摘要：In this response I circumscribe the nature and scale of the rejoinder to refocus on the ethical and theoretical implications of utilizing developmental exercises, of which Immunity to Change (ITC) is seen as an example. I welcome Zeitler’s and Reams’ continuation of the ethical discussion, and I want to reclaim and develop some of the delicate points and consequences that were described in my original article. The line of reasoning is based upon the presupposition that developmental methods and techniques are used in the real world with people and consultants with limitations and strengths, in conditions that are neither optimal nor perfect. Among all theoretical and ethical questions, I found the most profound issue to be: does it work?
