Job satisfaction and a biased sample: lessons learned

The alumni that came to speak to the class were no doubt used to the question that was on my mind. Despite its predictability and mundanity, I asked it all the same.

Which is better, working for the province or working for the city? I think in a public policy program where many (though notably not all) students want to stay in Toronto, the question is natural — Ontario Public Service or City of Toronto? Though I was not surprised by their answers (this is, as we would say in the evidence world, a biased sample), I appreciated their perspectives.

Urban policy is one that is inherently closer to the “ground”. Solutions at the provincial level necessarily need to be broad, and local solutions need to be tailored.

I loved hearing from alumni who were engaging in the messy and concrete work of small “p” policy. Program delivery will always need to be evaluated, re-designed, and monitored, and I think the value of this work can easily be underappreciated.

City policy makers need to be Jacks of All Trades, with more stakeholder engagement, and a higher balance and alignment between academic rigour and democratic participation. A thorough, open, and transparent process is the difference between policy being put forward or rejected.

A common theme throughout the conversations was that working for the city, you are less likely to feel like a cog in the machine. The direct results of your work are clear and immediate, and there is more agency provided. With more agency, things can be a little clumsier and a little less regimented. But one woman’s messy is another’s dynamism and autonomy.

That was both exciting and daunting to hear.

I know in weeks to come we will hear from alumni at the OPS and beyond in think tanks, ABCCs, and NGOs. I know that the experiences of policy workers across these domains will necessarily be varied and nuanced. I hope that these talks are as honest and illuminating as this first one.