Fish and cheese, as tasty as they might be, are about changing internal responses to change. Such approaches will be to no avail if the management processes are still living in the world of rigid control and don't respect the inevitability of change, variation, and uncertainty. As much as these soft and fuzzy approaches are laudable, they will not be able to stand up to the onslaughts of everyday management behavior.
Change is only disruptive if the thing it disrupts is thought/understood to be important. There is too much, too often, in project plans that is considered important and that really isn't. Milestones, intermediate tasks and due dates associated with them, and the idea of those irrelevancies (and the duration estimates, budgets, and "earned values" associated with them) as commitments are a lot of the source of the resistance to change in project situations. If those things are seen as important, and changes threaten perceived performance vis-à-vis them, then of course -- change will be anathema to the team involved.
Along these lines, if the PM processes used are rigid, then the project team will be rigid in its response to change.
One of the best things about a process like Critical Chain Scheduling and Buffer Management, especially in its extension to multi-project environments, is that it explicitly and openly addresses that inevitability of uncertainty. The primary day-to-day view of project performance in that approach, buffer management, is a direct reflection of not the certainties of the project, but of the uncertainties. The use of these buffers of time or money to protect the project promises takes much of the onus off of the individual tasks (and their team member resources) for having to deal with change, as the buffers belong to the project, not to the individual tasks. As a result, the sense of panic, concern, and therefore resistance associated with change in project assumptions is minimized.
Sure, go ahead and give your team members a better understanding of change, but give the way you manage them a similar sense of its inevitability.
(And by the way, don't forget to give upper management the same understanding of their choices as a source of disruptive change as well. But that's a whole 'nother subject.)
