LTG Simerly leaving DLA more agile, adaptative

0:00Print servers and federal environments create risk and unnecessary complexity. Every new printer, location, or policy adds strain to infrastructure that was never built for today's demands. FedRAMP High authorized printer logic eliminates print servers with a secure cloud native zero-trust solution designed for federal IT. With advanced security, centralized control, and simplified management, agencies can modernize print without added burden. See what secure serverless printing looks like. Visit VAsian.com to learn more. Federal Drive is presented by GEHA, Government Employees Health Association, proudly providing health and dental benefits to federal employees and their families. Visit GEHA.com. Lieutenant General Mark Simmerley is in his final weeks as the director of the Defense Logistics Agency. In the two plus years, as DLA's leader, Simmerley drove the agency to change how it delivers products and services to the Defense Department around the world. In an exit press briefing, Simmerley tells Executive Editor Jason Miller and other reporters about how DLA is more agile today and how it has adapted to the changing logistics environment

1:04over the last few years. In the history of the agency, I would say that we were built to change from the very beginning. We've had to accelerate that change cycle in the last few years. And I've seen the willingness and the readiness of the agency to take that challenge on and to operationalize our transformation planning into tangible outcomes. Change to your point is always happening, but a lot of that comes from leadership. And you placing down certain expectations, you placing down certain ideals. Was there something when you came in two plus years ago, you said, this is how I'm going to create that culture of that rapid acceleration to respond. To be even more proactive, was there something you did that you looked back on and say, hey, that was a key policy process attitude? Yeah, I wouldn't say that I created a culture of change. I think that I was able to capitalize on the culture that was already in the agency that was

2:05focused on innovation and change and then stimulated. And the stimulus wasn't really from me. The stimulus was from the environment and the sense of urgency, understanding that the character warfare is changing, all the services are transforming, and that meant the agency had to change in advance of a specific demand signal. We had to anticipate what it is that we had to do to be ready for the future fight. And I think from my previous experience, what was taken place within a department, it really was an inflection point for the agency that allowed us to move with the urgency that we have. I think going to your keynote remarks, you talked a little bit about the lessons that are being learned from the conflict in Russia and Ukraine. I would love if you could expand on that, especially as it relates to the LAs mission now in the near future. I mean, I think the lessons are very relevant. Going back a question of what sparked some of the transformation energy. It was very much awareness of what was taken place and being illustrated on that battlefield

3:08and Ukraine about the things that we no longer could rely upon, the things that would be in place, the air and domain dominance that we possessed in previous fights that is now no longer valid or in place. So think about how contested logistics is in that domain, how everything that we would take for granted in previous fights, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, are no longer options. And for instance, in Iraq and Afghanistan, Delay was able to deliver food and fuel to the Ford operating base, really without great resistance. That would never take place in a place like Ukraine in the way that they're operating, the way they have to disperse, the way that lines of communications are contested and where everything has to be done in a different way. There's no question that we're learning the same lessons now in Operation Epic Fury

4:11with Iran and their ability to target a broader array of things with precision that puts much more at risk. And certainly we're learning a lot about the execution of alternate supply chains, alternate supply means, and the necessity of being able to operate with precision. We can't afford to stockpile things where they're not going to be needed because they're vulnerable, we can't access them, and we have to ensure that we've got a agility in our ability to distribute from the strategic down to the tactical level. So it's not only in Ukraine where it's played out, certainly in the current fight, and in a lot of the other places around the world where we see this emerging technology that's put our previous ways of operating and previous ways of sustaining at risk. How quickly are you able to take some of those lessons that you're learning in real time, say with Iran, and change the way that you guys do execute the mission? I mean, how quick can you move? I think we can move with a fair amount of agility, and we are not just responding to the current

5:16threat environment in the Persian Gulf, but in terms of our understanding of how we have to posture capability, how we have to offer solutions and options. And I'd frame some of this in terms of access, overflight, and basing. This is kind of a traditional way of thinking about how we can support from different locations. So from a DLA perspective, access is really critical, and it's not just about access to a nation or to a piece of terrain. It's about access to markets, it's about contracts, it's about relationships, that we have to develop and anticipate in advance of need. So we've seen opportunities to exercise our networks globally, and it's not just in a particular part of the world or in a particular region where we have to be able to flex those capabilities, create new operating locations rapidly through our networks of contracts and

6:18contracted partners that is much more agile than we've had to be in the past. And you could use examples of how we've had to do that with fuel support and food support and access to barrier materials, as well as access to commercial off the shelf items such as drones and counter drone equipment as well as all good examples of agility that we've had to demonstrate that is really a precursor of what we're going to have to do in other parts of the world and future fights potentially. When you talk about that agility and ability to adapt, do you have a specific way to take those lessons and then apply them in DLA, do you have a, I'll call it a task for, a tiger team, like when you see something has changed and you say, okay, that's going to affect the way we deliver fuel or food or so on and so forth. How do you put that into practice? To answer you directly, yes, we do have a cell within the agency that has been in place for

7:21some time but has been reinforced now so we can monitor those lessons, apply them across our supply chains and our operations. So we're certainly doing that. But what I suggest might be more important is the ability to exercise and campaign along with the joint force. So we're learning lessons at the same time and I'm not talking necessarily about specific operations ongoing now. I'm talking about exercises pointed towards potential fights. So for instance in the Pacific. So with DLA in the training audience in this exercise series, we're increasing the validity of the logistics lessons that are learned and we are also developing solutions in stride with our partners on the joint staff and the combatant commands and in other functional elements of the joint force and the services so that we can really articulate what the challenges are and develop solutions in common. And this is a new approach for the agency over the last few

8:25years so we've been able to implement where we're actively participating in these exercises as a member of the training audience. Understanding that although DLA was not designed to be a warfighting headquarters when it gets to the time that we have to support the fight, we're going to be expected to operate like that one, like one. So we're rehearsing our ability to do that now. I mentioned that this was maybe something that wasn't done previously or wasn't done as often or has I'll say focused previously. What changed was it your was it something that you decided during your tenure here was it something that the joint force said to you, hey general we need your help for this reason like how did this come about that this kind of we know we need to be agile and be able to adapt but how to go from this idea to to reality. Campaigning and exercising is not new and we've always had elements participating in different exercises on Korea in Korea you know certainly with Pei Comm in Europe with St. Comm so that's that's that's not new at all. What is

9:30new is the fact that the agency is doing it at the agency level exercising the headquarters and all the subordinate headquarters and the opportunity that we had was the creation of this joint exercise series that was designed to bring together the joint force. Now I would say this the original designers and the intent that was expressed from that did not necessarily include DLA. We really had to step into the room and we you know invited ourselves in to start to become part of the training audience before we were technically and officially included in the training audience. So we were aggressive we saw that opportunity we realized we needed that training and we also realized that others needed to account for us to participate as well. So I would say it's a combination of factors but certainly we were very aggressive and created some opportunities for us that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Lieutenant General Mark Simmerley is the outgoing director of the Defense Logistics Agency. Find Federal News Network's executive editor Jason Miller's story at federalnewsnetwork.com.

10:32What does it take to drive transformational change in large mission driven organizations in this episode of Lessons in Leadership? Former Treasury Fiscal Assistant Secretary David Lebrick sits down with WAPA CEO Shane Canfield to explore the answer to that question, drawing on nearly four decades of public service. Lebrick shares insights on how to maintain employee trust and accountability while striving for strategic leadership and operational excellence. He discusses his biggest lessons learned from modernizing major government systems and how he worked to break down silos and build high performing teams all while staying rooted in character and integrity. Hello and welcome to the Lessons in Leadership podcast. I'm your host Shane Canfield CEO of WAPA. Today I'm joined by David Lebrick, former Fiscal Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, the department's most senior career position where he spent nearly four decades help oversee and modernize the federal government's financial infrastructure, including payments,

11:32collecting, debt financing and cash management. David, welcome and thank you for being here. It's a real pleasure to be here. So let's jump right in. What does it actually take to drive transformational change inside the federal government and related, treasury is obviously a huge organization. What did that teach you about leadership as you drove these changes? Sure, I think one of the things that you realize at time is that change and transformational change is very difficult, but it is doable. And I think sometimes we don't think that we can do big things in government and yet we can. I think over the course of my career I was enormously fortunate to work with some other really wonderful people, some of the most preeminent people in government over the course of the last 35 years. And from them you learn a lot of really important lessons about leadership. I think early in my career what I would tell you is that I was very much new, my

12:33interacted with political appointees as a civil servant, that you're really an advisor. And I've had some really wonderful experiences advising some of really great people. My second job at Treasury, for example, was as a special assistant to Jay Powell. I knew I was not going to be the most the smartest person in the room or the expert on many things that were going on. But what I did know is that I had a very good understanding about what it meant to navigate in government. Also what it meant to advise and provide options and analysis to decision makers. As you move up in your career and you actually take on more operational responsibility, you find out that you are a decision maker. And when you are a decision maker, I had a very good framework that I used throughout my career, which is you as a well-edged organization, the leadership had to think about three very distinct things. One was thinking strategically about where the organization was going, not just about where it was going tomorrow and the next day,

13:36but actually into the future. The second area was that you really had to be able to deliver in the operational excellence. So if you're responsible for providing a service or a product, you can do that well. And you need to think very purposefully about that. And the third area is really about people and about how you attract good people, how you retain good people, how you incent good people, and how you really treat people. And so throughout my career, I had an opportunity to see people be very effective in all three of those areas. So when it came time to do transformational change, that model worked very well. I would also say that what you learn very early on is that regardless, is that you as an individual, it takes the ability to work collectively and collaboratively with a lot of people. And so some of the things that I did, for example, which were cross-government, you realized that you really didn't have authority over many of the people that you were asking to do something different. But if you had character and competence, you could actually have trust. And so I think when people looked and said,

14:39this is someone who has capability and they have character, they will actually go and reduce the friction and actually making change. And so those collaborative relationships, that that ability to sort of lead with purpose, I think was very important with respect to really driving transformational change. Yeah, that's an amazing perspective. I just had a chance to listen in a small room to the CEO and the chairman of the board for Mariah Corporation. And they're celebrating their 100th birthday next year. And most US companies don't make it to 100. And so it was fascinating. Both of them were asked to what do you attribute this? And they said both of them, with energy, it was about their people. They focused on their people and everything

15:40came back to the employees, the people that worked there, the people that they have to motivate. Do you find something similar in government? I do. I actually take, you know, oftentimes you'll hear people say people the most important asset in an organization. And there's an element of truth to that. But I also think that leadership is probably the most important aspect attribute in organization. Because if you have the right leaders and you're using a framework, like I mentioned, you're going to be really focused on getting good people in the organization. And those people will thrive. I think the thing that you find certainly in government is that federal employees are very mission driven. And they are committed. And they, you know, there's a lot of discussion about, you know, what really motivates people, intrinsic versus extrinsic, you know, motivators. And I really do believe that, you know, when you really get a high performing organization, regardless of its private sector or public sector, it's going to be those intrinsic things which are going to actually drive employees to do great things. And so setting up

16:40those right working conditions to remind people how important they are to actually invest in their development to actually give them good feedback. You know, one of the things that is really important in an organization is if you really care about an employee and you really want to see them develop, you have to tell them not only good things, you have to tell them things they have to work on. And I think you need to set up an environment and we add a saying which is feedback as a gift and assume noble intent in intent so that when someone gives you feedback, your first reaction shouldn't be defensive. It should be, let me make sure I can really understand why I'm getting feedback in what I can do about that. You know, I think of a story from a book called Radical Candor, which the author had gone out and spent a lot of time recruiting a new executive in the organization and thought they had a perfect match. They got to six months and the executive was struggling

17:41and they ultimately fired the executive. And at the Exinterview, she had turned to the executive and he said, well, I really was someone who had told me earlier on what I wasn't doing well. And I tell that story because I think it sort of says that if you're not giving good feedback to people, you've spent all this money on recruiting someone, all this time and we know it takes a lot of time to bring people on board. And if you're not giving them the benefit of that, you're not giving regular feedback to someone about what they can do better, then you potentially have a failure and you have another vacancy that you have to fill which is very costly and expensive. So I think you need to have another element of that which is in a high performing organization. If people are comfortable raising their hand when something's not going right. And in my world, large scale operations and what we did every day is something doesn't go right. It's just inevitable. And the issue within a well performing, high performing organization is that people will raise their hand and say we have a problem and we need to fix it. And the leadership is receptive to that.

18:44And says, okay, what do we need to do? And then after the problem is solved, you have an obligation to go back and do lessons learned, do action learning to see, hey, what could we have done differently? How could we have avoided that problem so that you have a learning organization? It's not just that you're comfortable communicating and have trust in the organization that you can communicate openly, but also that you're learning as you go along every day to improve your operations. The very first podcast we had was Cutler Dawson, who was Admiral and Navy, charge of the Enterprise Carrier and the Fleet in the beginning of Desert Storm. And then he went on to run Navy Federal, the World's Largest Credit Union. And it was fascinating to hear you, because he talked, he used an example of a problem they had on deck with airplanes on the carrier. And it was pretty serious accident that happened. His culture was exactly what you said. You've got

19:49to talk whether you're at fault or not, whether you're partly at fault. It doesn't matter. We have to have an honest conversation about this. And that doesn't mean there weren't consequences, but at the same time that honesty has to be front and center. It really is true. And I think that you raised an interesting point, which I think sometimes the word accountability has a negative connotation. You're going to be held accountable. But also, but I would have it in a different way, which is we're accountable for high performance and we're accountable to each other to make sure that we can deliver on our mission. And that's a positive attribute along the way. And I think when organizations take that seriously, the collaboration, the teamwork, the openness, the feedback, but they also have a culture of accountability that says we do things well. We're going to actually be successful of what we do. And we all have a commitment to doing that. I think you're really a high performing organization. You've been listening to a preview edition of Lessons in Leadership. To hear the rest of this conversation and all past episodes, subscribe to Lessons in Leadership,

20:49wherever you get your podcasts.