
Diane Weston described.
If the intention behind trying to understand a person's reasons for
resisting change is to "re-frame" the change in a way that will be more
acceptable to him or her, then I'm not surprised to hear people call it
"manipulative."
If, on the other hand, the intention behind trying to understand these
reasons is to understand the reasons (and possibly re-design the planned
change, the transition process or the focus of the change, etc.), then I
call it "respectful."
One real possible outcome of trying to understand a person's reasons for
disagreeing with a change is to agree to disagree, to go ahead with the
change, and to ask for this person's support regardless. In my experience,
having made the attempt to understand each point of view makes this a much
less problematic outcome (fewer land mines waiting down the road).
Marilyn Darling
mdarling@warren.med.harvard.edu