175 General discussion Regarding the fourth type of resistance from the pilot – ‘the vulnerability to open up’ – we notice positive and negative observations in our main study. In general, MCD can be challenging for participants since they ‘have to be willing to expose themselves’ or ‘open up,’ which can make them vulnerable and tends to cause resistance (Van Wijk & Molewijk, 2009, p. 15). Being open and reflective is at the core of our definition of moral craftsmanship; however, this does need the right conditions. Only in a safe environment can you ask people to take the risk to speak their minds. In the pilot, prison staff indicated that uncertainties within the organization (e.g., job insecurity) made them less open. On a positive note: Chapter 3 showed that during MCD, the facilitators helped participants feel supported in opening up. In Chapter 3 the facilitators mentioned that, compared to the pilot, the absence of a team manager during MCD most likely contributed to an open atmosphere where staff could speak freely. One participant stated that, based on mutual openness and respect, everything could be discussed. Chapter 2 showed a broad range of moral dilemmas discussed during MCD; hence, staff felt the room to be open about challenging situations. Chapter 2 also showed that opening up about frustrations sometimes led to valuable reflections about related dilemmas. Nevertheless, Chapter 3 showed that, in some teams, facilitators noticed a relatively unsafe culture that sometimes made it difficult to be fully open, for example, they observed harsh jokes among colleagues or the dominating presence of some team members during MCD. Overall, the presence of participants’ resistance to or during MCD does not mean a positive impact cannot be achieved. On the contrary, when you take resistance seriously – by listening, trying to understand, and asking questions with an open mind – you can be part of a collaborative learning process. Although more improvements are still possible, our dialogical and pragmatic hermeneutic approach toward resistance did help. Some adjustments improved participants’ experiences – hence, gave better results – in the main study than during the pilot. As Weidema et al. (2011) stated, allowing space to signs of resistance is ‘not easy; it requires attention, but also courage and competence’ to carefully deal with it. However, such attention to participants’ resistance is needed to let the opposing wind create conditions for the intervention to be able to rise. 7