Kate Sherburn on the importance of authenticity in the workplace

Episode 8: Kate Sherburn on the importance of authenticity in the workplace

Run time: 35.06

Voiceover: This is a Lander and Rodgers podcast, bringing you fresh perspectives on the legal and business landscape, and life through a legal lens.

Anthony Kearns: Welcome to Legal Human podcast, focused on the role of human lawyers in the legal ecosystem and society more broadly. I'm your host, Anthony Kearns.

AK: It's my great pleasure to welcome Kate Sherburn to Legal Human. Kate, thank you so much for joining us.

Kate Sherburn: My pleasure.

AK: Just to kick off. You're the Legal Beagle at Who Gives A Crap. In researching, I found it fascinating that some of your providers, for example, have difficulty in saying that name out loud. I don't suffer from that. Happy to say, Who Gives A Crap, that's the name of the business.

Fascinating role positioning and description of your role. I'd just like to take you back, though, to start off our conversation to that day in 2019 when you were offered this job and where you were at that point and how you'd got to that point, and then how you responded to being offered the job of not at that stage, Legal Beagle but the only lawyer at Who Gives A Crap.

KS: So, at the time, I was working at Chisholm Tafe, and it was eight minutes from my home. It was in the same block as my son's daycare. It was incredibly convenient, which when you have a one- and three-year-old, is pretty important. And I got approached by one of my friends who knew somebody who worked at Who Gives A Crap, and they were looking for a lawyer. But there were about 50 people in that stage, and they didn't know what an in-house lawyer did. They sort of knew enough to think that they needed one, but didn't know enough to write a job spec.

So, I jumped on a Zoom call. It was my very first Zoom call, which I now think is hilarious, given how many zooms a day I'm on. But I chatted to them about what an in-house lawyer does, and I got off that call absolutely blown away by the passion that had come through about this business.

I was already a customer, so I knew a little bit about them. Just the bigger purpose just really did shine through, and I can remember thinking, oh, I think it'd be pretty good to work there. But I did have it very good at that point in terms of my current role, and I knew that this would be a much bigger job and that I would probably care and put a lot more of myself into it. And so, it was a really, you know, big thing for me to decide to put my hat in the ring.

I decided that I would just find a little bit more out about it. You know, did I need to be in the office, or what were the expectations from an employee perspective? And I got on a call with someone from the People and Culture team, and I was 45 minutes into that call before I realised that was my first job interview.

So, I officially applied for the role at that point, and every conversation I had, it made me more confident in my choice to follow that path. Everybody I spoke to, it's quite a rigorous recruitment process, and everybody I spoke to through that process, the values of the business really shone through.

I had been the first lawyer at Chisholm, so that was not a completely novel experience for me. What was novel was when I started, the business was really welcoming - to have a lawyer. They had identified the need for it, but they didn't really know what was required. And so, from day one, I was sort of thrown in the deep end. And I've been here almost six years now, and not once have I regretted that decision.

AK: So, it lives up to its promise so far?

KS: Absolutely. And even more so, we've experienced some pretty crazy things like Covid in a toilet paper company and the banding together and the collaboration well beyond just the legal team, but just as people, I don't know how I would have managed homeschooling two children without that support around me.

AK: And you've talked a lot publicly about that challenge, and you talk openly about the challenges of being a lawyer and raising a family. How important was that for you in making the decision that you could do both well? I've heard you say that work-life balance is an inappropriate term, and I agree with you, and I think there's a lot of unintended consequences of thinking of it as a sort of dichotomy. How important was that for you making that decision?

KS: Incredibly important. There had been many times before that, before Chisolm really, that I had really thought long and hard about moving away from the law because I didn't think it was possible to do both and be successful in both. And talking to people at Who Gives A Crap, I realised how much they did genuinely support their people and when they say people first, that can sometimes be a bit of lip service, but this was genuine. In my exec interview, so throughout the sort of the whole process, I was being asked about how I did juggle parenthood and working. And there was a moment where it crossed my mind, and maybe I have misread this, and they're not quite as value-driven as I thought, but it turned out that the person interviewing me was actually pregnant, and she was genuinely interested in how she would do it. So, she wanted tips. And so, I think at that point I was like, no, okay, I can really be honest about what I want. They are genuine in their offer of flexibility, and I can actually do both.

AK: Before we get too much further down the track, I suppose we should explain what Who Gives A Crap is. To those who haven't experienced that, which I still find difficult to believe because it's such an awesome brand, such high levels of awareness.

Probably the best way to explain it from my perspective was in 2019 as a Christmas present for my sister-in-law, I got a box of toilet paper. And in previous years, I would have seen that as a message, but it turned out to be the best Christmas present ever. Not just because we were just going to go into a toilet paper shortage, but it made me smile because we have all the rolls of toilet paper behind the toilet. They each have a slightly different message. It was such a difficult time in so many ways, but it brought a smile to my face about something that's so sort of mundane. It's a brilliant concept, but it's much deeper than that, isn't it? In terms of the commitment to community. And you walk the walk in respect of your commitment to community. Do you want to explain a little bit about that?

KS: Yeah. So, when the founders came up with the idea, they did, an Indiegogo campaign to get funding for the first production run, and they realised that toilet paper is about the most boring product that no one really thinks about until they don't have any. And so, they came up with this idea that our CEO would sit on a toilet in a warehouse until they raised enough money for the first production run. That ended up being, I think, 50 hours. By the end, he was hallucinating. So, he was like, actually need to have a sleep. So, he sort of put his head on the cistern. But I think that sort of shows that they want to have a bit of fun with it. And that's how, you know, for the first few years they didn't do paid advertising. It was all word of mouth. But that all boils down to our 'big hag', our big hairy audacious goal, which is to ensure everyone on Earth has access to a toilet and clean water. And we do that by donating 50% of our profits to charity to sanitation charities to help achieve this goal. And that does change the way that you look at things sometimes because we are a for-profit company, but we're a profit for purpose and so we look at everything.

Yes, we have to grow profits because without profits we can't increase our donations. But we are increasing profits to increase our donations rather than just increasing profits to, you know, fill the pockets of shareholders. So, it's definitely a different way of working. It's far more values led. And our decisions are very much values led. And does this align with us, who we are as a company, who we are in the eyes of our consumers? And will it help us achieve our 'big hag'?

AK: So many things I want to talk to you about, but you just raised something that hadn't occurred to me until you started speaking. Does that cause any tension? We tend to think of values and purpose as being so universal and positive, but does it cause tensions with the way in which the legal system or the legal sort of system functions? Is it at odds in any way?

KS: Not at odds in what I've experienced in terms of the legal function. I think it is positive from my perspective. One of our values is give a crap and an aspect of that is you always assume good intent, and sometimes that is really beneficial when we're telling a team that they can't do something or they can't do it in the way that they had initially hoped, they always know that we are coming at this with good intent, and that we will work with them to create a solution that will work, but that we are all working together for the same purpose, which is our, you know, to achieve our 'big hag'.

AK: Has that been a departure for you, I mean, you've talked about this a lot, the assumption of positive intent and, approaching stakeholders with an assumption of positive intent, has that been a change? Was that a change for you, for example, from private practice when you were approaching a client, for example? How important is that?

KS: I mean, it's incredibly important to me personally, and I don't think it necessarily changed. I think it's something that I've always tried to do. The difference is, I can I feel I can build those relationships much more strongly now because I'm working day to day with the people in the business. Whereas my experience when I wasn't in house, I was only on the periphery, or I only came in for certain parts of it. You didn't get to be involved in the entire picture of the entire business.

While I was in private practice, I did multiple secondments and that I loved, I loved being part of the business. And for me, a lot of it is about relationships. I don't think you can be an effective lawyer if you haven't built a trusted relationship with your stakeholders.

AK: And you told me in the lead up to this that you'd been advised that you can't go straight from law school into in-house practice. Have you, sort of, revisited that as a recruiter now? And what value does the law firm experience given and is it still sort of providing the value it held out to have?

KS: I personally don't think you need to have private practice experience to be a successful in-house lawyer. I think you need to have excellent training at the beginning of your career, and you can get that in private practice or in an in-house team if that, if they have the right supports.

I personally nearly left the law because of private practice, because it really wasn't for me. I wouldn't have experienced that if I had gone straight in-house. I don't believe because my in-house experiences have been vastly different, and it does align better with the way I work and who I am. So, I think if you have the right training, no, you definitely don't need to go into private practice first. One of the lawyers that's in my team, she has never worked in private practice.

AK: We're going to go on in a moment, I mean, I'd like to go on and talk about your views on the central topic of legal human, which is the emerging and enduring role of human lawyers in the ecosystem. But I just want to touch on one thing that you mentioned, and you talk a lot about. You spoke about family and the ability to raise a family and balancing that with work. That's not the only value, though. You've spoken a lot about the importance of authenticity in showing up to work, and that's not the only access or value that that you've found alignment at Who Gives A Crap. Are you willing to share some of the other values that you've found greater alignment at Who Gives A Crap, and your experience of that previous to joining Who Gives A Crap?

KS: Yeah, so some previous experience has been that I was really trying to fit a mould that I was never going to fit into. I have shared this previously, but I was told that curly hair was unprofessional, and so I spent years straightening my hair. I want to wear a purple dress, and I got told that purple is not an appropriate colour for the office. I would like to think that times have changed and that that is no longer the experience for people. But I spent so much of my energy trying to be somebody that I wasn't, and because I felt that I didn't fit it, it is really hard to be honest and truthful with the people around you for fear that that view will be rejected or that it will be dismissed, or you'll get penalised for that view.

I think the beauty of coming into a place like Who Gives A Crap where I can be myself. It means that I can share my advice, my opinion, without fear that it will be dismissed. I know that that is a valued opinion and that they will listen to me.

AK: And you are clearly a good lawyer, I mean you were General Counsel of the Year in 2023, you've been shortlisted the General Counsel of the Year, I think, four or five years as judged by the Association of Corporate Counsel. Yet you were told you're not suitable for the profession because of these sort of superficial factors. What was the impact of that on you and particularly your effectiveness, do you think, as a lawyer? And to what extent is that unlocked by this authentic experience?

KS: Well, I really doubted my own ability when I was in private practice. And even though I actually worked with a really supportive team, I think it was the broader environment that made me feel like that. I got offered the role at Chisholm, and I'm nearly didn't take it because it was, I was going to be the only lawyer there, and I really didn't think I'd be able to do it.

It took a few very close and trusted people around me to go 'just do it, see how you go'. And within a few weeks, I realised, oh, actually, I'm better at this than I thought I was. So, I got, in 2020, I got the ACC New to In-house Lawyer of the Year award, and I had only been at Who Gives A Crap for about six months at that point. And that was real validation that, I actually I can do this. And I think when I'm in the right environment that is, you know, able to come through.

AK: What are the other consequences for the legal profession of this sort of homogenisation that I've heard a number of interviewees talk about in Legal Human?

KS: Well, I think one of the consequences is really good lawyers leave. I like to think that, you know, with enough people speaking out, people can realise alternative pathways. But I didn't know that there were alternative pathways when I was at uni. All they really spoke about was you get a clerkship, you get a grad job. Then you're set, that's your career. It really wasn't until I was actually working, and I expanded my networks, which was an incredibly uncomfortable experience for me. It didn't come naturally when I was starting out that I realised there were all these other pathways that were available, and I would be far happier, even in pretty much any of them.

AK: So, the central premise of Legal Human is to look at the emerging and enduring role of human lawyers in the ecosystem. I think there's the conversation in the profession is very much, weighted towards the impact of generative AI and how technology is going to change the way in which we work. I don't think we're thinking that much deliberately about then what? What's what is the evolution of our role and what do we need to develop or value in our role to occupy that future state? I know you've thought about this a lot. Both things, it seems, necessity is the mother of invention. So, you are an early adopter of technology because you were the only lawyer there for quite some time, and you sort of reached out for that to support you in your work.

But you've also, what I found really interesting in preparing for today is how much you've thought about what is the human component and presume less because of the context in which you're working. It's sort of a human, very human-centric organisation. But what's led you to that? And what have you learned?

KS: Yeah. So, Elizabeth Flett and I last year actually did a presentation on what we sort of tongue in cheek called Business Love Languages. Which was based on the 5 Love Languages of Gary Chapman. That was all about people, because ultimately, we have all this technology available to us but there needs to be people guiding that, building that, working with that. And I think ultimately a lot of being a lawyer is working with people. I think the technical legal skills, they can be taught but to be a truly excellent lawyer, you need to be able to work with people. I don't think this will ever change. I think if somebody is going through a problem, they don't want AI to tell them the answer. They want someone to hold their hand and walk them through it. And I think that that is never going to change. It is just human nature.

I find the early generative AI really interesting, because I do use it, but somebody explained it very well that you should never ask gen AI something that you don't already know better. Because you need to be able to judge the output. I think it can be incredibly useful, for things like turning scrappy notes into board minutes. It can be used as a great starting point; rather than looking at a blank piece of paper, it can create something that you can then turn into something useful. But in terms of it, you know, taking over our jobs, I'm not worried about that.

AK: I mean, I don't profess to be an expert in AI but my sense is it will get better. And what I find interesting about the way you're thinking about this is it's just another tool, but the core is actually interpersonal.

KS: Yeah. And I think a lawyer with AI is probably going to be better than a lawyer without AI, but it still needs the lawyer.

AK: So I want to pick up on these love languages. Well, my sense is both you and Elizabeth are tapping into something that you sort of innately believed. This wasn't revelatory to you. It's application might have been. But what are some of the applications of this in, you know, practice? How have you seen this, impact your ability as a lawyer?

KS: A lot of it is that people aren't all the same. And I think, we can be a little bit guilty of treating people the same in terms of how they work, how they communicate, how they interact. And that's never going to work. As a people manager, you need to actually look at the people that you work with and see how they best respond. And so that was really all we were talking about was, you know, we did a little, a little quiz way that people could answer that, sort of would say, well, this is your business love language. And then, we spoke about how you could align your interactions with that person based on that love language. And it was a very light-hearted presentation. But ultimately, the message underneath is serious still, in that you're not going to get the best out of your people unless you truly understand them.

AK: And that's looking at your team. What about at the interface between legal and the organisation you're working for? And particularly, how do you see this playing a role in influencing the quality of decisions that people make or participating in decision making? KS: I think it applies in exactly the same sense. If you I mean, I think everyone has seen this at some point. You can create the best piece of technical legal work but if the recipient in the business, in my example looks at it, doesn't understand it, they're just going to chuck it out of the window. Whereas if you go, well, this is how that person communicates. This is how they like to receive information. This is how this is best going to land, then you're far more likely to be able to influence that decision and have an ongoing conversation about how to get there.

I think that's one thing that we do as a legal team. We don't ever just say no, because if you just say no, people are going to stop coming to you. Whereas if you go, well, this poses x, y risk. But if we do it in this way, then this is the result.

And I will never forget this. I once created a, a replacement copy line for our creative team, which was just something I thought, well, actually, this is a far sort of safer way to communicate this message. And he came back and was like, oh, actually, I like that better. So, you know, we aren't always just saying no, we're working with them to create a better solution.

AK: What about when you actually have to come to a point where you say no? I don't know whether you've been in this situation yet, where you're at. And I don't mean you don't need to disclose that, but when you come to say to have to say no, how does that help you? The investment you've made to that point in understanding what drives people.

KS: Thankfully, I don't have to do a very often but there have been situations where I have it, just it's the nature of the job. And I think because I do have those really strong relationships with people and I do know how they respond to things. And also, coming back to the values part, they know that I'm not going to be saying this just for the fun of it. It's actually been sort of, received quite well.

Again, it's always going to be a bit tough to have those conversations because that's not what they want to hear. I've always been able to articulate my point. And, the why. I think the why is always really important.

AK: I've been working with lawyers around these sorts of concepts for a long time, and the common pushback is, particularly in respect to in-house, is you can become too close and lose your professional objectivity or independence. But I consistently hear from general counsel, if you haven't invested in those relationships, you don't get the opportunity to exercise your judgment. You're not invited into the conversation. You're not there at the right time. How do you strike that balance? You're obviously really passionate yourself about the company.

KS: Yeah.

AK: And you have you seem to have very strong relationships within your organisation. Do you do you really think that's a problem or how do you how do you sort of think about that? Your independence?

KS: I mean, I'm the lawyer for the company. And so, I always have to think back to how you will know what will the impact on the business be. But I think building those relationships does actually allow you to do that. Like most people, I wear multiple hats. I have to be really conscious of what hat I'm wearing at a particular time. And I've had many conversations with this. Somebody I spoke to physically has a hat and that when she's like, I am providing strict legal advice, I'm putting my legal advice hat on.

AK: Is it a wig?

KS: Yeah. But I think I really think once you get to, sort of, the more senior levels, often you're not providing legal advice. A lot of what I do is sort of strategy and things like that. And so, it is very clear when I am providing legal advice and I, because of the relationship that I have built, I've actually managed to sort of educate the business that I do have these multiple roles.

And you will see when I, you know, bring my lawyer hat out, my not physical hat unlike some of the people and, and I'm very clear with that.

AK: So, it's the relational capital, to coin a sort of jargon. Sorry, but it's that it's those relationships to put you in a position to be able to influence more effectively because they trust you before you expect to trust what you say and you've developed that by, it seems, you positioned it, I think, as a communication strategy, it seems to me it's an intentional strategy. It's what are you paying attention to? What are you curious about? What are you noticing in respect to those people? And then you're building that into a way in which you communicate with them. It seems to be much more to it than just how you write to meet their expectations of writing. It's not that, it's something different. You're curious about them.

KS: Yeah. And we are predominantly remote and we're global, so we're very rarely in the office. So, I call myself a slack lurker. I am in many channels that have nothing to do with the work that I'm doing, but might be a sort of a project or a future plan. And just by seeing those conversations happening, you can ask questions. And again, because people know that I will ask questions, they're quite happy to give me the information. And then you can kind of, early on you can pick up any flags. And by doing it really early, it generally resolves the issues before they even become one.

AK: So now you have responsibility for developing these capabilities and orientations in in a team, you have other people working with you now. What do you emphasise and what do you think we need to emphasise as a profession, from a capability perspective, to occupy this future state? Sounds like it's baked into some people, right? It's unlocking in some people, particularly people who haven't necessarily succeeded in law firms. They may be people to pursue. Where should we focus as a profession, developing lawyers? KS: I really do think that the interpersonal aspect is incredibly important. I think, again, to my point, you can be an excellent lawyer, but if that message isn't landing, then you're not actually discharging your duty, I don't believe, because we're not operating in an ivory tower. We're trying to help the business.

One of the things we do at recruitment for every single role in the business is we do a homework task, and that is a really excellent way to see how that does get applied in practice. That is an incredibly useful part of the recruitment process, in many teams. But I think especially in the legal team, we do not want really lengthy memos. Yeah, you do need to do the work, but that's not what you should be presenting to the business because they're not going to rate it. And it's our duty to make sure we are protecting the business.

AK: Yeah, that's another consistent theme, I think, that's come out from the in-house lawyers that have been on Legal Human is, you know, measured by the quality of your advice. You measure it by your impact. Have you actually achieved anything? Are we better, at something as a result of you doing something, which is how you should expect to be measured, I guess as any executive in an organisation.

But do you find that there's resistance to this, or is that an awakening when you start to take lawyers through this sort of different way of operating, different orientation, to the law and the business? How do you see them responding? KS: Quite positively, and I think that's probably because we are recruiting people who are aligned to that. They're not going to be applying for a job at Who Gives A Crap, given how public we are about how we work, if they don't have an idea about how we work.

AK: You must be flooded with applications.

KS: Yes. I mean, we've only had two people in our team, but both times …

AK: I want to work with you.

KS: Both times we did get a huge amount of applications. We've also had three students come in through different times, and I really wish we could have hired more juniors because the calibre of the students coming through, I'm very glad I'm not competing against them for jobs, that's for sure. Because the students we've had have been excellent, but so have the students that have been applying for the jobs.

AK: It's an enviable brand both in the market and employer brand. Just one thing I picked up in preparation for today, which I wanted you to explain: I think it sort of also speaks to the type of place you work at but also speaks to you as this concept of kimbot. Which is another one of your sort of enduring sort of values as an organisation. Can you explain what that means?

KS: Yeah. So, kimbot is a Tagalog word. A lot of our team from the Philippines that means, sort of roughly translated, working hard but shaking your hips while you're doing it. And so, the way we sort of interpret that is we are working really hard. We have got this 'big hag' that we want to achieve, and it's big and it's a really tough nut to crack, and it will require a lot of work. But we don't really take ourselves seriously. We want to have fun while we're working. You know, the first five minutes of every meeting we have is agenda free so that you get to know your teammates.

We have random slack channels that support people's interests. And Wolf Gives A Crap is a one for all of the dog lovers and is parenthood one way you can share things about your kids and ask questions for other people that have gone through it. And one was only created this week called Crappy Runners. It's for all of the runners in the organisation and that that slack channel is going nuts at the moment because everyone's sharing the runs they're doing. Everyone's amazed at the team in the Philippines are running in that humidity and, I don't know how they can do it, I struggle in Melbourne. You have fun.

AK: Yeah, it's interesting because I study positive psychology, and we learned about appreciative inquiry as a method of change. And one of the central tenets of that is you don't have to be serious to do serious work. You can be doing serious work and still laughing and enjoying the experience at the same time. We often contain our creativity by sort of becoming serious because we're doing something serious.

KS: And I think actually to be a really good lawyer, you do need creativity. I got a tattoo just to remind myself, because that's when you can come up with solutions that are outside of the box. And that's, I think, where the magic can happen, particularly in a business like Who Gives A Crap what you really can come up with solutions that are out of the box, and then they're sort of embraced.

AK: Last question. As is often the case, I sort of know the answer already, but how optimistic are you about the future role of human lawyers in the ecosystem and in society more broadly?

KS: I am very optimistic, and I think that's because I have seen the work, the amazing work that people are already doing. I have the purpose, and the impact side is very important to me, but I actually think that even in businesses that aren't purpose-driven, I think lawyers have a real opportunity to help be a positive change. Particularly in a world that is increasingly negative, I think we really can help our businesses do the right thing.

AK: Kate Sherburn, thank you so much for joining Legal Human.

KS: Thank you very much.

AK: You've been listening to Legal Human. To hear more Legal Human podcasts, subscribe to the channel.

Voiceover: For more insights from Lander and Rogers, visit our website at landers.com or connect with us on LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube.