I was listening to the relatively new Edelman podcast called Earshot.  In episode three, Phil Gomes discusses Aristotles Rhetoric as the definetive book on marketing.  Now I have never ever professed to be an expert in marketing, but I think he has a point.

The discussion spurred me to find a copy of Rhetoric and I must say the I’m really enjoying it.  I thought it would be too thick to read in usual 2 min slots, but I’m finding just the opporsite.  Reading a little chunk, and then putting it down gives me the opportunity to mull over what I’ve read.

I like Earshot.  It is a little more academic then other PR and marketing podcasts, which is kind of a nice change.  PR folks tend to be so type A, and Phil is no exception. 

I was impressed that he dropped a Hamlet quote in a podcast though!

On Tuesday this week I interviewed for a postion at Queen's University, and was really taken with the difference in interview style.

My last several interviews were for Ontario Government gigs and the application process is just so different. In OPS applications, you are constantly trying to score points. Points in your cover letter and resume, points in the interview, points in the written components.

At the Queen's interview, I was amazed at the conversational style of the interview. People looked at me when they asked a question. They wanted to know not only what I have done, but how I did it.

It was so refreshing to have an interview panel actually care about how a person would interact with the people in the department and the people that are involved in the business area. This just isn't a factor in an OPS interview. If you score all the points and are a complete arsehole, you'll still get the job.

I really enjoyed this new perspective, and I suspect that it reflects the working environment as well.

Gosh, wouldn't it be nice to work in an environment where people respect your ideas and aptitudes instead of making sure that you toe the line and deliver exactly what is in your job description?

I’ve been spending way too long pondering on my posts for this blog and when I do post the entries end up reading like a bloody novel. I am going to start posting less academic sounding non-sense, and try and just write about what is happening in the life of Nathan.

So there you go, a sudden change in tone.

I’m going to digress from my usual pontificating on politics, technology and working life.  I want to talk about something that is a lot more personal than all that.  Sadness.  I’m feeling a little melancholy today, and have been thinking about the subject.

Sadness is something that every human being has and that they must deal with daily in some way or another.  There is so much in this world to be sad about.  Everyday I read/ listen to/ watch news that should fill me with sorrow.  But like most of us, I manage to separate myself from the stories on genocide, random shootings in our cities and soldiers dying in wars that were never necissary.  These are things that we all just “turn off”, because it would be just too overwhelming to grieve for every life lost or ruined.

But there are other types of sadness that are a little less aggressive.  Like when you are listening to a piece of music that touches you to your very soul.  I couldn’t possibly count the number of times that I have found tears coming while listening to a aria or symphony.  This type of sadness is not a bad thing, but is tied to something beautiful.

There is also the sadness you feel when you when you see a child smile that totally innocent smile that just melts your heart.  Or when your dog knows that you are having a bad day and sits on your feet.  You may say that this is the part of love that hurts, and I would agree.  But there is a link between love and sadness that makes the whole thing go round.

In Chogyam Trungpa’s “The Sacred Path of the Warrior”, he describes a sadness that we find when we have lost our fear and have come out of that caccun that protects us.  This sadness is empathetic and all embracing.  It is something that you feel for all of humanity and it makes you want to give the whole world a hug.  I am by no means saying that I have lost my fear, but I know this sadness.

So sadness is not always a bad thing.  Sometimes it will nurture us, sometimes it will incapacitate us, and sometimes it will connect us to those around us in a more profound way than we could ever put into words.

But on those days when sadness is front and centre and there is nothing that will help to alleviate the symptoms, all of this is little consolation.  All you can do is think about the suffering of the world and gives thanks for the compassion that you feel for the others that suffer with you.

I found out today that I didn’t get an interview for the job mentioned below.  A co-worker who was also competeing for the job came into my office today with a huge grin on her face, “Did you get the email?”.  Sadly no.

I’m excited for her.  I wish her the best of luck.  She deserves the chance. 

But I think I know how Paul Martin felt on the 24 of January.  (Well kind of, I didn’t even make the nomination!)

I may not be the best person for job, I just wish that I had had the chance to do the face to face.  My verbal skills are way more impressive than my resume, and I had some really good material planned.  (Whatever, those notes will be useful sometime or another.)

Oh well.  I have lots of projects on the go, and this means that I can fully commit to those things. 

Onward and upward.

Throughout my time at MTO I have had the opportunity to work with maintenance people, policy people, administrative staff etc, etc.  In all of these interactions I find that “reading” the person often has a lot to do with what they do.

 
For instance an engineer likes to deal with details.  Going into a meeting with an engineer, I know that I need to have all the history and notes on the subject at hand.  (This is the case with every meeting, but with an engineer you need to have all the numbers neatly organized in the context of your objective so that you can present the situation and have the supporting information readily available.)  With engineers, I like to take the lead on a meeting, so that I can present and support my arguments in the context of the immediate problem.  Issues are often short term, and this allows the engineer to present their knowledge about the history before the issue arose.

 
On the other hand, dealing with a policy person takes a different tone.  Again, you have to have all of the details neatly arranged so that you have support to your arguments, but you need to be able to think laterally with relative speed.  Discussions with policy folks tend to have a more philosophical tone, and thus you need to be able to run scenarios and quickly realign your preparation to the new idea.  (And also be able to quickly identify information you don’t have that might be important to the new scenario, as well as where you can get it.)

 
Dealing with Maintenance staff is a little rougher around the edges.  Having information at your fingertips is a little less important, but having an understanding of how things work is vital.  Knowing the patrols and the people who work in them is very important.  A maintenance person will say, “Well Greg at vanKleekhill patrol said the trucks were out anti-icing at 1900 and the ploughs got going around 2000.”  Understanding and dealing with these folks is very practical and deals with the hands on aspect of our business, and adjusting the tone of the conversation is vital to getting any real information.

 
Generally, when dealing with professional folks it is important to listen.  Often there is a history that goes much deeper than a quick bit of research can uncover.  Issues tend to span years and be handled by many different employees.  Often people have stories to tell about things, and I have found lots of information buried in those stories.  Things come out of these conversations, like contacts that have moved on to new positions, deals that were made but not in writing, political situations that had an influence on a situation but that never made it into the file.  These things are invaluable, and you will only get at this information if you sit down and really listen carefully.

Almost everyone knows that Saturday Night Live skit where the self-help guy does the positive self-talk thing.  As I prepare for a (possible) interview for a position at work, I find my self repeating this little mantra, and cringing at myself every time I do it.

 
The thing about being “a man without letters” is that to succeed you have to have the self-confidence to let people know what you think and what you are about.  This is the hardest part of being a MWOL; you have to have just enough bravado to be heard and not so much that people think you are a blow hard with no credentials.

 
I’ll be posting a few sound bites from my interview prep here on the blog, mostly to get feed back from my very, very few readers, but also because the things that I’ve been writing may have relevance to someone out there.  I believe them.  I try really hard to live them.  That bravado simply could not happen if I didn’t actually believe what I am saying.

 
So while I brainstorm on ways to communicate my suitability for this job, I would like to make the most of the opportunity for self-reflection.  As I look at the projects and things that I have done over the years, I am trying to generate some real positive self-talk. 

 
Here are some examples of positive self-talk that I can recite with confidence:

 
I have the political acuity to properly deal with any situation that may come up.

 
I am agile enough to deal with any hard/dumb ass comments or opinions that come my way from Ministers to pEng’s.

 
I can proactively identify issues and problems and head them off before they become serious.

 
I can learn and adapt faster and more quickly than the average bear.

 
OK, forget that last one; you get my meaning.

I grew up in a very multicultural family. My mother was a lapsed catholic and my step father and his family were reform Jews. I have muslim friends who I have had great conversations over the years. I have always called my self a “Buddhist with an open mind”, and have attended church, synagogue and Buddhist temple.

In all of these faiths, compassion and service are fundamental truths and I see this as a main motivator in being a public servant. Serving the people is an honor that I take seriously and with great conviction. I admit that I came to the ministry as a way of paying the bills, but now that I am here it feels right, it fits with my world view.

For me, working in government organizations is a mix of business tactics, strategic politicking and altruistic intent. If people use this mix as a guide line I think we would all be better servants of the public.

Some would say: “Nathan you are naive. Political life is a battle of wills and often it is reduced to simple power mongering and the advancement of individual agendas”.

To that I say: “Sure. Politicking is a tool to work within the established system. This is a necessary element of the Parliamentary Democracy. That dialogue is necessary to get the work approved and implemented. Individual agendas are bound to come out, but we must remember that the other person is serving as well. They are looking at there aspect of the work and defending the good that she and her people do for the public.”

So when I am doing my job, whether that be providing a vehicle for every public servant who needs one, working on an issue that has come up with a municipality or trying to get a major project approved at the provincial level, I can do so with confidence, knowing that my motivation is to help the people of Ontario.

I have always thought that I would be a good speech writer.  I can quickly learn about a subject that I know almost nothing about, I can take ideas and explain them in simple terms, and I think that can write in an emotive way that stirs people to action.  But there is still so much to learn.

I was just reading Hon. Dalton McGuinty’s closing remarks to the legistrature, and was really impressed by the quality of writing.  The little things that make it come alive: 

“First, we are truly privileged to live in this, the finest province in the greatest country in the world. Our Canada has combined the wisdom of aboriginal peoples with what the British called peace, order and good government and what the French describe as liberty, equality and fraternity. We then mixed these values with the best the rest of the world has to offer: the Confucian philosophy of harmony from China, a doctrine of non-violence from India and a love of freedom and tolerance from those who knew war and even bigotry in Europe, to name just a few. In this way, we have together built something here that is uniquely, beautifully, even magically Canadian. We have every reason to celebrate, whatever its flaws, its magnificence.”

He (or the writer) has done such a fantastic job of identifying with each constituent audience and then enabling them to be proud of all of the good stuff from the others. He is connecting with the people by including them.  (Although I’m sure that few outside of the legislature will every see these words.)

He also does a masterful job of awknowledging his opponents on the other side of the legislature, reminding everyone that the parlimentary democracy, although adversarial, is productive and enables Ontarians to enjoy the high standard of living that we have.

So as much as I fancy my self a good writer, there are so many tricks and connections that I need to make. 

I didn’t get to see the english debate on Friday, but I certainly got my fill of analysis over the weekend and I just wanted to make a quick comment on the united front that Martin is now facing.

With the Conservatives, NDP, and the Bloc pulling together (at least for the debates anyway) to try and yank some votes away from the Liberals, I wonder if this is a good thing for Canada.  Forming political alliances to get through procedural motion in the house is one thing, but forming an alliance in the middle of a campaign is a little scary.

In the last few months of Parliment, we saw the Liberals and the NDP forming a tempory alliance to keep things together.  This is not that surprising a partnership as the policy almost lines up, but to think that a Conservative government is going to be able to work with either the NDP or the Bloc in a working scenario is absolutely ludicrus. 

So what if they succeed?  What if they do manage to take enough votes away from the liberals to make an opening for the conservatives?  Badness, that’s what happens.  A conservative minority government would be such a tremendous waste of time.  Social conservative policy aside, there is no way that they will get anything done in Parliment.  The liberals and the NDP will again align there votes and will almost be able to veto any motion that comes up.  (Which is a bit of comfort…)

I think that Canada needs a strong majority government to get anything done.  From my totally unskilled analysis, there is no hope of a conservative majority and the other opposition parties simply aren’t playing the game.  So if the Liberals can continue to build a following, than there is hope yet.  However, with the campaign going negative so early though, anything could happen.

Too bad we couldn’t just talk about policy issues.  Now we get into the rotten vegitables and bad pictures of leaders stage of the campaign.