Leadership Off the Links: Women Who Don't Complain, But Act (UPDATED)

I've learned to deal with setbacks and heartaches like an adult.  I know what I like and what I don't like.  I know what makes me tick, and what and who deserves a kick.

It's funny in a sad kind of way; on the one hand, we have Old Boy Network folk like John Tory suggesting that it's up to women to push for more money and encouraging young women to learn golf so as to cozy up to the rich white guys.

At the same time, the solution being proposed to our youth unemployment (and general disaffection with the way our system works) by these folk is suck it up and sell harder.  It's not the job of bosses to look for talent any more than it's their responsibility to proactively support and reward good work - laissez-faire capitalism and all that.

These are the same wealthy insiders who are discussing the failure of Capitalism at Davos and discussing Canada's innovation deficit at high-priced luncheons and bemoaning the fact that young people don't get the way the world works.  Oh - and then there's that whole social sustainability thing, crippled by a burgeoning mental health crisis.  Dysfunctional government doesn't help matters, either.

It's too bad the elites don't believe in committing sociology; if they did, they'd actually understand the problems we're facing and see that the solutions are already being developed and implemented.

Some of the brightest, most dedicated, innovative and solution-oriented people I know don't play golf, don't wear suits and certainly aren't interested in complaining.  To them, that would be a waste of time.

Instead, they are focused on getting things done. 

They're not afraid to give stern words to the sales-oriented laissez-faire loafers who are getting in the way of progress.  After all, when the bosses abdicate responsibility, someone's gotta lead.

And you know what else?   These emerging leaders seem to overwhelmingly be women.

The Master doesn't talk, she acts.

When her work is done,

The people say "Amazing,

We did it, all by ourselves!"

UPDATE:  The best swag for women coders according to Goldman Sachs?  Compact mirrors and nail files.  Read the comments to see the psychology of why this sort of thing persists.

I'm sure some women love to be condescended to and subjected to sexist stereotypes.  We'll see how's that approach helps the Goldman Sachs' of the world recruit women.  If it's the company's culture rather than the individuals' sensitivity that's the problem, I'm sure they'll evolve with the times.

It'd only be logical, right?

Team Sonny Cho: What Leading By Example Looks Like

We've all heard the line: "I can work all kinds of miracles for the Riding/City/Province/Country, but only if you elect me.  You need to vote for me to make change happen."

You get the job you audition for - when you're an Opposition Leader who does nothing but oppose, you might as well get comfortable being in Opposition.  Even should you form Government, you're still gonna end up opposing things, not accomplishing them.  When a politician says "I'll do stuff if you support me," they're asking for a mandate to get support - if they were serious about effecting change, they wouldn't wait.  They'd be doing it already.

There are some great politicians out there who have walked the walk since day one.  They aren't as populous as you'd think, sadly.

Which is why I love Team Sonny Cho's idea of a community care box.  Campaigns build profile and engage citizens - why not use that focus for the betterment of your community?  There's no reason you can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  If you truly want to be a leader, lead by example - that's what will win the people and set the standard.

Full confession - I served as Sonny's Campaign Manager prior to the amazing Patrick Smith.  The Team they have assembled include some of the smartest, most creative, most dedicated and fun people I've had the pleasure to work with (and I've worked with quite a few).

I encourage the community to support the Care Box and would encourage all political candidates and sitting politicians to follow this example.  This is the kind of leadership the people of Canada deserve.

 

UPDATE: Not sure if any of the people who joined this campaign with the intent of walking the walk are still there.  Not sure if the community box initiative is still happening. 

 

Leading by example is hard, and it requires a leap of faith - but if that's what you're asking of others, surely it's worth the effort?

Mental Health and the Knowledge Economy: Where I'm Going Today and Where We're Headed Tomorrow

 

Today, the Economic Club of Canada will be discussing the economics of mental health:

 

The cost of mental illness in Canada is at least $50 billion per year – or 2.8 per cent of our gross domestic product. Over the next 30 years, mental health-related costs will climb to more than $2.5 trillion.

From promoting mental health in the workplace, to working with families and children at risk, to helping people stay out of hospital, the Mental Health Commission of Canada has put forward practical and proven solutions to improve mental health for Canadians while taking some stress off our economy.

There is a growing movement out there (Thanks, Senator Kirby) which recognizes that while mental health has traditionally been the "forgotten orphan" in healthcare funding, it's actually one of the greatest underpinning issues of our time.

 

Why do people commit suicide?  Why do people bully?  What sparks innovation?  How do we motivate productivity in the Knowledge Economy?  Can an understanding of cognition make marketing (and politicking) more effective?  How do we nurture resilience?  What information do we need to make the best decisions and what's the best way to absorb it? 

 

These and countless other questions are all tied to how our grey matter interprets and operates in the world.

 

As it stands, society doesn't do mental health well. 

 

We have standardized education models that still struggle with differing learning styles - even the end goal of education (A certificate? Knowledge? Critical thinking, entrepreneurialism, occupational flexibility?) is in question.

 

Workplaces tend to work on the good-behaviour, poor-behaviour model, too; people are resources motivated by carrots and sticks.  It worked throughout the industrial age when widget-making relied on set skills employed quickly, so surely it will work in an environment where communication, big-picture thinking and attention to detail matters - right? 

 

We're hammering away at today's problems with yesterday's tools and getting mad at people, not the paradigm, for failing to deliver the results we expect.  Why?  The answer to that also lies in our cognitive hard wiring. 

 

Just as we learned through fits and starts to do physical labour better at the turn of the last century, we are on the brink of a significant social transformation that will fundamentally reshape the way we live and enhance the health and productivity of our cognitive labour, empowering individuals to perform better and leading to a stronger, more sustainable, more entrepreneurial economy.  Pieces of the picture are already emerging through initiatives like the National Standard for Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace, Social Emotional Learning, innovative student-centred post-secondary education models and design thinking. 

It's a vast, complex picture that needs lateral thinkers who can visualize how the pieces fit together.  These are the kinds of folk that don't always do well in traditional models of education and work.  Sometimes we call them "behavioural" or "underperformers"; given the right conditions and supports, they become known as visionaries, leaders, world-changers - outliers.

 

Here in Canada, we have all the raw material we need to become a global hub for innovation and a Knowledge Economy leader - we won't get there, though, using conservative approaches around science, diversity and accommodation.

 

To be the best in the emerging economy, we need to start thinking outside the box. 

 

Tomorrow's leaders will be the ones who set that example, today.  On the left-hand side of this blog is a list of background reading I'd encourage you to consider.  You'll be surprised and perhaps a bit unerved at what you learn about society and yourself, but don't let that stop you.

 

After all, knowledge is power.

Collaboration Soup: Inspired Teamwork and the Secret to Innovative Success

 

But she wonders if in seeking the Holy Grail of innovation, companies (and authors) are actually looking in the wrong direction.

 

“Perhaps it is a culture of collaboration that we should be seeking as the Holy Grail.”

 

Contents:

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

Why Competition Doesn't

The Profit Paradox

Ingredients for Success: Start with a Stone

Why WAKATA

 

Everyone is trying to motivate innovation.  The standard method of increasing incentives and fostering competition doesn't seem to be doing the trick - Finance Ministers and Prime Ministers are growing frustrated with the lack of results.

 

So - how do you foster innovation? 

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

 

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is famous for her campaigns and her office culture - everyone loves working with her.  They have a good time, they get recognition (frequently and intentionally from Wynne herself) and they do work that matters.

 

My former boss, retired Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry MPP Jim Brownell, was famous for his Brownell Nights - pub evenings where ideas were shared and bonds formed over food and drink.  These nights not only boosted staff morale and encouraged team-development, they also resulted in some cool ideas, a few of which resulted in policy and regulatory action.  Brownell Nights weren't just about drinks, they were a conscious effort to create a collaborative space under the Brownell banner that got things done and in the process, strengthened the brand.  It worked.

 

Why Should I Care is a civic engagement event/speaker/series/pub night started by Terri Chu, a wickedly smart engineer who embodies the 7 traits of successful entrepreneurs to a tee.  From humble beginnings in Terri's kitchen, WSIC has grown into a monthly event that attracts the kind of speakers you generally have to pay big bucks to hear at The Canadian Club, including Art Eggleton, John Tory, Rosario Marchese and Dr. Ilse Treurnicht of MaRS.  The reason the model works so well is that it empowers the audience to participate, it gives speakers an opportunity to engage with a different crowd and of course, there's food.
 

Over the recent Ontario Leadership Race, my friend James Borer organized a Rural Roundtable - a tweak on the typical debate format that challenged participants to bring forward ideas, not criticisms.  Everyone loved it - the conversation was positive, everyone gained new insight and a couple of cool ideas were introduced to the discussion.

 

In each of these cases, everyone from the organizers to the staff to the volunteers to the attendees have walked away glad to have been part of something special.  The reason for this that in each of these cases, everyone involved, from all angles, felt like actual participants. 

 

Why do Political Parties have trouble with membership?  Why is voter turnout on the decline, with a resulting shrinking of the policy idea water hole?  It's because people don't feel engaged, don't feel their participation is respected and don't believe they can truly contribute.  Oh, and there's not enough food, either.

 

Collaboration works.

 

Why Competition Doesn't

 

The prevailing theory is that competition drives innovation - the desire to beat the other guy or to make oodles of cash through the selling of something new is what encourages entrepreneurs to work harder and develop the exciting, innovative ideas and products.  Key to this notion is the myth of the lone innovator, the creative stalwart who gets hit by idea lightening, out of the blue, birthing fully-formed ideas that will change the world.  It's a compelling myth, this, despite being one that has no basis in fact.  

 

Nothing comes from nothing, especially ideas.  The lone innovators we idolize in actual fact have stood on the shoulder of others, just as today's innovators stand on theirs. You can't make soup without raw ingredients - if you've never made a soup before, having someone else's recipe gives you a starting point to add your own flourishes to the mix.  Why should we ever think innovation would be different?

 

To a large degree, it's because we associate innovation with profit and to lesser degree, problem-solving.  The evidence doesn't support this, either - most exciting innovations stem from whimsical inspiration, not a planned outcome.  This isn't to say having a "why" in place doesn't matter - you need a destination if you're to recognize the paths that will lead you there.  If gravity wasn't on Newton's mind, he might have viewed that apple as a pain, not an opportunity.  It's a glass half-full/half-empty thing; if you think you're having a bad day, you will invariably notice only the things that back up that premise.  The same holds true for a positive demeanour.  Innovation works the same way - you could have a billion ideas connect in your head, in passing, but its the ones that illuminate your pervasive theme that will stand out and be noticed.

 

But I mentioned profit.  Standard wisdom once again provides an intuitive, counter-factual perspective on innovation - people are motivated by greed and fear, which is why a carrot-and-stick approach works best in keeping people productive.  If it works for widget-making, it must equally apply to creativity.  This is the labour-management equivalent to wielding a hammer and viewing every problem as a nail - we are deluding ourselves that our existing tools are fool-proof and misattributing failure.  Pollsters do it.  Stock-pickers do it.  Politicians do it.  It's everywhere.

 

The fact is, carrots and sticks are good for motivating physical work, because they target our reactive mind.  Innovation is all about being proactive, adding value to what already exists.  You don't motivate creativity by making people think reactively, but by incentivizing legacy.  This is a simple truth that is backed through rigorous testing, lived experience and even neuroscience.  Whimsy, not necessity, is the mother of invention. 

 

And as the best innovations aren't developed with profit in mind, they also tend to be free.

 

The Profit Paradox

 

This puts us in a bit of a spot - why on earth would conventional wisdom be so wrong about the role of competition and profit in motivating innovation?  Surely any idea that off-the-mark would be weeded out, wouldn't it?

 

Do you read your horoscope in the newspaper?  Do you accept the results of polls as indisputable fact?  Does fortune-telling persist?

Yup. 

 

“But the methodology does work,” Wright told the Star in a telephone interview from the Ipsos head office in Paris. “We do $2.6 billion of research a year out of this corporation, and if it was all broken no one would be using it.”

 

I always nod and smile when anyone tells me confidently, aggressively that they're good at what they do.  Then I do my homework to see if that's actually the case.  Surprisingly, it often isn't.

 

If innovation is whimsical, cause-driven and relies on curiosity and collaboration, financial competition is all about a lean focus on profit and promotion.  If you want to sell, you have to market and you absolutely have to have the tenacity to close a deal.  Like physical labour, it's the carrot-and-stick system that motivates the aggressive, competitive, successful sales people.

 

Confidence sells.  Aggressiveness sells.  Bluster, charm, great hair or a brilliant smile sells.  A complex understanding of the associations between cognitive labour motivation, workspace design and fostering innovation?  You've lost 'em at A.

 

The reason the Myth of the Lone Innovator persists is because the people who are successful at selling innovation want it that way.  They want it believed that only they have the ability you want and you're going to have to pay to get it.  Quite frankly, they're so good at what they do that nobody can challenge them on their presentation; those who do will be put-down, dismissed or threatened with law suits.  The great patent fights of history are what this looks like in practice. 

 

Intellectual property is only profitable when it's supported by law, force or that same sales ability - which is why the greatest innovators always have partners - there's the brains, then there's the business.  Sometimes, you get the two in one package, but not often.  Nowhere near as often as we'd like to believe.

 

By the same token, the great sales agents are great at never failing themselves - blame will always, always rest on someone else's shoulders.  It's a form of narcissism, really - brand over substance and a blatant refusal to accept responsibility.

 

So what does that leave us with?  The really innovative people are driven to do.  The best sales people are motivated by what they get out of the deal.  It's therefore the latter that control the narrative of the former for the general public.

 

 

Ingredients For Success: Start with a Stone

 

 

What's the best work or volunteer experience you had? Was it the one that paid you the most money? Was it the one where the rules were rigid and everyone was obliged to stay within their boxes? Or was it the one that was fun, engaging, collaborative?  What sort of ideas did the team come up with?

 

Back to Kathleen Wynne.  As mentioned, her campaigns are always fun, engaging, meaningful experiences for her teams.  They also came up with some cool material, varying from collector's item swag, a dance introduction for her convention speech and an award-winning website designed by Taylor Scollon.  Oh yeah - they also won.

 

What makes Wynne's campaigns work?  She embodies the parable of stone soup - the idea that something - a person or a vision - is required to bring disparate elements together to create a whole that's more than the sum of its parts.  Call it inspired teamwork.

 

Most teams are teams in name only - in practice, they function more like a series of canoes paddling side-by-side; each faces the current alone instead of collaboratively pulling together.  It's less complicated, maybe, but it's also far less efficient.  Plus, when you give people a mandate to paddle together and challenge them to figure out how, that's when you come up with ideas like the horseless carriage.

 

I have four rules that guide my work with any sort of team, but volunteers in particular:

 

1) Keep them fed

 

2) Make sure they get the chance to do meaningful work - this means rotation and the opportunity to provide input

 

3) Acknowledge their contributions

 

4) Make sure they feel as part of the team - not tools of a core group of organizers.  To treat people as team members, though, you have to actually see them as team members.

 

This approach takes time, involves a lot of emotional validation and time spent listening instead of doing, but it works.  Greta Hoaken is a great example of the sort of talent you can find if you give your people half a chance.

 

When you include your team members, you encourage them to put their skin in the game as they get to share the glow of the end product.  It allows them to feel truly part of something larger than themselves - they will thank you for that.  Engaged people also tend to be more willing to share and play with ideas - the more ideas you have to start with, the better your end solutions are going to be. 

 

There's another key benefit to this approach that makes a difference - respecting people and letting them participate breeds loyalty.  This is important, because most people seem to think loyalty is owed to a brand and therefore, volunteers (or employers) can be manhandled in any way the top dogs want.  In fact, this discourages innovation, disenfranchises volunteers (making them more likely to walk) and makes existing team members less productive. 

 

One of Canada's most respected political organizers once told me that campaigns invariably end up being run by a small group of organizers who are the only ones who get stuff done.  This individual has a habit of domineering a room and disregarding ideas that don't originate in their circle, a trait all too common in organizations across the political, private and Not-For-Profit spectrum.  Chris Mazza provides a good example of just how well this top-down, closed-communications approach works.  Worth noting - this person did not work on Team Wynne's campaign.

 

Why WAKATA 

 

The idea of collaboration leading to stronger, more sustainable results might be somewhat foreign to traditional capitalist culture, but that doesn't mean it's foreign to everyone.

 

No, I don't mean communism - the Great Socialist Experiment wasn't about collaboration, either; it was all about caste and silos.

 

I'm referring to Talking Circles in particular, although there are plenty of cultural examples to chose from.  Some of the most innovative, enterprising people I know have a mixed bag of ethno-cultural background themselves.  Their exposure to different perspectives has fueled their growth as critically-thinking, creative individuals.  Some of them have even turned their experience into a new model for post-secondary education.

 

There are shared workspace models out there that allow people of different backgrounds to work together.  There are a few exceptional work models that actually nurture collaboration, rather than sticking people in a room and hoping it happens or worse, pitting people against each other in a futile attempt to nurture innovation.

 

But what does a truly collaborative work and workspace model look like?  What would it require to function, to produce tangible results and contributions and empower people to shine?  How could you make this concept more than just a matter or work, but a lifestyle?

 

Understanding is the place where diversity meets and innovation happens.  WAKATA is the pot. 

 

There's money to be made from the concept - there's legacy to be created and brand that can be built.  Most importantly, there are solutions out there waiting to happen - they lack only the right connective tissue. 

 

It's something worth having a conversation about, don't you think? 

 

POST SCRIPT

 

If a culture of open, respectful collaboration is the Holy Grail for innovation and productivity, would that make a culture of top-down management fueled by fear the Golden Calf?

 

If so, it's no wonder Stephen Harper is so frustrated with the lack of innovation and job development coming out of his government.  It's not too late for him to change his approach and get back on track - he simply has to be willing to actively listen to others and just maybe have a bit of faith in people.

7 Things That Set Real Entrepreneurs Apart (Steve Tobak)

Love this description.  I know a few folk who match it - and there's no question in my mind that they're going to change the world.

7 Things That Set Real Entrepreneurs Apart

Just because you wear a black turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers doesn't make you Steve Jobs. This is what makes an entrepreneur.

 

Lou Dematteis/Corbis

 

A VC whose name escapes me once said, "There are entrepreneurs and there are Entrepreneurs!"

I'm not exactly sure what he meant by that, but I'll tell you what I think. I think the term "entrepreneur" has become more than a little overused, watered down, diluted.

 

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. This is supposed to be the era of the entrepreneur. Practically everyone has a business, a brand, a blog. Everybody's a CEO of one. And yet, relatively few actually embody the true meaning of the word "entrepreneur." So what does it mean?

 

To me, it means assuming significant personal risk in forming and running a business.

 

And of those real entrepreneurs, few manage to create a profitable, growing enterprise that delivers unique products, meaningful employment, and shareholder value. What makes those Entrepreneurs unique? What sets them apart from the pack? That's a very challenging question. And the answer may surprise you.

 

They defy characterization. You really have to get to know these people, work with them for years, maybe even get inside their heads a bit, to understand what they're really all about. Here's one thing I know for sure. They're each one of a kind. The real deal. They don't try to be unique. They just are. And they don't try to be like someone else, either. They know that wearing a black mock turtleneck, jeans, and sneakers doesn't make you Steve Jobs.

 

Money means little to them. It's sort of ironic how little money matters to those who are true entrepreneurs at heart. After all, the really successful ones end up with so much of it. For them, money is just a means to an end. And since money's not a distraction or a temptation, they can truly focus on what really counts: doing what drives them, what they're passionate about. Challenging themselves, proving it can be done. Building a company, wealth and all that are secondary.

 

They're on a mission from God. No, they're not really. But when they speak about their vision or idea, you'd swear they've been possessed by some sort of demon that, instead of inciting chaos and mischief, inspires innovation and creation. There's definitely an aspect of fanaticism in their zeal for whatever has captured their imagination. That could be because they truly think they're special or need to prove something. Interestingly, that aspect can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

They don't take risks for the sake of taking risks. Just as they don't set out to make money, true entrepreneurs don't usually set out to take risks, either. They just don't let anything stand in the way of whatever it is they're driven to do. They'll pursue it come hell or high water. Risk just comes with the territory. Despite being driven to do what's never been done, I just think that motivation is stronger than their fear of what might go wrong. Or maybe they just don't think about it.

 

They weren't born that way. Most of the successful entrepreneurs I've known started with nothing or at least from modest beginnings. Some had parents who did their own thing, but most didn't. They usually had mentors or people who inspired them to trust their gut and have confidence in themselves. That, to me, is a key ingredient in the making of an entrepreneur: the motivation to go for it despite the odds and conventional wisdom.

 

They're not iconic leaders. Our society loves to create heroes. We hoist them up on impossibly high pedestals. But in my experience, the entrepreneur as iconic leader is a myth. Successful founders usually have partners. Bill Gates had Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer. Steve Jobs had Steve Wozniak. Larry Page had Sergey Brin. Also, entrepreneurs are often better at founding and creating than they are at running and sustaining companies.

 

They're not very patient. Whoever said patience is a virtue was definitely not a VC or anyone in the startup business, for that matter. Successful entrepreneurs don't usually care much for social convention. They have little patience for convention. They don't want to hear how things are done, have been done, or should be done. They do things their way. But here's a twist. While they will fight you tooth and nail over a key decision, as soon as they realize they're wrong, they'll turn around in a heartbeat.

 

To me, it all boils down to this: If you want to become an entrepreneur for the sake of becoming an entrepreneur, that's probably not going to work out so well. If, on the other hand, you're driven to accomplish something cool and unique without a safety net, then I think you should go for it.

Steve Tobak is a management consultant, executive coach, and former senior executive of the technology industry. He's managing partner of Invisor Consulting, a Silicon Valley-based strategy consulting firm. Contact Tobak; follow him on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. @SteveTobak

Letting Youth Lead in Ontario

In her first jobs roundtable discussion with members of Ontario's Jobs and Prosperity Council, business leaders and young entrepreneurs, Premier Wynne reiterated her commitment to create jobs and build a stronger economy and a fair society by ensuring our young people have the tools and confidence they need to succeed.

 

 

Good lord, but Premier Kathleen Wynne is off to an exciting start! 

There are established, successful business leaders out there in search of new ideas.  Social entrepreneurs, many of them young and without track records or well-positioned contacts, are cranking out innovative, value-add solutions to our modern problems.  The thing that's been missing is some way to connect these folk and give them the comfort they need to take a risk and trust each other enough to collaborate.

 

What we need is a stone in the soup, a leader who can serve as a conduit of opportunity for all these groups.

 

With a background in both education and mediation, Wynne's got what it takes to be the rock for an innovative Ontario.  She's proving as much right now, walking the walk and leading by example.

 

Something else, too - by empowering the private sector with opportunity to access new marketplaces for ideas, Wynne is building business sector confidence in her leadership.  By proactively creating opportunity for youth to develop the tools and contacts they need to succeed, she's demonstrating a deep understanding of what teachers do - helping to give them faith that she can be an ally, not an opponent.  This doesn't mean higher salaries or increased benefits, but ensuring that our education sector, too, has the tools needed to succeed.

 

Poor leaders divide and conquer to protect their own position.  Exceptional leaders invert the pyramid and see themselves as servants of the people - making leadership a form of public service, as it were.  When the goal is collaborative accomplishment rather than personal wins, everybody moves forward.

 

Call me biased, I'm incredibly hopeful about where Wynne will take us - we now have not just the leadership we want, but the leadership we deserve.

 

 

 

The Creative Mind

The pathological compulsion to create.  The inability not to look behind the curtain and understand how the magic works.  The continuous doubt that smothers any chance at complacence.  The gift of innovation.

 

Yeah, I'm blessed to know a few people like this.

Working Tirelessly to be More Creative

By Douglas Eby

Part of the widely-circulated comments by Pearl Buck (winner of a Nobel Prize in Literature in 1938) includes this: “The truly creative mind [feels] the overpowering necessity to create, create, create — so that without the creating of music or poetry or books or buildings or something of meaning, their very breath is cut off… By some strange, unknown, inward urgency they are not really alive unless they are creating.”

That “inward urgency” is a common quality of accomplished creative people.

 

Director Kathryn Bigelow wrote in praise of her lead actress Jessica Chastain in “Zero Dark Thirty” :

“Talent comes in many guises, but all original talents share the same quality: They’re unique, one of a kind. Totally unlike the rest of the crowd. Jessica Chastain, at least to my mind, is one of our original talents, a rare and gifted actress.”

 

She adds that with her roles in “Take Shelter,” “Tree of Life” and “The Help,” Chastain “was introduced to audiences and the industry. Suddenly, she was an actress that many filmmakers wanted to work with because she has real range and she gets lost in her characters, and also because she is an overall easygoing person.

 

“The other side of Jessica that not as many people know is that she is an utter slave to her craft and one of the hardest-working people I’ve ever met, let alone directed in a film. Jessica strives in everything she does. She works and works, tirelessly, on a range of quality projects — large films, independent films, Broadway — she does it all.”

 

From First Person: Bigelow praises ‘Zero Dark Thirty’s’ Chastain By Kathryn Bigelow, Los Angeles Times, January 31, 2013.

 

Photo of Kathryn Bigelow directing ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ from Facebook.

 

Creativity Coach Lisa Riley writes about this aspect of creative intensity and drive.

 

“In the gifted person the calling to create can frequently be a relentless yearning. Innate characteristics of the gifted individuals such as seeking a deeper meaning and purpose; immense satisfaction in problem solving; constant curiosity and viewing a creative task from different perspectives, naturally urges them towards creativity.

 

“It’s as if all these traits merge together and become a compelling force from within to seek out creative challenges.”

 

She adds quotes from Mary-Elaine Jacobsen’s book “The Gifted Adult”:

 

“Everyday Geniuses need to create the best that they are capable of is not something that goes away with time. It’s not something we can excise, or a job from which we can expect to happily retire.

“To be sure, the intensity of creative pressure does ebb and flow, but like the tide, it always comes back.

“Unless we are extraordinarily hindered, sooner or later we must comply with the creative spirit’s urgings, because it is more persevering than any attempt by our thinking mind to ignore our gifts. Living everyday with the need to create is like sharing a room with a hyperactive little brother who elbows you, tugs at your shirtsleeve, and tweaks your ear repeatedly until you give him your undivided attention.”

 

Riley adds, “Perhaps what fuels this drive is the tremendous satisfaction, the gifted person experiences during and after the creative process.”

 

From her post “Pressure to Create” on her site The Art of Mind.

 

Book: The Gifted Adult by Mary-Elaine Jacobsen, PsyD.

 

Related post: An Intense Inner Pressure to Create.

For more about the highly talented actor, see my post Jessica Chastain on being sensitive and a loner:

That post includes comments by Jonathan Heaf, writing in GQ (U.K.): ‘While studying theater at New York’s prestigious Juilliard School [she had earned a scholarship], the actress was terrified that she’d be exposed as a talentless hack and sent home.

“It’s really why I never partied with the other students,” says Chastain.’
~~~