172 Chapter 7 resistance – and its manifestations and causes – in the early stage of an implementation process helps to respond appropriately overcome stagnation (Kayzel, 2002, pp. 86+99). ‘Kites rise on an opposing wind’ – Chinese proverb It is possible – and in my opinion, desirable – to consider resistance on a more positive note (Schaap, 2019). Resistance can be seen as an understandable reaction, which may show helpful insights on improving conditions within an organization (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). As the above Chinese proverb illustrates, challenging times often give opportunities to learn from and to eventually be even better off afterwards. Often resistance can tell us about legitimate concerns of staff; for example, they might lack information about the necessary changes or lack resources to implement the newmethod properly (Kayzel, 2002). Sometimes reasons for resistance reflect legitimate contraindications for the intervention. For example, there are reasons why MCD would not be the right instrument in a specific context. MCD can be based on incorrect goals or misuse of the principles of MCD, such as when management wants to implement a particular vision or has a ‘manipulative agenda’ with the use of MCD (Molewijk, 2009). Furthermore, another legitimate reason for resistance and a contra-indication for implementing MCD can be that MCD only seems to be used as ‘window-dressing’ for the outside world. I believe participants’ resistance can be addressed constructively based on a dialogical and pragmatic hermeneutical approach, as also is the case with respect to the way we see and use MCD. We should regard expressions of resistance as worthwhile and valuable since we can learn from them, gain valuable insights on the needs of professionals, and eventually, even better achieve positive change in an organization or improvement of an intervention method. A dialogical approach toward resistance can create room for all opinions to be heard. This can be done in an anti-dogmatic manner since it is not at all clear that the chosen intervention is, per se, the best option or that the implementation style is the most fruitful one. Creating room for expressing a diversity of opinions concerning the intervention helps deepen the understanding of possible better ways for implementing the intervention or for changing the current version of the intervention. Room for resistance can potentially also increase feelings of ‘co-ownership’ toward the intervention (see Reflection 2 for more information about this co-ownership). Whether an intervention or implementation style is right is context-dependent; it can even differ per participating team. In line with the dialogical approach within MCD and its hermeneutical background, it is necessary to try to understand the other and together look at what the