Sabia is one of those types who’ve been circulating in the swamp for years and has benefited enormously on a personal level while also gaining an unearned reputation as some kind of messiah. The first thing the public service (an oxymoronic term if ever there was one) needs is a good winnowing and reduction in numbers. One hopes that both his and Carneys’ tenure are short lived.
I've quite enjoyed Wells' coverage of Sabia, as someone who is highly suspicious of corporate doublespeak bullshit. Hopefully Sabia proves Wells wrong, for all our sakes.
This is a pretty fawning assessment. Paul Wells examined Sabia's record much more closely and in much greater detail, and the picture he painted is much less flattering.
Sabia has hung around the Public Trough for far to long and while his resume may be long the list of tangible accomplisments is short -just look no further than the absolute failure of the Canadian Investment Bank. Also he is reported to have been a major promoter of the freezing of bank acc'ts during the Covid/Freedom Convey debacle. This act alone is a disqualifier for me for a such an important job in a country that (pretends) to be a free democracy.
Reposted, nearly verbatim, from my comment to Paul Wells' column on the same subject:
The answers to Gregory's rhetorical questions about Saint Sabia and other 'geniuses' in the power circles of Central Canada actually demonstrating accountability and achieving positive results:
No.
Never.
Will Saint Sabia and all the other 'geniuses' continue to get handsomely paid and credited with accomplishments that are not actually accomplishments (unless failure is an accomplishment)?
Canada’s public service needs wholesale reform, tough decisions, and decisive leadership to deliver a change agenda.
END QUOTE
- - -
Truer words were never spoken. As one with personal experience of the institution, I can confirm that it is, as you put it, "a shambles".
Morale amongst line workers and managers alike is generally abysmal.
Much was made of efforts to improve the diversity of the federal Public Service during Justin Trudeau's government, but these efforts often backfired. Although it was laudable to increase diversity of skin colour, religious affiliation, gender preference and age, I would argue that much less care was taken to promote (and reward) diverse thinking, vigorous debate and a willingness to stand up for principles.
This, coupled with the Public Service's perennial failure to recognize, nurture and reward subject matter expertise, has made for an execrable mixture of "right thinking", risk aversion and timidity.
Left unreformed, the toxicity that this and more general managerial failures have generated could lead to a scenario wherein the Public Service will only be good at retaining those who "play it safe" and "manage up", while driving away those who have genuine talent and a willingness to take principled positions in response to questionable directives from their political masters.
The appointment of Michael Sabia as Clerk of the Privy Council marks a potentially pivotal shift in how Canada's federal public service might operate under Prime Minister Mark Carney's leadership. Sabia is no mere caretaker; his resume and temperament suggest a transformational role, aligned with Carney’s economic ambitions and reformist ethos. However, there is a risk in appointing a visionary when what the public service most urgently requires is disciplined execution, administrative clarity, and a reassertion of core functions after years of diffuse growth and pandemic-era improvisation. With bureaucratic sprawl, policy paralysis, and performance malaise weighing down the machinery of government, the danger is that Sabia may gravitate toward symbolic leadership and long-term strategy, rather than the essential, unglamorous work of systems repair and delivery oversight.
The tension here is between vision and stamina. Carney and Sabia are intellectual powerhouses, but the challenges ahead are not primarily conceptual—they are logistical, institutional, and cumulative. The public service is not aching for another big idea, but for a course correction that restores focus, trims excess, and translates ambition into measurable outcomes. If Sabia can resist the temptation to float above the daily grind, if he commits to the grueling effort of rebuilding from within rather than dazzling from above, he may yet succeed. But history in Ottawa is littered with the remnants of promising reformers who mistook the arc of a speech for the weight of sustained implementation.
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the pushback. I take it that “dreaming in technicolor” suggests the vision I laid out for Michael Sabia’s potential to reform the federal public service might be a little too optimistic, maybe even naïve. And I get where you're coming from. After all, Canada’s bureaucracy has proven remarkably resistant to reform; good intentions often get bogged down in process, and ambitious leaders have been worn down by the sheer inertia of the system. The skepticism isn’t just valid; it’s grounded in decades of experience and disappointment. We’ve seen many people arrive with big reputations and leave without moving the needle.
But here’s why I still argue the moment (and the people involved) are different enough to merit hope. First, the alignment between Carney and Sabia isn’t just political; it’s structural. Both come from Finance, understand the machinery of government at the highest levels, and have spent years operating across both the public and private sectors. That gives them a shared language and urgency that past PM-clerk pairings often lacked. Second, the scale of the current crisis — economic uncertainty, a bloated and drifting public service, and cratering trust in institutions — may actually serve as the kind of forcing function that finally breaks the status quo. In that context, “business as usual” might not be an option, even for Ottawa. Finally, Sabia’s track record, while not perfect, is marked by a willingness to take on complex, messy roles. And Carney, for all his polish, seems to recognize the gravity of the task ahead.
So no, I don’t think it’s blind idealism to believe meaningful change is possible. It's a calculated bet on a rare alignment of personalities, pressures, and priorities. Is there a risk of failure? Of course. But to assume failure is guaranteed is to close the door on reform before the hard work has even begun. Let’s at least see if they’re serious. Then we can hold them accountable.
Ari, you write in part, "... I don't think it's blind idealism to believe meaningful change is possible. It's a calculated bet ..."
I submit that there really are two options available to the Carney/Sabia pairing.
First, given that the government(s), particularly over the last ten years, have entered so, so many areas with programs, pronouncements, yada, yada, yada, that to be able to actually DO what those programs, pronouncements, etc. promise will require MORE swivel servants to actually be able to do what was/is promised; oh, and much more spending. After all, the federal government is currently ten miles wide (in programming terms) and one centimeter deep in operating capacity. [Did you notice the mix of imperial and metric measuring systems? Quite deliberate.]
Second, given the same premise as above, if Carney/Sabia actually want to succeed at anything, very much including Carney's stated agenda and the agenda that will follow shortly (longly? who knows?), there is an incredible need to narrow the scope of government and dispense with an armada of swivel servants and reduce spending in order to free up capital and personnel for the "new" agenda.
Personally, I simply do not expect success in either direction from the Carney/Sabia duo in these areas but, instead, I expect that they will try to muddle along with the inherited mess and graft on the new mess(es) that they will proclaim as the new Jerusalem. In other words, I foresee the locomotive heading directly at the Government of Canada. With no recognition of the impending collision.
My metaphor, of course, means further confusion and incoherence and vastly increased spending. Of course, on the latter issue, increased spending, Carney/Sabia will try to cover that up by designating a large part of spending as "capital" rather than "operating." As a retired CPA, I certainly know the difference but I also know that both "capital" and "operating" budgets must be funded and both generate massive interest charges. So, ultimately, I see Canada swirling around the financial (and otherwise) drain.
It is justifiable to be skeptical and you have made a credible case to back up your skepticism.
I only wish that you had refrained from using terms such as "swivel servants" in what was otherwise a serious comment. It bespeaks a level of disdain that is unfair (as most public servants are hardworking and sincere).
Instead of attacking individuals with such epithets, surely we need to rethink the structures, the politics and the incentives that have led to the challenges we face?
AC, I actually DO have disdain for some of our "swivel servants." I am a retired CPA and I can very emphatically relate that I had just tremendous good fortune in dealing with many, many of our country's civil servants.
Unfortunately, I also dealt with others who really, really soured me on the good work of that first group. Included in that second group I had the bad fortune to be solicited for a "benefit" shall we say. I found that, yes, many folks really understood that they were servants of the public (in the best sense, to be sure) but others were time fillers and place holders. It is that last group who deserve the appellation "swivel servants" and it is they who should be gone so that the remaining folks can demonstrate again that they are public servants.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You’ve laid out two possible roads: one toward expanding capacity to meet sprawling commitments, the other toward retrenchment and strategic focus. Each has intellectual coherence. The first reflects the scale of modern governance and acknowledges that promises require people and money to fulfill. The second recognizes that the state has limits and that too many overlapping mandates can paralyze delivery. I agree that muddling through—grafting new ambitions onto old dysfunction—is the most likely outcome if no clear strategy emerges.
Yet I would argue that a third path remains open, one that neither simply expands nor retracts the machinery of state, but instead reforms and reorients it. The public service, as it stands, is not just overgrown. It is misaligned. Layers of managerialism, opaque processes, and unproductive incentives stifle initiative and delay outcomes. Reform need not mean firing half the civil service or doubling it. It could mean flattening hierarchies, streamlining approvals, removing redundant agencies, and re-centering delivery on measurable outcomes. These are difficult moves to make but not impossible. The UK’s post-war civil service reform, led in part by William Beveridge and later refined by the Fulton Report in 1968, sought something similar: modernization without ideological warfare. It did not end all problems, but it made space for functional governance amid resource constraints.
Your concern about financial obfuscation is well taken. Redefining operating costs as capital may make balance sheets prettier, but debt service does not discriminate between the two. Still, some investments—digital infrastructure, green energy grids, streamlined service platforms—can reduce future operating burdens. The trick lies in clarity, discipline, and follow-through. That’s where Carney and Sabia may differ from past efforts. Both understand markets, incentives, and long-term tradeoffs. If they focus not on announcing vision but on fixing machinery, they might escape the fate of previous grand reformers.
Ultimately, your skepticism reflects hard-earned experience. But sometimes reform comes not from sweeping ideological turns but from technocratic persistence. As in the case of Atatürk's transformation of Turkey’s bureaucracy, the change began with institutional clarity, not rhetorical fervor. If Carney and Sabia fail, it will not be because reform was impossible. It will be because they underestimated how hard it is to do simple things well in government.
Ari, your comment was, well, thoughtful and - to my mind - quite optimistic.
I would characterize you as a glass half full individual.
By contrast, I look at a glass and see that it contains some element of water (or other liquid) and I recognize that a) the glass can easily be emptied; and b) it is possible to re-fill the glass. I find option a) much easier and consider option b) very important but I am uncertain as to competence or capacity of those re-filling my glass.
Please pardon my silly metaphor but, again, you are optimistic and I am, in this case, questioning and trying to avoid pessimism. Having said that, I fear that pessimism is more realistic.
I admit I have no idea why Sabia would be so adored except that he’s such a longstanding member of the Laurentian status quo. Wait. That just proves that I don’t belong
Canada needs bold ideas to be sure but above all, Canada needs its government to trim the fat and then get out of the way. Nothing big and bold has ever come out of government but big things sure have gotten tripped up by governments intent on pushing their agendas for their own benefit and not that of the country. I'm planning for underwhelming but open to be surprised.
"Carney has his transformational clerk, but I wonder whether he’d have been better to find someone more transactional, who could focus on the first part of the job as head of the public service."
Of the three jobs, I agree leading the public service is both the most difficult and the most important, and wonder why the writer thinks a transactional, rather than transformational, approach would produce better results.
The leader has a short window to signal what will change, and what will be the same, because the led are paying attention. Change always gets attention. If he confirms a transactional culture, people will be disappointed but not surprised, and productivity, beneficial change, organizing to implement a new order of priorities will be much harder. Personal and departmental agenda will overcome the larger vision and "swampiness" will prevail.
I'm looking to see if he can be a transformational leader, pitch a better vision, AND execute. Many leaders ascend because they are skilled at one but not both. The greatest have stamina, perseverance, and the attention to detail that sees the transformation through.
I should add that my experience leading confirmed a positive impression of people. The vast majority of people want to do a good job, produce a good result, contribute towards ... something, ideally something valuable for people or their community.
Daniel Pink, to me, was very close when he said folks are motivated by autonomy (trust me to do what I know to do, or figure it out), mastery (my self-worth is rightly tied to my skill and understanding of this work), and purpose (described above).
Transactional people assume all people negotiate a piece of a finite pie. Visionary leaders can negotiate terms effectively when necessary, but prioritize the larger vision, bringing much of the non-transactional population along.
"Didn't stick around to complete each mission, lured away by greater challenge". Again a promise of great things but the jury remains out. Once more, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Hope for the best.
So, potentially, we now have a visionary, transformational Prime Minister and a visionary, transformational Clerk of the Privy Council. What we now need is someone second-in-command who is a practical, down-to-earth LEADER who doesn't put up with incompetence.
Sabia is portrayed as some kind of wunderkind - but what has he actually accomplished, ever? He is a creature of the current bureaucracy with all that entails.
Without a complete reorganization of the federal civil service, serious paring down of departments, elimination of duplication and redundant processes nothing will ever change. Better to bring someone entirely from the outside world to make these changes - not yet another mandarin from the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor.
So far the Carney Liberal government appears to be very good at announcing stuff and charming the cheerleaders in the parliamentary press gallery. We saw how that worked out this past decade.
Sabia is one of those types who’ve been circulating in the swamp for years and has benefited enormously on a personal level while also gaining an unearned reputation as some kind of messiah. The first thing the public service (an oxymoronic term if ever there was one) needs is a good winnowing and reduction in numbers. One hopes that both his and Carneys’ tenure are short lived.
Just like Carney himself.
Gentler than Wells, but asks the same question about ability to implement and deliver.
I've quite enjoyed Wells' coverage of Sabia, as someone who is highly suspicious of corporate doublespeak bullshit. Hopefully Sabia proves Wells wrong, for all our sakes.
Hopefully, but I am dubious.
This is a pretty fawning assessment. Paul Wells examined Sabia's record much more closely and in much greater detail, and the picture he painted is much less flattering.
And, I expect, Wells' picture was much more accurate.
Sabia has hung around the Public Trough for far to long and while his resume may be long the list of tangible accomplisments is short -just look no further than the absolute failure of the Canadian Investment Bank. Also he is reported to have been a major promoter of the freezing of bank acc'ts during the Covid/Freedom Convey debacle. This act alone is a disqualifier for me for a such an important job in a country that (pretends) to be a free democracy.
"Also he is reported to have been a major promoter of the freezing of bank acc'ts during the Covid/Freedom Convey debacle."
Based on what evidence, exactly?
see article in Western Standard today - 9:11am this morning
That article indicates that he did his job, not that he was a "major promoter" of the policy set by Trudeau and cabinet.
link would be nice
A like for the (pretends), because it is true.
Sabia has failed upwards in reality. Perhaps this time will be different but the odds are against that.
Reposted, nearly verbatim, from my comment to Paul Wells' column on the same subject:
The answers to Gregory's rhetorical questions about Saint Sabia and other 'geniuses' in the power circles of Central Canada actually demonstrating accountability and achieving positive results:
No.
Never.
Will Saint Sabia and all the other 'geniuses' continue to get handsomely paid and credited with accomplishments that are not actually accomplishments (unless failure is an accomplishment)?
Yes.
Forever.
QUOTE
Canada’s public service needs wholesale reform, tough decisions, and decisive leadership to deliver a change agenda.
END QUOTE
- - -
Truer words were never spoken. As one with personal experience of the institution, I can confirm that it is, as you put it, "a shambles".
Morale amongst line workers and managers alike is generally abysmal.
Much was made of efforts to improve the diversity of the federal Public Service during Justin Trudeau's government, but these efforts often backfired. Although it was laudable to increase diversity of skin colour, religious affiliation, gender preference and age, I would argue that much less care was taken to promote (and reward) diverse thinking, vigorous debate and a willingness to stand up for principles.
This, coupled with the Public Service's perennial failure to recognize, nurture and reward subject matter expertise, has made for an execrable mixture of "right thinking", risk aversion and timidity.
Left unreformed, the toxicity that this and more general managerial failures have generated could lead to a scenario wherein the Public Service will only be good at retaining those who "play it safe" and "manage up", while driving away those who have genuine talent and a willingness to take principled positions in response to questionable directives from their political masters.
The appointment of Michael Sabia as Clerk of the Privy Council marks a potentially pivotal shift in how Canada's federal public service might operate under Prime Minister Mark Carney's leadership. Sabia is no mere caretaker; his resume and temperament suggest a transformational role, aligned with Carney’s economic ambitions and reformist ethos. However, there is a risk in appointing a visionary when what the public service most urgently requires is disciplined execution, administrative clarity, and a reassertion of core functions after years of diffuse growth and pandemic-era improvisation. With bureaucratic sprawl, policy paralysis, and performance malaise weighing down the machinery of government, the danger is that Sabia may gravitate toward symbolic leadership and long-term strategy, rather than the essential, unglamorous work of systems repair and delivery oversight.
The tension here is between vision and stamina. Carney and Sabia are intellectual powerhouses, but the challenges ahead are not primarily conceptual—they are logistical, institutional, and cumulative. The public service is not aching for another big idea, but for a course correction that restores focus, trims excess, and translates ambition into measurable outcomes. If Sabia can resist the temptation to float above the daily grind, if he commits to the grueling effort of rebuilding from within rather than dazzling from above, he may yet succeed. But history in Ottawa is littered with the remnants of promising reformers who mistook the arc of a speech for the weight of sustained implementation.
You’re dreaming in technicolor Buddy
Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the pushback. I take it that “dreaming in technicolor” suggests the vision I laid out for Michael Sabia’s potential to reform the federal public service might be a little too optimistic, maybe even naïve. And I get where you're coming from. After all, Canada’s bureaucracy has proven remarkably resistant to reform; good intentions often get bogged down in process, and ambitious leaders have been worn down by the sheer inertia of the system. The skepticism isn’t just valid; it’s grounded in decades of experience and disappointment. We’ve seen many people arrive with big reputations and leave without moving the needle.
But here’s why I still argue the moment (and the people involved) are different enough to merit hope. First, the alignment between Carney and Sabia isn’t just political; it’s structural. Both come from Finance, understand the machinery of government at the highest levels, and have spent years operating across both the public and private sectors. That gives them a shared language and urgency that past PM-clerk pairings often lacked. Second, the scale of the current crisis — economic uncertainty, a bloated and drifting public service, and cratering trust in institutions — may actually serve as the kind of forcing function that finally breaks the status quo. In that context, “business as usual” might not be an option, even for Ottawa. Finally, Sabia’s track record, while not perfect, is marked by a willingness to take on complex, messy roles. And Carney, for all his polish, seems to recognize the gravity of the task ahead.
So no, I don’t think it’s blind idealism to believe meaningful change is possible. It's a calculated bet on a rare alignment of personalities, pressures, and priorities. Is there a risk of failure? Of course. But to assume failure is guaranteed is to close the door on reform before the hard work has even begun. Let’s at least see if they’re serious. Then we can hold them accountable.
Ari, you write in part, "... I don't think it's blind idealism to believe meaningful change is possible. It's a calculated bet ..."
I submit that there really are two options available to the Carney/Sabia pairing.
First, given that the government(s), particularly over the last ten years, have entered so, so many areas with programs, pronouncements, yada, yada, yada, that to be able to actually DO what those programs, pronouncements, etc. promise will require MORE swivel servants to actually be able to do what was/is promised; oh, and much more spending. After all, the federal government is currently ten miles wide (in programming terms) and one centimeter deep in operating capacity. [Did you notice the mix of imperial and metric measuring systems? Quite deliberate.]
Second, given the same premise as above, if Carney/Sabia actually want to succeed at anything, very much including Carney's stated agenda and the agenda that will follow shortly (longly? who knows?), there is an incredible need to narrow the scope of government and dispense with an armada of swivel servants and reduce spending in order to free up capital and personnel for the "new" agenda.
Personally, I simply do not expect success in either direction from the Carney/Sabia duo in these areas but, instead, I expect that they will try to muddle along with the inherited mess and graft on the new mess(es) that they will proclaim as the new Jerusalem. In other words, I foresee the locomotive heading directly at the Government of Canada. With no recognition of the impending collision.
My metaphor, of course, means further confusion and incoherence and vastly increased spending. Of course, on the latter issue, increased spending, Carney/Sabia will try to cover that up by designating a large part of spending as "capital" rather than "operating." As a retired CPA, I certainly know the difference but I also know that both "capital" and "operating" budgets must be funded and both generate massive interest charges. So, ultimately, I see Canada swirling around the financial (and otherwise) drain.
It is justifiable to be skeptical and you have made a credible case to back up your skepticism.
I only wish that you had refrained from using terms such as "swivel servants" in what was otherwise a serious comment. It bespeaks a level of disdain that is unfair (as most public servants are hardworking and sincere).
Instead of attacking individuals with such epithets, surely we need to rethink the structures, the politics and the incentives that have led to the challenges we face?
AC, I actually DO have disdain for some of our "swivel servants." I am a retired CPA and I can very emphatically relate that I had just tremendous good fortune in dealing with many, many of our country's civil servants.
Unfortunately, I also dealt with others who really, really soured me on the good work of that first group. Included in that second group I had the bad fortune to be solicited for a "benefit" shall we say. I found that, yes, many folks really understood that they were servants of the public (in the best sense, to be sure) but others were time fillers and place holders. It is that last group who deserve the appellation "swivel servants" and it is they who should be gone so that the remaining folks can demonstrate again that they are public servants.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. You’ve laid out two possible roads: one toward expanding capacity to meet sprawling commitments, the other toward retrenchment and strategic focus. Each has intellectual coherence. The first reflects the scale of modern governance and acknowledges that promises require people and money to fulfill. The second recognizes that the state has limits and that too many overlapping mandates can paralyze delivery. I agree that muddling through—grafting new ambitions onto old dysfunction—is the most likely outcome if no clear strategy emerges.
Yet I would argue that a third path remains open, one that neither simply expands nor retracts the machinery of state, but instead reforms and reorients it. The public service, as it stands, is not just overgrown. It is misaligned. Layers of managerialism, opaque processes, and unproductive incentives stifle initiative and delay outcomes. Reform need not mean firing half the civil service or doubling it. It could mean flattening hierarchies, streamlining approvals, removing redundant agencies, and re-centering delivery on measurable outcomes. These are difficult moves to make but not impossible. The UK’s post-war civil service reform, led in part by William Beveridge and later refined by the Fulton Report in 1968, sought something similar: modernization without ideological warfare. It did not end all problems, but it made space for functional governance amid resource constraints.
Your concern about financial obfuscation is well taken. Redefining operating costs as capital may make balance sheets prettier, but debt service does not discriminate between the two. Still, some investments—digital infrastructure, green energy grids, streamlined service platforms—can reduce future operating burdens. The trick lies in clarity, discipline, and follow-through. That’s where Carney and Sabia may differ from past efforts. Both understand markets, incentives, and long-term tradeoffs. If they focus not on announcing vision but on fixing machinery, they might escape the fate of previous grand reformers.
Ultimately, your skepticism reflects hard-earned experience. But sometimes reform comes not from sweeping ideological turns but from technocratic persistence. As in the case of Atatürk's transformation of Turkey’s bureaucracy, the change began with institutional clarity, not rhetorical fervor. If Carney and Sabia fail, it will not be because reform was impossible. It will be because they underestimated how hard it is to do simple things well in government.
Ari, your comment was, well, thoughtful and - to my mind - quite optimistic.
I would characterize you as a glass half full individual.
By contrast, I look at a glass and see that it contains some element of water (or other liquid) and I recognize that a) the glass can easily be emptied; and b) it is possible to re-fill the glass. I find option a) much easier and consider option b) very important but I am uncertain as to competence or capacity of those re-filling my glass.
Please pardon my silly metaphor but, again, you are optimistic and I am, in this case, questioning and trying to avoid pessimism. Having said that, I fear that pessimism is more realistic.
I admit I have no idea why Sabia would be so adored except that he’s such a longstanding member of the Laurentian status quo. Wait. That just proves that I don’t belong
Canada needs bold ideas to be sure but above all, Canada needs its government to trim the fat and then get out of the way. Nothing big and bold has ever come out of government but big things sure have gotten tripped up by governments intent on pushing their agendas for their own benefit and not that of the country. I'm planning for underwhelming but open to be surprised.
3 jobs:
1) Leader of the Public Service
2) Sets cabinet agenda and reports
3) Top advisor to the PM
"Carney has his transformational clerk, but I wonder whether he’d have been better to find someone more transactional, who could focus on the first part of the job as head of the public service."
Of the three jobs, I agree leading the public service is both the most difficult and the most important, and wonder why the writer thinks a transactional, rather than transformational, approach would produce better results.
The leader has a short window to signal what will change, and what will be the same, because the led are paying attention. Change always gets attention. If he confirms a transactional culture, people will be disappointed but not surprised, and productivity, beneficial change, organizing to implement a new order of priorities will be much harder. Personal and departmental agenda will overcome the larger vision and "swampiness" will prevail.
I'm looking to see if he can be a transformational leader, pitch a better vision, AND execute. Many leaders ascend because they are skilled at one but not both. The greatest have stamina, perseverance, and the attention to detail that sees the transformation through.
I should add that my experience leading confirmed a positive impression of people. The vast majority of people want to do a good job, produce a good result, contribute towards ... something, ideally something valuable for people or their community.
Daniel Pink, to me, was very close when he said folks are motivated by autonomy (trust me to do what I know to do, or figure it out), mastery (my self-worth is rightly tied to my skill and understanding of this work), and purpose (described above).
Transactional people assume all people negotiate a piece of a finite pie. Visionary leaders can negotiate terms effectively when necessary, but prioritize the larger vision, bringing much of the non-transactional population along.
"Didn't stick around to complete each mission, lured away by greater challenge". Again a promise of great things but the jury remains out. Once more, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Hope for the best.
So, potentially, we now have a visionary, transformational Prime Minister and a visionary, transformational Clerk of the Privy Council. What we now need is someone second-in-command who is a practical, down-to-earth LEADER who doesn't put up with incompetence.
Sabia is portrayed as some kind of wunderkind - but what has he actually accomplished, ever? He is a creature of the current bureaucracy with all that entails.
Without a complete reorganization of the federal civil service, serious paring down of departments, elimination of duplication and redundant processes nothing will ever change. Better to bring someone entirely from the outside world to make these changes - not yet another mandarin from the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor.
So far the Carney Liberal government appears to be very good at announcing stuff and charming the cheerleaders in the parliamentary press gallery. We saw how that worked out this past decade.