I'm told at work sometimes that I'm resistant to change. I feel strongly that I'm not resistant; I just want to have a good reason/explanation for why I should be making that change. Change for change sake isn't useful for anything.
Then I read this for my Training & Development class this semester:
"Think for a moment about the expression "resistance to change." It's a judgement often made about people who don't perform as desired. But the expression is misleading, because it puts a derogatory emphasis where it doesn't belong. When people oppose the introduction of some new idea or thing, there usually isn't an active resistance in force. Often, people cling to the old because there is no real reason, no favorable consequence to them, for doing it the new way. It is more comfortable, more pleasant, more rewarding to stay with the old. So here again, simply plying people with information about the new thing or exhorting them that they oughta wanna be in favor of newness may not change much. The desired performance (the new thing) will be more readily adopted (and made to work during any "teething troubles" if it is plain to the doer how it will make his or her world brighter."
From "Analyzing Performance Problems or You Really Oughta Wanna" by Robert F. Mager and Peter Pipe
Seems to prove my point, right?