The most politically dangerous role in the C-suite | Katie Burke (COO, Harvey)

Brett: We'll maybe talk about this sort of last little chapter as you kind of went from a chief people officer to a chief operating officer. But maybe to start, when you think about the work that you do as a chief people officer, what are the things that you think you do most differently?

Katie Burke: As a CPO, I think a few things. One is because I was a marketer before, you think about share of attention and that applies to recruiting, but it also applies to employees. So most, I think traditionally HR leaders think we have a captive audience, so how can we drone on and on with as much information as possible internally to put people to sleep because they have to listen? And what I would always tell my team is people have a choice with how they spend their day and spend their time. We need to make sure our internal messages are super compelling and interesting. The same is true of candidates. Most employer brands are not that exciting or differentiated. And so I think some of that is thinking about comms as a strategic differentiator. Two was we hired a lot from hospitality and that was very intentional. I believe that people coming from restaurants, hotels, you name it, do a better job at thinking about the guest experience and employee experience than someone who grew up in a more traditional corporate environment. And so what you saw was our team come up with ideas that might be ... So as a good example, during the pandemic, we were able to stand up an online Montessori school three days after the pandemic set in, because we knew that parents needed the most support and we were trying to think outside the box. Those are, I think, some of the ideas that come to fruition when you have people on your team who come from different backgrounds. And then third, I would just say, I think some of the traditional HR rhetoric is about getting a seat at the table. And I'm a big believer in don't ask for a seat at the table, build the table and set the menu. And so I think that attitude seeped through my whole team, which is like the business comes first, our customers come first. Employee programming has to ladder up to the business strategy first and foremost.

Brett: Talk more about what it means to actually build the table. What are the stories that come to mind that convey that idea?

Katie Burke: Yeah. So I think a few examples come to mind. So at HubSpot, we had five values and the acronym was HEART. And I think people think of that as a big success story. The reality is we had two iterations before of failed values launches as so many companies do, because we tried to make eight of them. We had an acronym that didn't make sense or resonate. And so once we had the five values is about how we actually lived them. And I think transparency is probably the easiest one to talk through. When we went public, there were a series of things that any normal company, especially advised by lawyers and bankers would of course retire. And what we decided to do is make everyone a designated insider and continue to share that information at that velocity. That's a total counterintuitive bet. But the feedback we got from employees was it felt like getting a mini MBA 'cause you got so much more exposure. So we had a lot more information available to people even as a public company. And I think that if you were coming from a very cautious background and you were like, "Oh, we should follow the rules and what every other company has done that," we wouldn't do that. And I think that's a type of transparency. We would also release our entire employee net promoter score survey every single comment, unless there was something that was harassing or problematic, every single comment, including comments that said things like, "Katie was terrible at that company meeting," or, "I really disagree with this program." And I think if you wanted to build a team that was just aligned behind you, you certainly wouldn't release that data. That's a good example of like, we wanted culture to be a strategic priority. That means living your values even when it's really hard.

Brett: What are the other kind of things from the outside seem very weird, but were definitely the correct thing to do, at least in that stretch?

Katie Burke: During that stretch. So I think a few things that we did. One, in the middle of the pandemic, we decided to give people choice around where they worked. So a lot of companies did the return to work, we'll return to work in May, we'll return to work in September, and you saw them keep pushing that out. What we did was we designed a menu of options, so you picked your work preference much like you pick your benefits. And so we had three options, home flex and office and people opted in every year and your stipends, your work allocation, your desks, all that kind of stuff aligned with that. That's a good example of something that no one else is doing at the time that they still benefit from to this day. So that led to a ton of recruiting velocity during a time when a lot of companies were struggling to hire fast. That was a big example of something that allowed us to go faster. I think a few other things were we would just talk regularly. We had something called failure forum and we would regularly talk about things that we got wrong, including execs. And it couldn't be things like my biggest weakness is that I worked too hard. It had to be like, this was a real flop and here's what led to it. So one of my favorite examples was a VP of product got up and talked about a customer launch that went really wrong. And it created a ton of downstream effects for our support reps that frankly just completely backlogged them for three days. And he basically got up there and said, "In addition to apologizing to our customers, I want to say to our support reps, we got this wrong and messed things up for you, which I feel even equally bad about." I think that's the kind of humility that people aspire to and it creates disproportionate loyalty to a company during an incredibly tight talent market and that stuff really matters.

Brett: Think about set any arbitrary goal, we want to get to $500 million in recurring revenue and we want this type of retention and we want this type of usage or some metric for value delivered to customers. Maybe talk a little bit more about how the people function becomes sort of a strategic input driver for that.

Katie Burke: Yeah. So I think a few ways. One is just the folks that you recruit. So people who are great at execution, who live your values, who get the how, and also who can drive the urgency. Two is, managers. I think people don't talk enough about the fact that managers are the folks who set your tone and experience, especially as it relates to those metrics. And so part of what a great people function does is like you get, let's say you do an all hands meeting every week, every month, doesn't matter what the cadence is, the people team runs. I actually think your success is not just predicated on that. It's predicated on to what degree are managers repeating that information regularly and using the same slides in their team meetings to reinforce that behavior. So I think a really good people team recognizes that you want to give people tools to actually advance those mechanisms without you in the room. And the third thing I would just say is on the leadership side of things, part of your job is just to be thinking about the current leadership team and the future leadership team. And I think succession planning is viewed as like what happens if someone gets hit by a bus. And what it should actually be doing is thinking about what's the leadership skillset we need in 10 years that we don't have now or in a year that we don't have now. And where are the gaps? What's our leadership team really good at now and what are we bad at now and how does our team, like, executive recruiting should really help solve that gap.

Brett: Maybe share more about that. Obviously if you're a C-level exec, your sort of primary team ideally should be the executive team. And it seems like at least how you're describing it, one of the unique dynamics of a chief people officer is maybe they should be much more mindful of everyone else. And even if a high functioning executive team, everybody's working on the business problems together, it's not, I'm a head of engineering, I'm a this or that. There seems like more responsibility about who's in those seats, how is that evolving?

Katie Burke: One of the trickiest parts of being a chief people officer is you are the HR business partner for the executive team. And that includes being able to flip a switch between saying, "Hey, let me help you with your org and let's do an x-ray of your organization." But also to be able to turn to you and say, "Hey, the way you showed up in that meeting, that's not the behavior we all expect of each other." And so you have to be the most trusted person in that room. You have to be able to have those conversations confidentially, but then you also have to be able to go to not just your CEO, but also your board and say, "Here's how our current team stacks up, including yourself and your own team, and here's where I think we need to be to succeed in a year's time or three years time." And I think that role is really delicate, really important, and really strategic. And I think the most important currency you have in that role is trust. So the second you have a conversation where you and I are talking and you're like, "Hey, I just have to say, I think my board presentation didn't land." And I'm like, "Yep, it didn't. And here's why and we have to have a conversation." And you find that I shared that back with our board or shared with our CEO, you're never going to come to me again. So part of your job is discretion and trust. And I think that's one of the most important functions of a CPO.

Brett: But how do you figure that out? It feels like it's, one is it could lead to just insane unproductive politicking, where you have this background shadow role like you're wearing multiple hats. Certainly you can't dramatically steal any conversation you have with another exec or you're not doing your job as really a leader and shareholder in the business.

Katie Burke: I think your first point is the worst case scenario of a CPO, the political monster who's advocating and always kind of playing chess behind the scenes. What I would always say to our team, and I would say this explicitly to everyone, is I will not share what you personally shared with me. I will share thematic feedback. So, hey, the executive team is concerned that we're not doing enough here. I'm not going to say you as an individual said this, but I am going to share thematic feedback. It is my duty to the company and to our customers. And so I think some of it is just being super clear on expectation setting. I think the second part of it though is just really taking that responsibility seriously. You cannot take a momentary opportunity to seize power at the risk of trust. And so I think the politicking is part of why that CPO role is so critically important and why the best people at that role know that they need the trust to do their job every day.

Brett: What percentage of CPOs do you think behave in that way versus a politicking way?

Katie Burke: I think the better question is what percentage of executives generally do that? And I think CPOs in particular have an additional responsibility, but I think it's low. I think that's part of why a high performing executive team is not just their resumes and CVs of people in those seats, it's how they operate together as a team. And I think the reality is there are a lot of folks who play in politics and there are a lot of folks who are out for themselves or their team. And I think what you said about being a first team, that's part of why a high functioning executive team puts that trust and also the disagreement that you have to be able to disagree. I don't trust teams where they say, "We don't agree. We're a family." I hate when people say we're a family. To me-

Brett: You're a high performance sports team type person?

Katie Burke: High performance sports team works, but I think high performing sports teams you see when you want to win. One of my favorite things to call as an example is like, Michael Jordan was a really hard person to be in practice with, really hard, notably hard. He annoyed and agitated his teammates. He was a better teammate than he was a friend by far. And I think that's part of what your job as an exec is to be a great teammate. He was incredibly loyal to his team, but he was a pain because he tried to make them better every single practice. That's what you want as an executive.

Brett: How would you describe the difference between that and an asshole person that just nobody wants to work with and is so disagreeable?

Katie Burke: I think one is, would you pass to Steve Kerr in the most important high cut? Like, are you willing to give up the ball when the stakes are highest? I think that selflessness is critically important. And then two is I think people need to believe that you want to win as a team and that's not just about you. And I think what you hear over and over again from interviews with his teammates was, "Yeah, he could be extremely difficult and confrontational. And would I necessarily want to have dinner with him every night? No, but I always knew he was going to be the hardest working person out there." Same thing with Kobe, what you see with him is his work ethic was unprecedented, and I think it makes it a whole lot easier to follow someone to battle if you feel like they're working just as hard, if not harder for you than the cause.

Brett: So what about if you think another executive just doesn't have the capability to do the job? Do you then have a conversation with the CEO or what is in the way that you see the world, like, how does one navigate that?

Katie Burke: Ideally one-to-one. So ideally the conversation would first be had where, "Hey, how do you think this is going?" And ideally, you have the self-awareness to recognize that yourself, but if you don't, give the feedback directly to say, "I think where we're falling shorter in a few different ways. Number one, your team doesn't have the trust you need. Number two, the results aren't there. Number three is as you're showing up as a leader within our executive team, I don't think we have the bar we're looking for." Those are really hard and painful conversations, but I would always rather someone hear that from me than hear it later or wonder about it after they were termed. And then to your point, if I feel like someone's underperforming, absolutely have to tell the CEO and the board what that looks like. And the idea is not every exit has to be a fiery exit. I think a lot of times people can be great leaders or great executives just not for that time period, that stage or that company. And I think part of your job as a leader is to create as many graceful exits as possible.

Brett: How does something like that not come into conflict with the idea of a transparency value?

Katie Burke: I would argue that transparency is not you having access to every bit of information. It's access to as much information that is safe for the company to share. And so in this case, I think hearing directly from your boss and from your peer that you're not meeting expectations, I think is the transparency that most executives deserve.

Brett: But if someone's fired for performance reasons, you think it is-

Katie Burke: Good example. So I think that is not your information. So I think the company has an obligation to be transparent around information. If you share why an executive was termed, there are two things that could go wrong. Number one, it could really impact their ability to get a job at another company. Number two, it creates rumors and discussion, and it also means that during the odd time when you don't share why someone's terminated, they make up a story that's way worse than whatever it was. And so what I would always say to our team is, "We are going to be incredibly and radically transparent around the things that are our information to share, and we're going to be super thoughtful and discreet about information that is not ours to share, including why we've chosen to part ways with people." And I think the reality is once you explain that to people that it's not one situation, that's how we always handle exits, I actually think people are pretty understanding of it because what I always say to people is, "Let's pretend that's you. How would you want us to treat you?" And if we said, "Actually this person wasn't cutting it," that could impact your job or your family moving forward, and that's unhelpful to our employer brand.

Brett: Do you think there's a scenario where it does make sense to tell a team that somebody was let go?

Katie Burke: Yes, I do. I've exercised caution in how we do that, but I do think there are situations where it makes sense. I also think it's totally fine to share that in context. And I think there are a few examples where sometimes we've been clear that it was for underperformance or for if someone publicly violates your code of contact, I think to say just in a brief way, "Katie did not meet the standards of expectations that we have at this organization," I think that is totally fair. You don't have to go into detail about why. You don't have to say more than that, but I think being clear with people that it was not our expectation is good.

Brett: When you think back to the different chapters of your career, when is being in alignment with values, when did you find it was the trickiest or the hardest?

Katie Burke: I mean, at HubSpot, we, like so many organizations, did a layoff in 2023. And I think when you think about our values, one of our values is empathy. And a lot of the outrage after layoff was it doesn't feel like that meets our standard of empathy. And I think there's reasonable arguments to be said. And so I think that was one of the hardest. We also had a situation in 2021, where, like so many people, we got through 2020 and we're rounding the corner in 2021 and we were kind of feeling like, "Okay, we're going to get back to normal." And our CEO at the time, Brian Halligan, got in a near death snowmobiling accident. And thankfully he's okay, made a full recovery, but it was not clear at the time how that was all going to go. Transparency is tricky in that situation because you're dealing with medical information, you're dealing with someone's family, you're dealing with then a public company and disclosure and precedent. And so I would say that was a really hard one too. So those were the two examples that come to mind on empathy and transparency that were the hardest.

Brett: And like if you take the layoffs, how did you work through that tension?

Katie Burke: Some people know this, some people don't, but when you decide to do a layoff as a company, it's a big enough decision that your board is certainly involved, your entire executive team, and you have to be kind of all in it together 'cause it's a one-way route that you're running and you have to be super thoughtful about it. So part of what we did was we asked ourselves, how do you infuse as much empathy as possible into a situation that is incredibly difficult? That included our package, that included, for example, we tried to be extremely generous with our severance package. We got board approval to do that. And I think even now, many years later, people have said our terms for that were super thoughtful. And we've also heard from people they appreciated how we handled it. So any person who is part of the layoff who wanted to talk to a senior leader, we created office hours. So you got one-on-one time. So if you wanted to complain, if you wanted to get mad, if you wanted to yell, we created space for that. And the reason for that is I think when you're making a hard decision, you never want to be so far from people that you don't feel the impact of that decision. So I will never forget what that felt like. It was incredibly hard. It was most hard on the people who were impacted by the layoff, make no mistake about that. But I think sometimes making yourself available to actually have to feel the weight of that decision is critically important.

Brett: What did that experience teach you?

Katie Burke: Layoffs teach you a lot about hangovers. So I think a layoff has a hangover of I think two to two and a half years at a company. And I think you have to be aware and cognizant of that going in, because there's the initial shock, then there's the survivor guilt for people who are still at your organization. And then there's the ongoing lagging fear of people that another one is coming. And so I think some of what you have to keep in mind is our board members told us there's probably going to be a two-year period. And I was like, "Well, we're a pretty agile organization, pretty fast moving." There is a true cultural hangover of a layoff, and I think that's sort of an important warning for people to know is that it's not just a one-time business decision, it's a cultural decision that has implications for many years to come.

Brett: The so what is that you just have to be constantly nurturing the organization after that or keeping it in mind? Or ...

Katie Burke: I think the so what is you have to go and eyes wide open that it's a two and a half year process, not a 90-day process. And then I think the other so what is just to be mindful as you think about workforce planning, just the implications of during hyper growth, how are you thoughtful about balancing adding a ton of headcount, which frankly is mission-critical to achieving your goals with balancing where you might want to flex up or down with contractors or other help. And then finally, it's just recognizing, like, the decisions that you carry as a business leader have significant weight on people's lives and their families' lives. And I think it's always just important to have that at the back of your mind.

Brett: Maybe sort of in a sort of similar vein, it feels like a process by which resources are allocated, at least, I mean, I think still to this day, but in general, is very squishy. Do we need four people for this? Nine people for this. We could do this with three, but it would be easier with 10 or it would be ... It feels like the whole precision around how many people do you need for X or Y? It's this very messy process. And it's I think one of the reasons why in general you end up with tremendous bloat at most companies, like, the normal just gravitational pull, whether it be executives building fiefdoms and power being how many people work underneath you, or the fact is, I think we could really squeeze to get this goal with three, but it'll be a heck of a lot easier with six, so I'm going to ask for eight and then we're going to end up at six. What are some of the things that you figured out around headcount planning and what we need for any given part of the org?

Katie Burke: I think headcount planning ... I've never been in org who's like, "We have absolutely excelled at headcount planning." So I think some of it is just normalizing exactly as you said, that it's messy, complicated, and inherently human. And I say all that with the notion that now it's going to get all that much more complicated when you add agents into the mix. So if you think about it, it was already so hard when it related to just humans, now you add agents into workforce planning, it's going to get a whole lot messier. And so I think a few things that have worked is number one is just defining the work first that needs to be done. So for example, a bottoms up model where people just say, "Here's how many heads I need without defining what the work is," that always falls short because to your point, the fiefdoms exist. There isn't necessarily alignment on how many folks on EPD or go to-market are actually needed. For example, PLG is a good example of emotion where you can't just spin that team up agnostically. And then number two is really pushing on the what is the work that needs to be done, what's the level that needs to get done, and having a level of accountability between your finance people and business teams on it. And then number three is just having people really feel an understanding of like with every head we add, we are adding exactly to your point, yes, a great skill and work to be done, but you're also adding the potential for disparate ownership. So one of the things that happens is if two people are in charge of anything in a company, the chances it gets done well are pretty limited. And so part of what you have to do is drive discipline along with every time you're adding people, you have to add a little bit more discipline to the process to make sure that everyone is clear on what your goals are and that everyone is clear at the speed at which they're expected to achieve them.

Brett: Walk us through, maybe in the case of Harvey, you're doing headcount planning. What does it actually look like? Who's involved? What does the process look like?

Katie Burke: I'll give you a recent example. So we just hired a chief product officer, Anique Drumright. She joined us from Rippling. She is currently with my team starting tomorrow for two days. Part of what we're doing is new executive comes on board, you want to be thoughtful to make sure that the headcount plan that we did all of six weeks ago is still relevant for what she's thinking she needs. And obviously she's spent a ton of time with our team already just getting to know us and getting to know our customers a bit and also has gotten feedback from her direct reports. And so part of it is, if you have an annual plan, especially in the world of AI, that is going to get still very fast. I'm saying this to you now as someone five weeks in, we're already doing a re-plan. That doesn't mean starting over from scratch. It just means for the next quarter ahead, what do we need to change or adjust to make sure we're thoughtful and calibrated? Number two is you need to make sure just at the very basics that you have enough ramped recruiters to achieve those goals. So one of the mistakes people make is, for example, putting a number into Q2 headcount in EMEA when notice periods simply will not allow that to happen. And then three, I think is just aligning to business need first and foremost. So another, every once in a while you'll hear from someone like, "I, Katie, just want to hire this person." And part of what you need to push is like a level of business need without adding a ton of process. So in other words, what I've seen people do is in the age of AI, now people are like, "I have to write a full rec. I have to get 17 people's approval to get headcount open." I don't think that works either, so it's finding the balance between being agile and onerous in the planning. And then I think when you add a new leader, you have to be open to letting them give feedback on the current plan versus keeping it rigid. Otherwise, I think the gap between what you were intending to do and the people you have on board doing it just gets too wide. So at Harvey, for example, we do a financial plan for the entire year. We do a headcount plan for the year, but we do a mini re-plan on a quarterly basis based on business needs, based on GOs, all that kind of good stuff.

Brett: Maybe switching gears slightly. I think if you look back certainly to late 2010s and into the pandemic, a lot of people, organizations sort of became some version of a nanny state, that it was about employee happiness, that it was about everyone comes to work dancing down the street. And that it felt like many, obviously not all, but many of the organizations became like some version of a coddling or happiness function. And maybe on the other end of the extreme, there's sort of some dynamic, where the people function really drives performance. And at times there's maybe a tension between those things or a misunderstanding about those things. What are your reflections on that? And as a company specific, certain companies are nanny states. And that's just, if you want to be nannied, that's a great company to go to and that it's very company dependent or a lot of people just have this wholesale wrong.

Katie Burke: Our VP of talent, Maggie Landers, has a great expression, which is, "The resort has to match the brochure." And I think when it comes to the coddling versus performance culture, what you say you do versus what you do has to match. I do think so many companies went too far in the 2010s. I do think people thought our job was to make people happy every day. And I think the Disneyland approach to employee experience is gone. On the flip side, I think we've overcorrected, which is to say work should be hard, get back to work, return to office mandates, taking away perks, taking away the humanity of it. I don't want to jerk the wheel too far. So when I was talking to founders, one of the questions that I asked them as part of my interview process was, how do you think about severance packages for employees who don't work out? And one of the founders I spoke to said, "I take care of the people who work here, not people who don't." And I was like, "Right, I hear you, but people took the bet on you and don't you feel like you should at least be fair and ethical on that?" And the feedback that Winston and Gabe had was, "We should do whatever is fair and market it." And by the way, we know that those people talk to other people in the industry and so we want to make sure we're thoughtful about the flywheel we're creating for talent. And so I think when we talk about Harvey, we talk about the fact that we are incredibly intense. We don't make any apologies for that, but we're intense but reasonable. So in other words, if you have a doctor's appointment, if you're taking parental leave, we want to make sure that you feel like you can actually take it. We want to hire great humans, but also at the same time, we want to make sure we're clear that this is not a nine to four culture. And I think balancing those two, all you have to do is be clear on who you are and make sure that your interview process matches what people experience day-to-day.

Brett: But the part of what you're saying is the way that you describe that is really only correct for Harvey as an organism.

Katie Burke: Yes.

Brett: It's not globally correct.

Katie Burke: I don't think there's a globally correct way to do things. So for example, when I was at HubSpot, we spent so much time on culture and employee experience and people would often bait me to say bad things about Amazon because they viewed it as antithetical to what we did at HubSpot. I'm like, I actually think Amazon has a good culture. They're clear on who they are and you know what you're signing up for. So for example, they pit teams, internal teams against each other. They're clear about that in the interview process. So I think that is a functional culture. I have a much bigger problem with people who advertise it's all unicorns and rainbows and when you come in, it's cutthroat.

Brett: Do you think you at different points in your career created too much of like, I'm in charge of employee happiness and all of that type of stuff? Or do you think you sort of threaded the needle appropriately?

Katie Burke: I think everyone did at that time. And I think HubSpot was no different and I was certainly no different as a leader. I think what we tried to get people back to was our job is not to make you happy every day. Our job is to create an environment where you can do the best work of your career. And we said that explicitly to people. I think how that actually takes shape day-to-day is really hard to enforce and get right. And there were certainly days when we overindexed too high to the unicorns and rainbows and I think disappointed people. And I think the reality is we had to find a better balance.

Brett: What have you figured out about the tricky things related to incentives? If you go back to the idea of the Charlie Mungerism, incentives rule the world, that has to express itself in so many ways in a people function, compensation, bonuses, promotions. Do you have any sort of meta-thoughts or, like, specific things that you figured out that are particularly tricky about the way that incentives works? Particularly because in so many ways, incentives are some proxy metric, that, like, at the end of the day, you're trying to deliver something for customers, that in turn creates shareholder value in a particular way when you sort of think about it actually as a business. And then you have all the human beings and/or agents now, in pursuit of sort of that flywheel of shareholder value creation. And then you have sort of all of these things that try to approximate those. And it seems like it gets even more complicated at each chapter of sort of company growth and more people and sort of that type of thing.

Katie Burke: Charlie Munger was prescient about this as he has done so many different things. I would say a few things from having watched this up close that stick out. Number one is you have to keep your incentives as simple as possible. So a good example would be as you're thinking about executive compensation, a bonus program for your entire company. The temptation is to make it six different variables that folks can then manipulate, and the idea is then it makes it harder to manipulate. That is fundamentally untrue. I actually think simplicity is really important when it comes to comp and incentive.

Brett: Well, what normally happens to your point is it feels like, "Okay, we're going to have some simple bonus structure." And then you're like, "Wait, no, no, no. It's going to be gamed in this way. So we're going to then measure these nine things."

Katie Burke: Anytime we would do a bonus structure or anytime I do a bonus structure, what I often play out including with the board is what's the failure mode for each of these. Usually there's a top line, bottom line. There aren't many creative optics on all things bonus. And so as a result, you go, "Okay, what would failure mode look like and what trade-offs are we comfortable with given that?" So I'm a big believer in simplicity wins. Two on incentives is I have not met counterintuitively, most managers are not actually out for themselves. They think of their first team as the people below them and they view their job as to protect and lobby for the people below them. And so oftentimes what I would see is not prioritizing themselves over the customer or the company, but prioritizing their team. And so I think when you know that, part of what you have to think about is when you go into promotion calibrations, when you go into giving managers autonomy over performance ratings, giving managers autonomy around compensation and equity adjustments, that's the frame you have to keep in mind is not what they solve for themselves as individuals, but how do they view their role as lobbyists on behalf of their team and how do you potentially intermediate that? And in my experience, that should be the exec's job of that function versus the people function to be calling that out. The people function obviously plays a critical role, but to me, that's holding the exec accountable for holding their directors accountable, for example.

Brett: But how does the problem just not flow up to the ... Well, normally you have the eng manager, they have a pot of engineers. In that case, they're incentivized to get whatever they can for them. How does it just not end up with this cascading problem where then at the very top, that person has that same cognitive bias to think about the thousand engineers that sit in multiple layers beneath them?

Katie Burke: So every time before a performance cycle, what I try and do is, before we even get into the how we're going to do it, I try and go, "What are we solving for?" And so for example, I will make leaders around the table say, "We want to have a high performance culture. We want to retain the top 10% of people." And what I have found is super helpful is pulling up reviews. So oftentimes I will pull up a blinded review and I'll say, "What do you think this person got on their rating in this team?" And I will include someone from my own org, so I'm not throwing shade at anyone. And oftentimes that's a humbling moment for people to go, "Okay, last cycle, I let that go on my team. Do we want to have an environment where we do that?" Okay, maybe that's fine. If we do, if we want to be more permissive, that's okay. But if we want to be a high performance culture, we need to be honest about the culture we create in our own teams and then we set the objectives together. So I will come in with a straw man and say, "Here's what I think we should roughly do." But oftentimes I hold up a mirror from the last review cycle. I find using verbatims is super helpful, because I think if you talk in the abstract or pull from some performance management book, you're probably going to fall short. If you pull examples from real managers saying, "Here's what I heard," or better yet, from your HRIS from the last cycle, I find that is much more likely to actually change people's behavior.

Brett: What have you figured out about titles when you're at a fast-growing company. And if someone is, they're a hundred person company, their plan is to get, they're going to be 250 people this year. They kind of have now career ladder and that type of thing. What's your important advice for thinking through what happens with titles as this company starts to really grow?

Katie Burke: So I would say a few things. I think executives who say, "Titles don't matter," are delusional. They do matter to people, and so does the opportunity to grow. However, if you are someone who in the interview process is mostly focused on what your title is going to be, your behavior during your entire duration of the process ... So one of my pieces of insight is people are on their best behavior as candidates. I can't even tell you how many conversations I've had where I'm like, "He was a little difficult in the negotiation, but I'm sure once he's here, he'll be a real peach." And that has not been my experience. So I think if someone is lobbying for title, they are going to be that difficult once they're on board. However, I believe not surprisingly on titles that you should solve with a level of simplicity. So for example, at Harvey, we don't have an SVP layer yet. That's pretty intentional on our part. We have head of layers, we have VP layers, we have C level layers. We don't feel like at 650 people, we need to add that level of complexity. With that said, we also don't have a perfectly rigid career ladder. So what I often say for people interviewing is they'll say, "What's your exact ladder?" I'll say, "We're growing so fast. We have guides, we have rough leveling, but we don't have this clear, if you do this in two years, you'll be promoted. That's part of the joy of joining a fast-growing AI startup, but it also means you got to be comfortable with the ambiguity that comes along with it. And in my experience, you need to make sure you set some federal guidelines on that." So if for example, one of the things you could do at a startup is say, "Hey, you do your own thing. I'll do mine and it will get figured out later as we scale."

Brett: Just push it down to some manager or this exec can do whatever they want in that.

Katie Burke: That gets exactly as messy as you would think based on what we talked about with headcount planning. And so I'm a big believer that leveling at least rough guidelines should be a federal decision versus state.

Brett: At what point do you think that should be made much more explicit or legible versus like, "Yeah, we roughly have it, but we're going to figure out as we go"?

Katie Burke: So what we did at Harvey was we did a federal system, but then the states are responsible for figuring out how they level each individual. That to me feels fair. Doing the actual leveling at the federal level was pretty painful at our stage and size. So I would say we did it around 300 people. The reason we did it was we were about to double or triple in size. So given that, it just felt like as we're bringing in a bunch of new people, this is only going to get messier. Leveling is exactly as messy no matter what stage. So we did a leveling exercise at HubSpot at 8,000 people. We did one at Harvey at 300 people. It's always really messy because it targets people's self-identity and awareness and how they align with the title. And so I think just going in knowing that, you have to appreciate the emotional depth that goes behind a leveling decision. Then you have to pick a lane that includes trade-offs and then set the course.

Brett: All executives experience this, but certainly the chief people officer probably more so than anyone, which is basically by definition when you're operating a large company, you're going to have a subset of people that no matter what you do or what the approach is or what the philosophy is, will not like it. You could have the greatest snacks in the world and there's going to be someone that has all these different allergies and they don't like the snacks and you don't get the snacks that I ... You could come up with any possible policy. And it just feels like you're constantly dealing with a decent chunk of people that are frustrated about something. Did you just learn to be at peace with that or why does it not drive you insane?

Katie Burke: I don't think being a chief people officer is for the faint of heart because I think you have to be okay with the fact that at any given moment, roughly 20% of people are unhappy with you, the decisions you made.

Brett: With at a large organization, it's a lot of people.

Katie Burke: A lot of people. But the other thing about it is, the worst thing you could possibly do is say, "That doesn't matter, they're wrong." That's terrible, 'cause then you shut down to important critical feedback that I think really matters. And so I think the balance between listening to things that people have very valid complaints about on things that matter is critical, ignoring the things that don't really matter. So a good example, our old COO at HubSpot had an expression called protein versus sugar. And the best way to think about it is, people's substantive complaints around things that really matter that stand in the way of us winning, that are at odds with our culture, those you got to really pay attention to. The complaining about the snacks really doesn't matter. We had an episode that will forever be famous in the halls of HubSpot called Berrygate. And basically what happened was we used to provide fresh berries as a perk. And the fresh berry, the finance team created a chart where the berry consumption versus headcount was disproportionate. We had this important management team meeting to figure it out.

Brett: It was like an exponential or something?

Katie Burke: Yeah, it was exponential and the cost of berries was going ... And you can imagine how much time-

Brett: Double exponential curve.

Katie Burke: Yes. And then the price of berries is going up and what could happen and how could this all ... It's a ridiculous conversation, but nonetheless.

Brett: But it was not a joke conversation.

Katie Burke: It was not a joke conversation at all. We had a serious conversation about it. And we figured out what we considered at the time to be an elegant solution to it, which was we were going to take away the fresh berries, but we were going to open a smoothie bar. And a smoothie bar was a win-win, at least from, this is like executive leadership at its finest/worse, was a win-win because customers could come in. We named the smoothies after customers. It was health forward. It provided a non-drinking option like what could go wrong.

Brett: You leave this meeting and you guys are like, "We-"

Katie Burke: "Killed it. Honestly, like, pat on the back, round of applause. No one has better elegant solutions than us." I get back to my desk and a woman on my team who I really trust will not make eye contact with me. Nothing to see here. She's literally avoiding me at all costs. And I was like, "Tell me exactly what's going on right now." She's like, "Well, there might be a bit of an issue." And I was like, "Talk to me about what you mean." And basically there was a whole Slack channel discussion around how employees were not consulted in this decision. There were a few other things. Do I not know that the fiber content of Berries is better when you consume the berries whole than in a smoothie? Why did our CFO not hold a town hall meeting for people's input on this? I pretty rarely at HubSpot ... I always was sort of like, "What could I do better? What could I do wrong?" I wrote a note to everyone and I was like, "I think we've completely lost the plot. On stuff like this, we are not going to consult the entire company. We are going to make decisions that have winners and losers and we're going to make hard calls in the interest of scale." And in this particular case, if you have spent the last 45 minutes complaining in this Slack channel about Berrygate, you clearly don't have enough work to do and we need to have a different conversation." And what's interesting about that moment in time is it became a rallying cry for what people actually cared about. Our most loyal employees were like, "Great, I'm so glad you said something because we've had entitlement issues for a while." And so I think part of what you have to do as a chief people officer is be clear on the feedback that matters versus the feedback that doesn't. I got a lot of really tough feedback on things that made me better that I had to listen to that were really important. So a good example would be we had one engineer in Dublin that had a comment for almost everything that we did. The reality was he was right on, let's call it 75% of things that he emailed me about. And so when I got an email from him, I'd always go, "What can I be doing better or differently and take it seriously?" And so I think the temptation is just ignore all the noise and I think that's a mistake. But if you pay attention to the noise, it will ... There's a reason that the average tenure of a CPO is short. Some of it is because of maybe not the right fit for business value or stage, but some of it's because it's a really hard job. It takes a big emotional tax on people.

Brett: Do you think based on sort of all of your different experiences that if someone is complaining about things that are just berries, that you should just get rid of them, that it is highly unlikely that high performance, the most important people in the company are complaining about berries? Or no, actually there's a lot of star players that complain about berries?

Katie Burke: Barriers. There are a lot of star players who complain about berries.

Brett: What do you make of that?

Katie Burke: And I think part of what we have to figure out is the balance between the two. So for example, there were people who talked about or complained about things. A good example would be the office environment, temperature, lighting. Lighting's a really good example of something engineers are super passionate about, because they feel like if I'm going to stand in front of a screen for eight hours a day, you want to make sure you don't have glare. There could be health issues and reasons behind it. And so I think the easy temptation is to kind of just say, "Everyone who complains about what you consider to be arbitrary is ridiculous," I think that is a huge mistake. And so part of what you have to do is figure out what's the ratio of people doing great work versus complaining. So to me, I care less about the berries and more about many of the people that were complaining in that Slack channel were people who were frequent flyers. And I care more about the frequent flyers of people who I'm like, "Feels like eight out of 10 times we have an issue. There are these five people that are always around the water cooler on it. That to me is a more concerning pattern than people having fickle complaints." I think most human beings have a fickle complaint about something. And if you have a specific dietary restriction, a lighting thing, if you have one thing that you're passionate about, I think there are a ton of talented people that you can make accommodations for. I think the pattern of behavior of being a nuisance is a bigger red flag.

Brett: You said something in passing a second ago that I think a couple of people have written about maybe in great detail, which is basically this idea that whenever there is not enough work at a company, all sorts of shenanigans start to happen. And that you could argue in the late 2010s through the pandemic, it was at an extreme, where there was just not enough demanding work for people. And when environments are demanding and demand a lot, there's just no time to spend 45 minutes ranting about a banana or something. Do you think a lot about that in your role? Do you think that's generally correct that you do need to match the amount of work relative to people or there's not that much to be learned from it?

Katie Burke: I think people are at their best when things feel demanding but not completely overwhelming. And I think that balance is really hard. It's also just hard to achieve company-wide. So everyone's been in sprints, where the engineering team is working super hard or times like end of year, sales and finance are working super hard. And so a lot of running a company is energy management and getting people motivated for sprints and then also getting people motivated to take a breather when they need it. That's really hard, I think, right now in this chapter when it feels like it is growth at all costs. And so I do think that there's something to like, you should have enough demanding work for everyone to focus on. Actually allocating that work across teams and geos is really hard to do.

Brett: In the point about the frequent flyers or frequent complainers, one of the things that I've noticed is they also have a way of indoctrinating their ideas into other people and getting other people rallied around nonsense. Are you hypervigilant of those type of people and you try to exit them because you do think it could kind of spread?

Katie Burke: The people with specific opinions around certain snacks or things or temperatures or items, those people don't bother me that much because every single one of us had them. The frequent flyers are the problem, because they get people to focus their energy around those minute things that don't matter. And so to me, I pay a lot of attention to frequent flyers. I'll give you a few examples. At HubSpot, whenever anyone started a new hire training, and if on the Thursday of new hire training when things wrapped up, they sent me a note that said, "Here are my 18 observations on things that could have been better or differently. And oh, by the way, here's my list of requests moving forward." I'd always go, "This person will probably last three to six months." The difference between that and someone who writes and says, "Hey, I just want to say my new hire trainer was incredible." Or, "I feel so proud to be part of HubSpot and I think these three things just to keep in mind would be feedback for next time around. Look forward to working with you." Those are two totally different things. And the people who bias to negative in their first week typically is the leading indicator of how they're going to operate.

Brett: Are there other patterns like that that you've observed?

Katie Burke: Listening to directions. So interestingly enough, one of the biggest predictors of the highest performing sales reps was them listening to the basics from IT facilities in day one. So long before you get to selling, just actually listening to people's instructions. Not surprisingly, that had an impact on performance, but also on attrition. So that was a leading indicator that most people, like, computer set up would not be the intuitive thing that you would think would make a difference and it does. I think the ratio of complaining versus fixing is a big one at any organization. And I think we can all name someone we work with who is complaining 75% of the time and fixing 25%. And then the other thing I would just say is just how much people bring up, at my last company I did this or I was known for this. I think bringing up past experiences, learning from other companies is super valuable. No one wants to hear you regale everyone with the tails of your greatness at your other organization. So the relying on your resume versus what you're doing at your current organization is another red flag.

Brett: Do you think the manager of a team does not need to be the best in that discipline?

Katie Burke: I don't think they need to be the best, but I think this notion of professional managers who have no idea what their team do all day is also a huge miss. I don't think anyone wants to work for someone who doesn't understand anything about their craft, but I don't think you need to be better than the people you manage. I manage a ton of people who are way better at their area of function, but I need to have enough subject matter expertise that they can learn something from me, or at least that I can be dangerous in conversation with them. I think that credibility is important.

Brett: Play devil's advocate, if you're the VP of engineering, is there a case that you actually should be the most strongest technically in that organization?

Katie Burke: I think you have to be incredibly sound technically. So in other words, I think the folks who are like, "Yeah, I did engineering for a few years and then I've been a professional manager ever since." I think it's about that level of credibility and I do think that matters. And so I think you have to be the best is very different from you're extremely good and you're enough to get the principal or staff engineer to be able to talk shop with you. That's an important threshold.

Brett: Switching gears back a little bit to the craft of what it means to be an effective chief people officer, explain in your mind what is the difference between a VP of people and a chief people officer in terms of capability, not obviously you're in different roles. One, you're on the e-staff or executive team, but in your mind, if somebody's caught and they're going to really struggle, they're very good as a VP of people, but they're going to struggle. What's the gap in your mind between those two?

Katie Burke: I'll answer this generally, which is like VP versus C-level executives, where do people get caught generally? 'Cause I actually think a lot of VPs, I have unfortunately become the poster child for CPOs, and so as a result, CEOs are like, "When should I hire the CPO versus VP of people?" I actually think both of them can be important execs at a company regardless of stage. I think the answer to your question of what stands between a VP of people becoming a C-level executive or really any function, number one is self-awareness. So once you hit the VP level, there's this thing that happens where you start going, "Okay, I'm actually kind of good at this. I've hit this level of competency where I'm actually feeling comfortable." You start taking in a lot of praise and kind of filtering out constructive feedback on how you can get better. And so I think self-awareness is a big one to get from VP to C level.

Brett: Why is it not important to go from director to VP? Again, not even getting to level lengths, but like squishy sort of up the org. Why do you highlight that so much more than maybe even director to VP?

Katie Burke: So director to VP, I think it's actually relevant for the next one, which is I think your ability to recruit people who are better than you. I think that's applies to both directors and VPs. Director to VP, it's how you talk to your direct reports. So oftentimes what you find directors doing is almost acting like a camp camp counselor. "Okay, friends, here's what we're going to do," and everyone knows what it feels like to be on the other side of that conversation. That's how they treat their managers, and that's singularly unhelpful. So director to VP, it's how do you elevate your operating system so you can have a conversation that doesn't feel like you're speaking to people like a camp counselor. VP to C level, it's self-awareness, and then recruiting people are better than you.

Brett: That sort of note about director to VP in terms of managing the team, what does it sound like if they're doing it correctly and it's not a camp counselor?

Katie Burke: It's number one, trusting and empowering the people that are below you. So in other words, your meetings are more about accountability to that goal versus defacto managing their team. So most directors are just de facto managing the teams for the manager. And what you want to hear is your time is more spent going, "Hey, what are the patterns you're seeing in our team and how can I best help?" Versus, "Okay, how is this person doing? How is person one doing? How's person two doing?" Number two is that they've changed their operating system from being a manager or director. So what I often ask for is, "How is your calendar different now than it was six months ago when you were director?" And people often say, "Well, I have more one-on-ones." I'm like, "That's actually the wrong answer. What I would like to see is fewer one-on-ones and more systems that help you scale." And so that's, I think for a VP what I see or for a great director, you see them go, "I changed my operating system." I said, "No to interviewing ICs on my team. I'm now only focused on interviewing managers and on equipping my managers to make better decisions for their team." And as you move to VP, it's like, "Hey, now I have five directors reporting to me. I'm thinking about an operating system that matches the urgency we need. And so I've switched my team meetings, my skip levels, everything to reflect that"

Brett: Let's take this scenario, you're a 2,500 person company or their chief people officer. In the way that you think about operating a company, what are the types of decisions that you think you are singularly responsible for and what are the types of decisions that you are pushing off or you are sure other people should be responsible for?

Katie Burke: Yes. So I think company goals, team objectives, and then what the shape of our organization at the end of a given year looks like, I think that falls to the executive. Decisions on IC hiring, how we're going to build a certain campaign, things like that, I think should fall to your team. And ideally, you're finding a mix of those two. So people feel level ... I'm a big believer the best people in the world wants some level of autonomy. I don't think anyone's ever been like, "Wow, I can't wait to work for her. She's the best micromanager around." And so I think ideally you're clear on where you play so that people understand, "Hey, this is your decision to make." And so to me, it's the company goals, the team goals, and then here's what I want us to have achieved by the end of the year, and then everything else falls to your team.

Brett: When you're sort of building a company and you're at scale, you talked about this a little bit, but at least in the people function, what are the most common problems that aren't always apparent when you're at the sort of top of the org, but doing this for a long time, there are these hidden landmines as you go from 500 people to 1,000, the people or goes from two people to 10 people. What are the types of things that maybe go overlooked, but most people leaders will eventually run into these?

Katie Burke: One is you get so focused on your roadmap of we should be implementing this talent program or we should be rolling out ACR at this time. You get too program centric versus people-centric. And so for example, if you're rolling out this top talent program, but 17 people from your top talent radar have left during that quarter, you should stop and be able to be agile enough to actually go hold our horses, let's do something different. I think what I've noticed at that scale is oftentimes people are so like, "But we said we were going to do this." You have to make sure you have the ability to flex the plan based on what you're seeing. Number two is just being too reliant on just the numbers. So for example, attrition is a great example of something that is a lagging indicator. You often don't realize you have a huge problem in a team until six people leave. And so part of what you want to look at is your analytics for what's actually predictive. At HubSpot, we found that employee happiness, so just saying on a scale of one to 10, how likely are you to recommend HubSpot? Great measure, feels really good when it's high. It wasn't actually predictive. What was predictive was people saying, "I see myself at HubSpot in the next 12 months." That was the only predictive measure on our survey. So as a result, you got to get really religious about paying attention. And so we would do that every single quarter and you'd pay attention to behaviors by geo, by team, by level, and you'd have specific actions based on how you interact with those groups, because otherwise you're going to miss it's too late. So looking at leading indicators is another one. The third one though is your own team. So what you find on people teams is everyone is people-centric, but the same temptation to become more team versus company is still there within people organizations. So territorial approaches, for example, learning and development and HR business partners are a good example of teams that often and talent development teams, they tend to have conflict. And part of what you have to do is be an active proponent of helping squash that.

Brett: You had this very long stretch at HubSpot of, call it 11 years. It seems like a very formative time in your career, and you formed all sorts of important ideas. Have you changed your mind on any of those important ones since joining Harvey?

Katie Burke: HubSpot was absolutely formative. And I think one of the things that we did incredibly well as a team was that focus on culture as a key differentiator for the company. So for example, we had people at HubSpot who knew more about our culture and employer brand than they did necessarily about our product. And so part of what I wanted to do at Harvey was a little bit do something slightly different, which is to say, "We have a great culture and I'm very proud of the culture that we're building, but ultimately at the end of the day, we want to be the leading AI platform for lawyers, so I want our product and our brand to lead and our culture to follow." And so I think, I don't know that that's necessarily changing my mind, but it's the focus on the work and what we're building and then investing in building our brand first and foremost, I think that's probably one. And then I think secondarily, the degree to which pace matters. So I would've said at HubSpot, we have to match the going fast and going slow on certain decisions. I don't think you have that luxury. So the time compression, I would say at Harvey has been a big thing. I don't think any opinions I have with regard to how to run an organization have meaningfully changed other than the need for rapid speed, and then making sure that you lead with the brand and your customer value above the company and culture.

Brett: When you think about what's happened in AI and call it the last bit of time post ChatGPT, and maybe even most recently or the last six months, where it feels like there's been just such a step function, what do you think, if anything, has changed as it relates to the people function? Not you think in the next five years, it was X and it's going to be Y, but like right now, if you're running a people org, do you think there have been really important changes?

Katie Burke: I think you said a few important things there. One is the inflection point you mentioned. Even in December, I think what you saw from the model outputs was, oh boy, things have already changed from even six months to a year ago. Given that, I think you're seeing two things. One is for non-technical folks, the ability to use, for example, Claude and meaningfully automate or create systems that otherwise would've taken you hours is pretty staggering. And I would say anyone who's missing that as a holy cow moment is missing the point. But secondarily, I think part of what you see is if the models are improving that much, then any AI company needs to improve the operations of the company at that same pace or beating it. And so part of what I think you need to do is go, "Okay, if we were, for example, getting 20% better at Harvey, we need to get 60% better 'cause that's what the model outputs." So it's become a new threshold for quality and for pace. And I think it drives a lot of the urgency around what application layer companies are building. It certainly is driving urgency within Harvey to make sure we're keeping pace with where the industry is going.

Brett: So if you look at the people who are specifically, if I were to look at how you're running it, what's the tooling and infrastructure, what is your expectation for a director of people versus four years ago or six years ago when you were the same size at HubSpot, what's the contrast in your mind?

Katie Burke: So one thing you're looking for is as a leader, what process are you eliminating or fundamentally changing with AI? So I'll give you an example. Yesterday we launched a process where people kick off all of their job recs to open up. So for example, let's say you're opening up a rec. Writing a job description you used to sit down, you'd have a cup of coffee, draft it. We use our Vault product in Harvey to do that on a regular basis that's repeatable. If you are not thinking, how could AI solve this problem first and eliminate hours of work within your team, you're not going to be a successful leader in the people function in the next year and a half. So in other words, if you dabble regularly in one of the models occasionally for personal use, but you're not using it at work, you are already way behind and need to catch up. The best people leaders I think are leaning into eliminating or reducing processes using AI. Second thing is just thinking about what we can no longer be wed to. So a good example would be we have as part of our onboarding process tried to eliminate as much friction as possible. So in other words, what I would view as successful is can you take a 15-step process and consolidate it? Before, if you got it down to 12, that would be good efficiency. Now it's like, can you get it down to three? And where can AI play a critical role so that we're just focused on the onboarding process and creating a really human experience, so that's where you're infusing the hospitality versus the others. Finally, I would just say as you think about the headcount planning, you need to be thinking about the work units to be done and the skills needed for that and whether or not it should be people or agents. And I think that's a critical part of the conversation that people leaders should be leading, not following.

Brett: What are some of the things that you think are now possible that you had always dreamed of doing as a people leader, if there is anything?

Katie Burke: So I'll give you an example. We are currently in the middle of performance reviews and one of our team members just on her own wrote a script for completing your performance review in a matter of five minutes. And a bunch of other people tried it and they were like, "This is the process that used to be so onerous, took a lot of self-examination and it was completed in five minutes." Performance reviews are just so incredibly painful. And if you can make those much less painful, I think that's a huge win. I think next year AI will be critical in the workforce planning side of things, and that's always felt like pulling teeth, so that's a big one. And then third, I would just say the building of decks and internal comms, that's something that I used to spend, I mean, hours, if not days on. And I think the reality is that will end up being much more AI driven even in the next two months versus the next year as well.

Brett: Right now, I mean, I assume if you're doing a company-wide communication, you may be getting editing advice or things like that, but where do you think it ends up going?

Katie Burke: On internal comms, you used to sort of do ... I used to, for example, do a Loom for my team every single Friday, and it was highly viewed at HubSpot, but part of it is people's attention spans are just going way down. So I think what you'll see is in the next six months, instead, what you'll do is have a level of customization. You're getting something that is relevant to you by team, by level, and it's all automated based on AI's understanding of where you are in the organization, what you need to hear. I also think you'll see more nurturing based on what you've already consumed or not. It's going to get a whole lot smarter. So for example, right now everyone gets the same exact, "Hey, you haven't completed your performance review," even if you have. And I think part of what you'll see is people going, "Hey, last time around, it took you 35 seconds to finish your performance review. This is what we want to see from you. And here's your customized report this week on things you open and engage. Oh, by the way, here's the gong call from the most successful sales rep so that you can actually study it yourself. And oh, by the way, here's the best plugin on Claude Code, for example, that someone used that was super effective for them."

Brett: What's your current strongest held belief about the next few years in terms of the people stuff that is not going to change?

Katie Burke: I think the importance of EQ is not going to change. And so I think if you have to worry less about all the things that people have always faded about being a manager, so onerous performance reviews, onerous internal comms, onerous [inaudible 00:56:49] processes, if that gets easier, ideally you have more time for the things that make a great manager, which is a strong level of empathy, but also a level of actually training people to do their jobs and work. So ideally you see a return to a little bit more mentorship. Most people I know don't have a manager that spent a lot of time actually getting them ready for the next stage of their career, and so I hope that that becomes the case. Number two though is I've always said that the people team needs to set the pace. AI adoption is another area where I think people leaders need to set the pace, and so I think you'll see that as well. And then I think the other thing that won't change is the importance of emphasizing what you care about and what you don't. So as an example, I think as we see engineering is a good example of something that I think is going to change tremendously, not just in the next two years, but the next two weeks, it seems like. Given that, what do you care about? Are you hiring junior engineers? Are you not? How do you make sure the best people are focused on the most technical problems and what does your resourcing look like? I think having honest conversations about that so people are clear on what they're signing up for is going to be important.

Brett: Do you think what a great VP of people looks like and does in a year or two looks relatively similar or very different than today?

Katie Burke: I think that there's a reason that, for example, Carmel Galvin at Klaviyo, Jacqui at ServiceNow, there are multiple chief people officers who are playing like chief AI officer, AI transformation roles. I don't think that's an accident, because I think the reality is AI is a technology, but it also requires a ton of change management and human behavior. And so I think what you're seeing is the best chief people officers understand what it takes to get people past fear on the change curve. They understand what it means to put champions up to actually make sure we're rewarding the behavior. Your incentives should be aligned to using and adopting AI in meaningful ways, not just in a like, "I tried this and it didn't work," kind of thing, but actually to transform how you run your teams. And I don't think it's an accident that the forward leaning people on AI are getting rewarded for that with additional titles, responsibility. I do think that people totally misunderstand that when it comes to rolling out and adopting AI, we see this at Harvey, we sell to lawyers. Lawyers are not the people that you think of as most traditionally to lean into AI, but what we've seen is that lawyers are actually pretty eager, because they're sick of doing document review. Nobody goes to law school to say like, "I've always wanted to redline documents for a really long time." And so part of what you have to figure out is how you get them on the change curve to consider adopting AI for the tasks that they absolutely hate and dread, and how do you appeal to them? That includes change management. That's not just our platform getting better, that's going into an organization, understanding their special sauce. And I think the reality is what we see is the best people are really good at doing that and understanding what it takes to get through to an organization to champion people, people leaders will be the same.

Brett: What is the role of being demanding as a manager?

Katie Burke: I think it's a huge part of the job. I think you can be liked or you can be respected and you have to pick a lane. And the reality is I think the best players, the best teams, all the champions that we admire are much better at being admired than liked. And you have to be okay with sacrificing some level of congeniality, comfort to get people to deliver the best work of their lives. And so I think most people who work for me would say I'm incredibly demanding. They would also say that I'm incredibly loyal, caring, and kind, and I think you can be both.

Brett: Explain, most people think that those two things are at odds, and particularly when you talk about one of the things that is likely to survive what is happening in AI is human empathy. I think when a lot of people hear that, again, you go back to the coddling of someone and it almost feels antithetical to being demanding or having insanely high expectations. And it feels like part of your management philosophy is bringing those two things together.

Katie Burke: Absolutely. I think the best leaders or coaches demand more of you than you ever thought was possible. And I still think they're the first person to come around if you're having a tough day and check in on you as a human being. And so I view those not as at odds with one another, but in fact that the best leaders have to be able to hold place for both of those. And so what I always say to people is, I think if you're a people leader, you have to be a queen of awkwardness. And you have to be willing to sit in really awkward conversations and just say, "Do you think that was your best workout there?" And to sit in the awkwardness of going like, "It wasn't, and here's why. And here's why I think you can do better and I have higher expectations of you." How do we chart that course together? That is really awkward. It's so much easier to say you did an amazing job out there. And so being willing to sit in that awkwardness, and what I try and do is remind myself regularly that first of all, the best coaches I ever had growing up were people that demanded that of me. And then on the flip side, the best compliments I ever get are from people five years down the line who say, "Remember when you gave me that feedback that made me better and I think about it often." And so I think you have to remind yourself of that versus just that desire to be liked.

Brett: So what's sort of an example of what it feels like to sort of work for you and have that sense of being pushed really hard and also having the level of support that you aspire to give someone.

Katie Burke: I hope it feels like being part of the best team you've ever been a part of, and it feels equal parts challenging and really, really hard and rewarding and worth it. And so I think I hope that on any given day on my team that if people are working five days a week, that, you know, who cares how you divide it up, but that three days feel really challenging and hard and two days just feel like you're completely winning and crushing it. I think that balance is really important. So one of our values at Harvey is, job's not finished, and that's really intentional. We want people to be super clear on how they could be better and to know the difference between what's good and what's great. And part of what I do with my team is I share my performance reviews. I'll share with them, "Here's what I said I was good at and here's what I said I could do better." And I think part of it is them knowing I'm not just asking that of them, I'm expecting it of myself. And I think that then it's easier to open the door. If your CEO and COO are sharing a long list of things they can do better and you can't think of one thing you're doing wrong, I think that's a self-awareness opportunity. And so part of what I try and do is lead by example. And so I've shared my performance review with my team with elements redacted for the better part of the last eight years. And so I think one of the things people would say is, "I'm super transparent around things that I could be doing better, and then I'm also super transparent with you about things you could be doing better too."

Brett: In that theme, what's the most important thing you've improved on in the last eight years?

Katie Burke: One was I overtalked. So when I first got promoted to be CPO, I thought my job was to say something important at every meeting. That is not your job. Your job is to know when you add value and when you don't. And so I overtalked and that was really tough feedback to get early on was in your new role, it feels like you're trying to grab the mic versus add to the conversation. Your quality of value add versus words per minute is going down not up. That was tough to hear, but incredibly important. And it taught me to really sit back and only speak up when I had something valuable to add. Second thing was I had a really big failure. We were really, really, really behind on recruiting at HubSpot many, many, many years ago. And I started pointing fingers left and right. I was like, "It's this team's fault, this team's fault, it's this team's fault." And Brian had a really hard conversation with me, which is, "You are either going to be here in a year because you own this and dug your way out of it, or you're going to go down pointing fingers at other people." And so I learned a really hard lesson on just owning your own mistakes, but also at a certain point, it doesn't actually matter whose fault it is. It matters that it's within your team. So that level of ownership as an exec and just being the person who in front of the board is willing to say, "That was me," is a big one. I think the third thing is letting go of perfection. I was very much someone who is an achiever and liked doing a great job and like getting good grades. And I think part of it was also just the embracing of, like, when you're an executive, your goal is to like bat 400 at best. That's like what best-in-class people are doing. And so getting more comfortable with like, "Yeah, you're right, that meeting was a miss, could have been better." And just getting more comfortable with not always knocking it out of the park.

Brett: What does it look like when you disagree well with a CEO?

Katie Burke: I think it starts with a foundation of respect. When Winston and I are talking, even in the most heated debate, there's a level of respect there, and then it feels like you're lining up on the same side of, like, you're still on the same team even when you vehemently disagree. I also just think it's understanding that you have the same long-term goal. So for example, on the things about which Winston and I disagreed the most, we never have a disagreement around where we're going. It's always just about how we get there, and I think it's that understanding. I also just think it's having a mechanism for it. So one of the hard conversations we've had to have is, he's very comfortable with conflict and so am I, but I need more time to process my own role in it. So for example, if I'm the one at fault, I need a night to sleep on it to go, "I have to understand why this conversation bothered me so much and I need to process then discuss it." He would always rather just like, "Just yell at me and we'll figure it out." And so we've had to work through how we disagree, not just what we disagree on.

Brett: Do you ultimately think the CEO has to make the final decisions?

Katie Burke: I don't think the CEO has to make all the decisions. I think part of what you have to agree on is who gets to make the call when. So Winston is really clear on, "Hey, you're the decision maker on these five things. I'm the decision maker on these other things." And I think we're clear on that. And then when we're not clear on both what the decision should be and who the decision maker would be, those are more complex conversations, but I think there's some of the most important ones we have.

Brett: What's an example of one of those where it's really nuanced and not clear and easy?

Katie Burke: So I would say oftentimes it's about the pace at which we do something and the pace at which we can expect change and whether that's hiring or open up new markets or deciding whether or not to turn over a team. Oftentimes I'm the one saying, "We need a little bit more patience and time," and he's the one saying, "No, we don't have any time." And so I think part of it is just agreeing, like, as a good example, what we have agreed to is like on fundraising, his call, CEO's job, his call. On the board meeting, he is the person who gets to make the call 'cause they are his relationships to manage and I'm of course supporting him what that looks like. If we are making a big culture decision, we'll make it together, but he will ultimately defer to me on a lot of recommendations so long as he doesn't want to lay on the tracks on it. Part of what you have to do is agree on what those parameters are. And I think we've done a decent job for the most part. I would say 90% of things we agree on both the decision maker and how we'll get there.

Brett: What's the advice you have, somebody stepping into the chief people officer role for the first time? In a lot of cases, their experience with the board is a net new thing. Maybe every now and again, a VP of people comes in and presents something to a board, but the dynamic of a chief people officer with a board is just very different. What are things to keep in mind or pieces of advice that you would give somebody stepping into their role specifically as it relates to boards?

Katie Burke: I hit the lottery on this one. So at HubSpot, I had, I think, presented to the board one time before I became the chief people officer. So to your point, I would've fallen on my face badly. We had a board member named Lorrie Norrington. She's still there. She's a board member at some of the best companies in the world, and she basically saw that I was getting appointed into a role that was a stretch for me. And she set up that I would go to eBay and shadow their CHO at the time and shadow and meet their people team. And so the first thing I would do is, rather than trying to go in all confident and pretend you know what you're doing, ask for help. Your board is usually very willing, especially given the relationship between the chief people officer and especially the compensation committee. They have incentive for you to succeed and for you to have a personal relationship. And so I would say part of it is just ask for help and ask for exposure, ask them to meet the best chief people officer you know. That is often the way in which you get the best context on what resonates and what doesn't versus falling on your face. Number two is ask to observe before you present. So I think one of the best things I've seen people do in the board work that I've done is kind of go, "Hey, it's my first time around. I'm just going to take in the cadence here and then for next time around, I'll come in prepared." Third is just the meeting. The meeting is just a meeting. Part of what you have to do is build the relationships before and after. So for the most important decisions we made at HubSpot, the board presentations, there was never a time when the board was seeing something for the first time that I was presenting. I had preceded the conversations and big ideas. I had solicited their opinion early on on recommendations. I had asked what other portfolio companies they were working with had done as a best practice. And so part of it is realizing, it's not actually about the meeting, it's actually about your ongoing relationship with the board. And it took me a while to learn that your job is to manage that dynamic and to interact with them regularly, so the meeting is just another touchpoint.

Brett: You hinted at this a little bit, but what is different about the CPO role and its working relationship and responsibility with the board relative to a CRO or a CTO or sort of any other executive function?

Katie Burke: I mean, it's so different. At a public company, you have a few pretty critical roles. So number one, the compensation committee, nom and gov, both you have pretty deep relationships with, and oftentimes you have a core responsibility to both on recommendations. So for example, the compensation committee recommends the comp for your entire executive team, including your CEO. And you're the CPO who's in the middle of that discussion that's a little awkward to manage. And so part of what you have to do is have a really deep relationship and trusted relationship with them and with your compensation consultant who's an independent advisor to the board. Second though is you manage succession planning, which depending on the board is either a nom and gov comp, depending on what it looks like, but usually a nom and gov. You have to have really awkward conversations with them around the readiness of the leadership team for the next level of growth, for the next level of global expansion for multi-product, you name it. And so I would say if you are the CTO or CRO, you of course have an obligation to the board and your relationships matter, but as the CPO, you have kind of an awkward dual relationship where you have a duty to your investors, especially at a public company to be super thoughtful about the balance. And so I think it's really navigating and understanding the nuance there is critically important.

Brett: I guess maybe to wrap up, what is it that you want the people on your team to say about you behind your back?

Katie Burke: I think I want the people on my team to say, "There's no one who wants us to win more as a company, and there's no one who's pushed me harder to get there while still having my back."

Brett: Good place to end. Thank you so much.

Katie Burke: Of course. Thank you for having me.