Sounds odd, doesn't it? The implication is that you need to be weird to be a change agent. It's not entirely true; it's only true if you want to be an effective change agent. And you just have to be a little weird, not weird on the grand scale of things.
Why is that?
Let's conjure up a little context. Let's say your company has declared it will undertake a lean initiative and pattern itself after the Toyota Production System. As part of the initiative, the company has selected you to be one of the "change agents."
To be an effective change agent, you need to be at least a little different, if for no other reason than you are chartered to change and "take us away from the status quo." Unfortunately, the majority favor the status quo for a variety of good, bad and nonsensical reasons. This puts you in a distinct minority, which alone is reason enough for many to declare you "weird."
In addition, you are expected to exhibit curiosity and question why and how "we do some of the things we do around here." Well, "how we do things around here" is a pretty good operational definition of "our culture." Hence, you then become a person who not only questions but may even challenge the very culture of your corporation. As soon as you start to question and challenge "how we do things around here," it becomes pretty hard not to be viewed as being a little, if not really, "weird."
You then are seen as "weird" not only by the majority but also by the very people who commissioned you to be the change agent in the first place.
Effectiveness of Being Weird
This sounds like the beginning of "crazy making." And it is!
As a change agent, get ready to walk the "weirdness tightrope." I call it the "weirdness tightrope" because you are expected to be different enough to catalyze change and yet not so different as to alienate the very people who need to execute the changes. You have to be different enough to change the status quo but credible enough to connect and engage those in management and in the workforce who need to change.
Jonno Hanafin (Organization Development Network, Seasonings, Vol. 6, 2009) calls it the Perceived Weirdness Index (PWI). He says that if you are not weird enough you just get absorbed into the culture. You then are an ineffective change agent because you do not stimulate the organization enough. On the other hand, if you are too weird you are not credible and are rejected by the culture.
Hence, there is a range of weirdness that is required to be an effective change agent: weird, just not too weird. Hanafin goes on to say that on this PWI scale there is a range of effectiveness, and within that range there is a "sweet spot" of weirdness.
This sweet spot is the position of maximum effectiveness that is still accepted by the culture. It is near the upper boundary of the Effective Range on the PWI scale. Unfortunately, in the midst of a cultural change initiative, this boundary is not clear. It is not only difficult to discern the position of the boundaries, but their positions differ from situation to situation and from group to group within your culture. There are also person-to-person differences among the key decision-makers. It is a difficult task to discern and stay within the Effective Range. It is a true balancing act. It is even more difficult to find and operate at the sweet spot of maximum effectiveness.
