By Lisa Taylor

Canada’s recent federal election wasn’t just a political moment. It was a national case study in career evolution. High-profile resignations. Unexpected comebacks. New faces stepping into unfamiliar territory. For anyone navigating senior leadership or advising those who do, the campaign offered a front-row seat to the complex, human side of professional transition.

As someone who works closely with executives across industries, many of whom hold high-profile positions, I couldn’t help but see the election as more than a contest of policies or personalities. Beneath the headlines were deeply familiar career questions:

• When is it time to step aside?
• What does readiness for leadership really look like?
• Can you ever go back to a role you once left?

At Challenge Factory, we bring an interdisciplinary lens to these questions, blending expertise in career development, leadership, workforce strategy, and organizational culture. This moment on the national stage echoed challenges we see in boardrooms and workplaces every day.

Let’s unpack four career insights that emerged from the election, and what they reveal about how we lead, leave, return, and reinvent.

#1 Succession planning and graceful exits: Knowing when to step aside

The election was triggered by the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, a departure that, according to many, came too late. Signs of misalignment had been mounting for months. Poll numbers dropped. Public confidence waned. Yet the decision to step down didn’t come until it was unavoidable. To many, it felt reactive rather than proactive.

Adding to the complexity, obvious internal successors were passed over in favour of an outsider. It raised a question familiar to many organizations: when transitions are delayed or poorly planned, what gets lost, and who gets left behind?

Too often, succession planning is treated as a long-term HR task, disconnected from the realities of present-day leadership. But in truth, the most effective leaders plan for their own departure as actively as they plan for strategic growth. Exit planning is a critical, though often neglected, leadership responsibility.

In our work at Challenge Factory, we regularly encounter two common reasons leaders avoid addressing succession:

1. Personal uncertainty: “I can’t leave until I know what’s next for me, and I really don’t know what else I could do.”
2. Perceived irreplaceability: “I’d leave, but no one else has the knowledge, history, or relationships needed to see the organization through this moment.”

These reasons are understandable, but they’re rarely valid. Instead, they signal a leader stuck in the present, focused more on maintaining control than enabling progress. When the leader becomes the bottleneck, it creates risk not only for the organization’s future but for its current culture and momentum.

Succession planning isn’t just about naming a replacement. It’s about ensuring continuity, renewal, and confidence in the organization and in its people. When done well, it’s a final act of stewardship, not surrender.

Leadership reflection: What signals, internal or external, might indicate that it’s time for you to evolve, exit, or support new leadership?

#2 Return after departure: When a change at the top changes the whole picture

This election saw the return of several political figures who had previously left public life. These weren’t fresh candidates; they were seasoned professionals who had consciously stepped away, only to return under new leadership. MP Sean Fraser is one example, but there were several others.

Their return offers a compelling reminder: the work itself isn’t always the problem. More often, it’s the context that determines our sense of alignment, impact, and sustainability.

In organizations, senior leaders who fall out of sync with the CEO often feel forced into voluntary or negotiated exits. From the outside, high turnover can be chalked up to a range of plausible reasons, including personal decisions, market pressures, or restructuring. This complexity allows CEOs to claim there’s no unifying cause—just a series of individual choices, coincidentally timed.

But beneath that surface, the truth often emerges in deeper, more candid conversations. Leaders eventually ask: Is it really a variety of circumstances? Or is it me? And if it’s me, what happens if I’m unwilling to change?

When the core issue is a misalignment with top leadership, the response is rarely neutral. Some leaders double down, entrenching in their ways, justified by past results and earned authority. After all, they’ve been successful. They’ve “earned” the right to run their departments their way.

Yet that same strength can become a blind spot. What once looked like steadfast leadership may now be contributing to disconnection, disengagement, and the quiet exit of top talent.

These moments invite an uncomfortable but vital reflection: Has your own professional growth quietly stopped being a priority? Is growth something you advocate for others—your team, your rising stars—but no longer reserve for yourself? Or did it simply get sidelined, forgotten amidst urgent demands, even though it once defined your early success?

Understanding why leaders return after stepping away, under new leadership or in a changed environment, can teach us a lot about what’s possible when alignment is restored.

Leadership reflection: What part of your work might you be willing to re-engage with if the context or leadership changed? And how could you help create those conditions for others who may be quietly stepping back?

#3 Public transitions: Identity shifts in the spotlight

Election night always ushers in abrupt and visible career transitions—some celebrated, others painful. Party leaders face defeat. Long-serving MPs find themselves out of work. New MPs step into unfamiliar roles, uncertain of what lies ahead.

While these transitions play out on a national stage, their emotional undercurrents are deeply relatable. Senior professionals in all sectors face similar moments during restructures, retirements, or major career pivots. The difference? Most don’t have to navigate these shifts under public scrutiny.

What the public doesn’t always see is the internal transition—the disorientation that comes when a long-held role suddenly ends. Leaders are often forced to confront what it means to no longer “be” who they were, at least in title and function.

In my keynotes, I often emphasize that career work is identity work. Titles are more than job descriptions; they’re emotional anchors, tied to contribution, recognition, and self-worth. Losing a role, even by choice, can feel like losing a part of oneself.

And yet, this inner work is rarely prioritized. We celebrate new beginnings but often gloss over the identity recalibration required when something ends.

These transitions demand new skills: the ability to redefine yourself without a familiar title, the courage to sit in ambiguity, and the clarity to shape what comes next—not just logistically, but emotionally and mentally.

Leadership reflection: Who are you without your title? And how are you preparing yourself, and those you lead, for the inevitable transitions to come?

#4 Are you a “real” politician? Optics, skills, and professional reinvention

Much was made of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s identity as a political newcomer. Was he a “real” politician, or just a technocrat stepping into unfamiliar terrain?

This debate echoes a question many professionals face when making bold career moves: Are you credible in this new space? Or are you just playing dress-up in a role others don’t yet believe fits?

Whether transitioning sectors, stepping into a stretch role, or rebranding your leadership identity, reinvention is never just about credentials. It’s about both substance and optics—what you bring and how others perceive it.

Even with an impressive résumé, Carney’s candidacy revealed the weight of public perception. His experience navigating global crises wasn’t in question. What was? Whether his story resonated as political leadership, not just executive excellence.

That’s the gap many leaders face during reinvention. It’s not enough to list your past achievements or skills. You need to bridge who you’ve been with who you’re becoming, and do so in a way others can clearly follow and trust.

During the campaign, we heard plenty about Carney’s experience managing economic uncertainty. But we heard less about why he made the choices he did throughout his career, or how those experiences shaped his values and vision. What does he have in common with peers across party lines? How does he translate past expertise into political relevance?

These may not be questions suited for soundbites, but they matter. Especially now that he’s in office. His first 100 days are not only about performance; they’re about making his story believable to others and setting a foundation of leadership that feels authentic and aligned.

Leadership reflection: What story are you telling about your next professional chapter, and are others buying in? Once you’ve secured the new role, how are you drawing on your unique “why” to lead with clarity and conviction from day one?

A national case study in career evolution

Leadership transitions. Identity shifts. Unexpected opportunities. These aren’t just the plot points of an election night; they’re the daily realities senior professionals face as they navigate their careers.

Canada’s recent election offered more than a moment of democratic participation. It was a real-time case study in what it looks like when high-profile careers evolve, unravel, or reconfigure in the public eye.

It raised powerful questions:

• What leadership traits are truly valued, and by whom?
• Why do we rush to criticize or celebrate leaders before understanding their full context?
• How do the public signals sent by business elites or political insiders shape the narrative, influence perception, and silence important questions?

Most Canadians rarely get a front-row seat to how senior leaders handle moments of professional change. This election gave us that view. And in watching how leaders resigned, returned, reinvented, or stumbled, we learned something about how we, too, navigate pressure, pride, and possibility.

Final reflection: What part of this political moment resonates with your own leadership journey? What judgments, positive or critical, did you make about a candidate or leader, and how would you measure up if held to those same standards?