Lauren Bedula 0:00
Welcome back to Building the Base. Lauren Bedula and Hondo Geurts here with today's guest, Melissa Johnson, who is currently acquisition executive at US Special Operations Command and most known as Mojo in the community. So Mojo, we're so excited to have you here today. Thank you for joining us.
Melissa Johnson 0:16
Thanks, Lauren. Thanks Hondo.
Hondo Geurts 0:17
Good to see you, Mojo. So we usually start these podcasts out with a little bit of an origin story. And you and I have gone back many years and years, but for our listeners, kind of, how did you get into the Air Force, into the acquisition world? And you know, what was your path to becoming the acquisition executive at SOCOM now?
Melissa Johnson 0:38
First of all, thanks for thanks for having me here today. Really excited to spend some time with you guys. Yeah, I mean, I'll tell you the journey to this place. I mean, I don't think I could have ever planned it out. I think probably most people say that. But I grew up in the Midwest and went to college in University of Florida because it was too cold, kind of like today. Said I don't want this weather anymore, so I went down the University of Florida and got an Aeros Florida and got an aerospace engineering degree, and I at that time, when I was 18 years old, I'm like, I'm in Florida, I'm close to Cape Canaveral. I think I'm going to go be part of the astronaut program. Had no idea what it took to be an astronaut, so I was completely ill equipped. But through those four years, actually five years getting an engineering degree, somehow found my way, really desiring to go serve and be in the Air Force, and went through officer training school. So I think it was probably the beginnings of rapid acquisition. Why do in four years what I can do in 14 weeks? And I went to Officer Training School, and they needed engineers at the time, and so now I start as, kind of the Acquisition Officer, as a aerospace engineer, and then throughout kind of my younger part of my Air Force career, did a little bit of engineering work, a little bit of rapid, I'll say, operational test at the 53rd wing down at Eglin Air Force Base, which supports a lot of the really kind of a lot of the fighter and bomber force in doing a lot of classified programs and at the very front end. So they weren't really programs of record. They were a lot of kind of advanced tech, and they wanted to try it. So again, had no idea that that was actually starting to set the foundation for where I'm at. And then, you know, through the years, I ended up getting into an organization shortly after 9/11 called the Rapid Capabilities Office, which was really set up right after 9/11 back in 2003 to go accelerate capability to the field, because the Air Force and actually even OSD, thought that the classified programs Were taking just as long as all the unclassified programs. So they wanted to create a Skunk Works type of organization, and they asked me if I wanted to do it, and I was told two things. They go, no one's going to know what you're doing, and you might not make it past Lieutenant Colonel. And I said, Sign me up. So just kind of that whole idea that I was going to be able to have a lot of autonomy and actually be able to personally affect the outcome of a problem set. And that was really, really attractive. And so for many years, nobody knew who this organization was, and we kind of clawed our way to kind of prove our relevance. Nobody talked about it. We kind of lived by Fight Club roles, which was really fun, but also it was really hard. And through that, I I went to my senior, or actually my intermediate service school, went on the Hill to play staffer for a year. And out of that, I got introduced via phone because I was looking for a job and I didn't want to just be back in the Pentagon area. And I got introduced to this guy called Colonel Jim Geurts, and so I had this phone call. It must have lasted, I think it was like 15 minutes. Next thing I know, I had a job going down to SOCOM. And so that was really, you know, going from very, very complicated programs to this environment of serving the special ops war fighter, where maybe they, at the time, weren't so much of a big technical leap. It was a lot of integration, but it was the pace of being able to deliver which I think was the big challenge for us. So I worked for then Colonel Geurts, who then retired, and then left and became a senior leader in the command and you kind of went back and forth between SOCOM and the RCO three times. So I say, I'm a woman of limited repertoire. I kind of just keep doing the same things over and over again. And then I finally, when I retired off of active duty, I had an opportunity to go apply and compete to be a senior executive service to go back to the Rapid Capabilities Office as the Deputy Director, and was the acting director for a while, until my former boss, who came after Mr. Geurts and ended up taking my former boss's job. So again, it's a strange path. I don't think I could have ever planned it if I tried so but. But it's been a blast.
Lauren Bedula 5:01
Yeah, strange and incredible and super relevant to what we discuss on the show. So again, I know there's a lot we'll dig into, but for me, I think it's so fascinating to hear about your experience at the RCO, the Rapid Capabilities Office, almost 25 years ago, and then more recently, and just watching the evolution of that mission in need over time. So almost a two part question. So answer it however you'd like. But I'm curious how you saw that evolution internally as we think about our CEO capabilities, and how the evolution of industry also played a role in that over that period of time.
Melissa Johnson 5:37
That's great. So every time I've gone back, they always say, you can't ever go home. And I don't think I really understood that until I returned to the RCO the second time, and then I returned back to even the SOCOM the second time. So So you gotta think it was 2003 it was really set up as again, it was a skunk works. It was a board of directors saying we're gonna skip all of the normal corporate Air Force processes. So there were three people at the time. It says all decisions will be made by these three people. It was the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. And at the time when there was OSD AT&L, that was it. And then over time, there were more board of directors that were added on. Now there's seven, with the addition of Space Force programs. But it was 25 of us, I mean, and that was by far the youngest. You know, I was a mid level junior to mid level captain, pinned on major while I was there during my first four years. But again, it was we didn't know if this was this experiment would work. There was no preconceived notions. It was a lot of protection from the three board of directors, it's a little bit of no good deed goes unpunished, because I think the RCO ended up getting programs that were kind of floundering in other places, and it was a place to go kind of be the FIX IT people. And there were a couple of areas that that actually occurred. And so when I went back the second time, it was definitely a bigger organization. It was probably getting close to like 150 to 200 people, because there were more programs that were starting to get put upon it. And then it was also the very beginnings of the B 21 so all of a sudden, now the organization starts getting a lot more attention, which you know, you can look at it from a couple of ways that can be good, or it could be challenging, because it's really nice when no one bothers you, yeah, when I can just go do my job and execute my program, and I don't have to worry about briefing all these people, and my boss took care of it. I mean, we had a great, you know, as if someone likes to say, being a good blocker and tackler, right, being the rear guard. We I had that so I can actually just go hyper focus on, on the mission, coming back a third time again, you know, B 21 you know, I was in the position to be the acting director when we did the B 21 roll out, the public rollout, which got, I think they say, probably more that people watch that roll out than watch the Super Bowl. I mean, it was pretty amazing, and all that went into it. So, so huge change from being the small group of people, nobody really knows what you're doing, to this, everybody knows what the RC, who the RCO, is. There's still some mystery of exact, of what programs are in there, except for a few. But also the, I'll say the span of the community, the ecosystem of both government and industry, has grown greatly, and there's a lot more partnerships than just kind of your, you know, maybe your typical suspects. So I've it's, it's great. I mean, I think it's showing the community that you can keep some core tenants of culture, even as you scale a number of people, because each individual program is still really small relatively. When I was in oh five, I ran a program. So I ran, you know, and this is a little bit of acquisition techno speak, but for those who understand the department, you know, I ran an A-CAT-one program. So that was kind of like your highest threshold of dollar amount, but I ran it with 12 government it was me and 12 others, at most, other big program officers that might be a couple 100 people. That program today still has 12 government people, and it's, you know, way far down the road. So I mean, so keeping that core team and not growing each individual program has been a huge tenant, which is really parallel to what we do at SOCOM. You know, we might be expanding the number of programs and the amount of workload coming down. I know my team will tell you, like, man, they feel the pressure, but without having to grow exponentially, because I think that's the trick of how do you maintain the culture when there's scale of capabilities, without creating a whole bunch of bureaucracy and layers between the person doing it to the person who's making the final decision?
Hondo Geurts 10:00
So scaling is a classic problem of startup companies and government organizations. What would you say Mojo, based on your experience, allows you to scale and maintain your culture as you're bringing new people in, as you're bringing new programs in. What are some secrets, whether you're on the government side or on industry side, of how to maintain that lean and mean culture as you gain more and more people, particularly people who may not have been with the company when it started or been with the organization when it started.
Melissa Johnson 10:36
Yeah, no, that's a great question. It's one that I think about a lot, because it really is about each individual you got to grow the force and grow a really high performing team. So, like I can, I can look back at the attributes of teams I was a part of, or that I led. Was you have all the people that you need to get those decisions made, and really from a governance side. What I mean is the program manager, the chief engineer, your security people, your contracting officer, your financial manager, your lawyer, right? People kind of forget about that one. Everybody was in that really streamlined chain of command, and it was a very flat so working together every day, sitting together that was, I think, a key piece to any type of any high performing team, no matter what organization, whether it was at the RCA, whether it's at SOCOM or, you know, there's other places in the department, but really keeping that tight knit high performers that they can be kind of, you know, if you fire and forget, you give them intent and tell them what you expect, and you don't have to check in on them every five minutes and check their homework. That's but when you, but when you are having conversations and you're asking like, Well, why did you? Why did you say that? Why did you? Why are you making that assumption, being able to have that back and forth of kind of red teaming, you know, your your approach, I think, is what helped me. I mean, I was my, you know, and I know, you know, you know my former boss at the RCO really well, and he, you know, we will keep his name silent and protect him. But I worked for people who thought in six different directions, right? Very multi dimensional, and I think challenging me at a really young age, and challenging the teams of well, why are you going down that path, not to not to micromanage them, but to really challenge and train them to not just think about what's right in front of them, but think about all your stakeholders. How is the hill going to react? How is OSD going to react. Who are the antibodies, who are your supporters, and being able to put that all together and think through that, I think, is what makes a strong team. And so you know it that comes with reps and sets, but putting those right people who have that mindset and who can look at ways to get to yes, instead of saying, Gosh, we haven't done this before. I'm kind of scared. And let me look at the regs and the law and, you know, try to convince myself I can do it. It's that's the mindset that we need to scale and do this throughout the department.
Hondo Geurts 13:15
I think another thing you said which is really impactful is, scale horizontally. Don't scale vertically, right? So scale small, more small teams operating, as opposed to scaling vertically with multiple different layers.
Melissa Johnson 13:29
Absolutely. The other piece to it too is, you know, it's not just the acquisition team, it's your operator. Has to be part of that team. You know, they might not be sitting with you all the time, you know, because they're, they've got their main job, but that close knit, highly, highly iteration of, you know, what is being looked at, what's being developed, I think, is really important. You know, we did have in the RCO where we had operators, you know, B 21 is a great example, where now Global Strike, they actually still sit in the program office. I think when you got, you know, the folks writing the requirements are there, and that O-6 and the O-6 program director almost are finishing each other's sentences half the time. I think that's what right looks like. I that gets hard when there's not enough force structure to go put all those people in the in the program offices. But the closer that that operator and the developer are together, I think, is huge. And industry partners, right? And I think we've got plenty of of examples of, you know, especially at SOCOM where, you know, working together is more of an IPT instead of this, you know, you got, you got your program manager, and then you got this hierarchy, you got your prime contractor, and then they got their subs, getting everybody working together horizontally and collaborating vice this hierarchy is what helps one. It helps to expose where the risk is at, and everybody's managing that risk together. That I think, is probably one of the key pieces, and that that actually helps to go faster. It's not so. Much the you're not going to break laws of physics. Physics is engineering, still engineering, but when you can identify and kind of start to mitigate that risk really early on, then you're not starting from scratch. When you're, you know, on the five yard line, and you identify a big risk, and then you're going, Oh, now you have to really backtrack. That's what causes a lot of programs, a lot of extra time in the end game.
Lauren Bedula 15:21
So on the topic of culture, I often hear from boards or different industry executives that there's a sense that SOCOM is easier to sell to, easier to partner with. They have special authorities, and I'm sitting here with two SOCOM legends on the acquisition side, is that true? Can you talk me through just that reputation?
Melissa Johnson 15:44
The biggest myth that there is, yeah, we answer this question a lot. It is kind of interesting. Everybody thinks like, Oh, we're breaking the law, or we're breaking rules, or we got some special authorities. Interestingly enough, as the SOCOM acquisition executive, I actually have less authorities than the service acquisition executives. Because what happens when something's come out in law, something new, they'll usually say, hey, the services have the ability to go do X, Y and Z, unless it says and SOCOM. It typically means we don't, and a lot of it might not actually even apply anyway. So same set of title 10. We actually followed the same Acquisition Regulations. Everybody's favorite DoD 5000 but here's something I think everybody kind of forgets. And the thing is, there's no magic to this page. One actually says to tailor, some people just choose not to like everybody gets so and they get so overwhelmed by Oh my gosh. Here's the hundreds of pages and all of your checklists, and they kind of go to almost the worst case scenario, and then they try to backtrack. What do I have to pull out? What do I have to convince people to pull something out instead of doing that critical thinking up front of what problem I trying to solve? What are my ground rules and assumptions? And then what do I need to be able to go make that successful and build it from the ground up? And, you know, it was probably, oh no, you probably drove 70-1 like, so there was an internal at SOCOM where we just took that business practice, Mr. Geurts took that business practice, and actually made it its own thing, saying, like, don't worry about looking through all the other paperwork. Let's tailor that, and let's make it repeatable and sustainable for the soft workforce.
Lauren Bedula 17:30
And what advice would you give? We often think on our show we like to create awareness around best practices, to feel more comfortable taking risk, maybe in this sense, or understand it's not even taking risk. Is there any advice that you'd give to other acquisition executives or folks coming up the ranks about how to interpret those?
Melissa Johnson 17:48
I think it's, you know, one. I'm a big believer you got to know your craft, right, you know. So nobody questions the fact that Green Berets and Navy Seals and aviators need to be really, really good at their craft and know the basics, right? And, you know, even take a sport, I tell my team like I use a sports analogy. I kind of equate acquisition like golf. You can read about it and understand, you can comprehend the rules, but until you actually play it and do it over and over again, that's the only way you're really going to have the ability to get good. So I think younger acquirers, or the less seasoned workforce, you got to just do as much reps and sets as possible. I think that's, that's the way you get good if you just came off the street and said, Okay, now you're now you're a Program Manager for some big program. You have no experience to draw and to know whether Am I skirting the law too much, like, how much risk can I take? And I think that goes with anything in life. So, you know, experience does have its place. The right attitude also has a big part of it, you know, is, do they are they a problem solver? It just in general, because just take anybody who has 30 years experience isn't going to be successful. So it's not a there's not just one variable. I think there's multiple variables. So I think it's no know the craft, and if you're coming in and thrown into something, I mean, I have some more, I'll say older, you know, maybe they've been doing something else in their career, especially like, you know, in the other services, they do a lot of operational time, and then they come into the acquisition world. So they are, they quickly get up to speed. I usually tell people, you're gonna get about 10 years experience in three years based on the environment we put them in. You know, you're in the deep end of the pool. Start swimming. And so it's, it's enabling them with the right tools, education, and then just, just get in there and start doing it.
Hondo Geurts 19:41
So I think Mojo, many industry partners aren't maybe as clear about how SOCOM works with the services, and they look at SOCOM and the services almost as two different markets. Can you explain a little bit how you work with your service counterparts, and how, in many cases, at least, I've seen over the years, where our company may start with SOCOM as a gateway into scaling into the services. How does that work for you? How does that work with industry and and is that a healthy relationship with the services, or something you're continuing to work on?
Melissa Johnson 20:22
I think it's something I think that works really well. And it's, it's never ends, right? I think it's, you always have to cultivate and nurture the relationships otherwise, then they atrophy. I think on the first part, on, you know, what do we do versus what the services do? You know, we have our own budget line, which is really great, except for we can't do everything in a vacuum. We still need the services. So there is a lot of strong relationships between big service program offices. But what we're able to do is, because we're smaller and because we have a higher tolerance of risk, we can go and pathline really easily. Do a lot of what we'll call buy, try decide. So go buy one thing, try it out with the operator in us as close to an operationally relevant environment as possible, and then make a decision. And there's lots of you know, and we just really exploit all the tool sets available to us. You know, whether it's contract types, whether it's Kratos, whether you know, like all the things of you know, you know, sharing agreements, all the acquisition tool sets, but we can iterate pretty fast reduce that risk, or call the ball and strike and say, You know what, we definitely don't want to invest in something and but we were able to figure that out early instead of throwing good money at bad but then getting the services, knowing that the services have similar problem sets, being able to do what we call soft to service transition, which has been a huge deal, because not only the services win, because now they've reduced all that early risk, and then they can go scale at a much bigger quantity than we can. We win because now, all of a sudden, if it's service common, now I've just cost avoided for the commander and SOF forces, get what they need, right, and industry, that's right. Industry wins because they can scale, because you can only scale so much with SOF, right? You know, you kind of know how big SOF is. So, I mean, I think yeah, it is a total win, win for everybody. It also kind of, when you start looking again at, kind of this integration of family of systems, you know, we're starting to look at much more integration between sea bed, the space, where it's not just I'm building a thing or I'm developing some type of software, and it's just on its own operating we're in a much more integrated environment. So we know SOF is there to support for the bigger Joint Force, especially prior to a big conflict. I mean, that's where SOF makes a lot of their money. So that has to translate on the acquisition side too, if we just have capabilities that can't integrate with anything else, can't pass data, can't talk to somebody else, then that might help that individual tactical operator for a period of time, but when you kind of scale out, that doesn't help the bigger joint force. So we are spending a lot more time on that overall integration, not just within the soft community, but how it feeds back into the joint force. So that has a big effect on industry and being able to have a lot wider collaboration and also just kind of coming together where, hey, maybe it's SOF and the Air Force, or SOF in the Navy or soft in the Army, kind of come together and combining forces for the greater good. So we're seeing a lot more of those opportunities coming about.
Lauren Bedula 23:45
I'm hearing you just talk about the importance of interoperability, and I always think that's an important message to send industry thinking through teaming, partnerships, interoperability with systems, seems to be so critical right now. And with that in mind, could you talk a little bit about, you know, watching the evolution of of rapid capabilities, needs rapid acquisition over, over the past several years, just this dynamic between software acquisition and hardware acquisition. I think everyone kind of assumes it's much easier to get through the process in hardware. What's your take on software acquisition and some challenges there?
Melissa Johnson 24:20
Yeah, you know, I think this is one we almost over complicated it for ourselves when it really didn't have to be, you know, when? Again, I'll go back to, you know, look at what the acquisition, the original acquisition regulations say, like, there, it's kind of daunting. If somebody just laid it all on your desk, you'd be like, I don't want to read that. So I think there's some good things that have been done, probably in the past seven, eight years, where certain things were kind of pulled out and almost just tailored, going like, Okay, this is how we're going to apply software acquisition that fits within this framework, right? So you have things called Software acquisition pathways that almost just spells it out. I mean, it's completely in line with what current regs are, but just almost saying, Okay, we're going to pull out this small piece and make it digestible for the greater masses, instead of trying to consume this whatever how big document that that DOD 5000 is. So I think those have been really useful things. I mean, my team completely exploits, you know, all the software acquisition pathways, all the different types of ways you can quickly get on contract. But I think just in general, you know, again, it's a system, a system. Some things might be only software, some things might be primarily hardware. But, I mean, there's been software integrated on hardware for decades. So I get, I don't think we should try to make it a bigger issue than it is, because I think we can almost we can convince ourselves it's more complicated than it has to be. And I think that's part of the challenge break it down to just keep it really simple. You know, keep the requirements as simple as possible. Because I think the more we make it a mountain, the more it will be a mountain.
Lauren Bedula 25:57
So on that. How are you thinking about disruptive tech? Do you have any top priorities that come to mind as it relates to the defense priorities and threat landscape?
Melissa Johnson 26:06
Yeah, right. So what you know, I'll say it this way. You know, the thing we're trying to do is continually shorten the chain of events, whether it's whatever that end effect is going to be. So if you think about a kill chain, there are certain data that has to be passed, decisions that have to be made, and affect whether kinetic or non kinetic has to be accomplished. How do we make that more accurate and happen faster? I mean, you know, at a real simplified level, I mean, and then, you know, there's a lot of different variations on that theme. So what are technologies that come in? I mean, everybody's talking about artificial intelligence, right? Which is, you know, advanced software algorithms. So how do I apply these, more mature, faster processing, you know, you know, definitely more robust than, maybe than software algorithms from 5, 10, years ago, how do I apply those at the right places to get the effect that we intend to get? And so, you know, what I tell industry is like, don't I mean, don't just tell me you're gonna go sprinkle some AI on it, right? Tell me exactly what is the end effect that they think that we can achieve. And I think, you know, bringing in commercial applications and applying it like the dual use. I mean, I think that is really expanded, and I think it's a great thing, because I think we've had a blind the department's had a blind spot for a number of years, and I think everybody's kind of waking up more going like, you can use this in a very safe way. Have the trust that the data that at rest and the data in motion is trustworthy and hasn't been corrupted. And so again, those things continue to evolve. But you know, the more we can automate to reduce unnecessary burden on an operator. You know, because from, especially from a special ops perspective, the human is much more important than the hardware. So how do I enable that individual or that team of operators to be able to do the job the best they can do, and reduce unnecessary burden off of them and or ensure that what we're providing them is enhancing their ability.
Hondo Geurts 28:15
So Mojo, I think one of the hallmarks of RCO and SOCOM was a an ability to understand what's out there and first import and integrate something that exists, and only then invent if there's a gap thinking now with kind of your service perspective, are there lessons that we should be thinking about in the broader service acquisitions, about, you know, thinking less about having to invent something, as opposed to figuring out who else is already doing it and integrating it. And then, if that's the case, how would you talk to commercial industries who haven't maybe worked with defense, and how would they best present those capabilities to you, so that you could understand if it's something that you can integrate in to meet and eat?
Melissa Johnson 29:15
Yeah, I do think there is, you know, okay, if I put my kind of an Air Force hat, you know, because that's where I spent my majority of my time. If I put that hat back on, yeah, I do think there's a lot more opportunity to go get back into look at the commercial space. You know, we do have a propensity, especially, I'd say, you know, certain services are really known, you know, for certain things. So we kind of just have this, this bias, this cognitive bias, of, you know, what do we gravitate to? So, how do you break yourself out of that? Right? It's being exposed to a whole bunch of different ways of thinking through a problem set. So the way that, from a SOCOM perspective, how we've kind of applied this, is saying, How do I bring in? In that commercial those commercial entities, and start kind of bridging the the education piece, because I think that's where a lot of it's been. I think commercial industry is probably talking past the department, you know, the military, and the military is talking past the commercial industry. So I think it the really simple answer is you got to just bring everybody together and kind of start chipping away of this is the problem I think I need to get solved, and then being exposed to, what are ways to go solve it? And it doesn't have it's not a one time meeting, right? It is. It is a continual building out the relationship and building new partnerships. And again, you're going in on some trust that says, Okay, I'm going to start to expose some of my problem sets to you. We started doing that, you know, probably shortly before I arrived back at SOCOM, and we are now kind of having very habitual relationships, I'll say, with the investment community, the venture capitalist, the private equity to break down the barriers. And it's not just, you know, with me, it's at my PEO level and at the PM level, because they're the ones making the decisions and executing. They need to understand how the commercial industry thinks through a problem like what they're building and what they're investing in, which is different than some of the decision spaces that I'll say the more established industrial base has thought through problem sets. So I think there's a little bit of reframing everybody's mindset. And again, that just takes reps and sets. And I think that's where the services, I think, have a really great opportunity to kind of latch onto that. I mean, I know what happens in some bespoke places, but I think that's an area to probably scale that education and cross talk, and then get quickly get to the next level, going like, Okay, where are some other opportunities to apply, you know, commercial based technologies, commercial based capabilities, into military applications. So I think there's, it's a little bit of probably certain people to get over this fear. But again, you know, it's a little bit of try something that might be low risk, and then just continue to build on that.
Hondo Geurts 32:00
I guess Mojo, as we kind of wrap this up, what advice you know, you've been in grinder positions, you know, for most of your career, either your place there or you sought them out. What are some tips you would give to folks on how to maintain resilience? You know, we're kind of in this age of surprise, where, you know, every week it seems like something else is popping up, a new threat, a new change of policy, a new whatever. What are things you rely on to for your own personal resilience that have kind of helped you succeed over decades of being in high profile, high, you know, high stress environments?
Melissa Johnson 32:44
Oh, I think they're, it's probably no different what a lot of people have. I mean, I think it's just have a good support system, right? You know, first of all, realize that one they're, they're not alone, like there's, there's really nothing new, in my opinion, under the sun, like these problem sets, they manifest themselves in a little bit different way because of the environment we're in. But it's a lot of the same stuff that we've gone through, that my predecessors you went through it. Former bosses have went through it. You know, teammates have gone through it. So it's just realizing you don't have to take on the world on your own. Use your team, right? You use your mentors to to help you, see, get some perspective. And then it's the simple stuff about just taking care of yourself. I think, I think you taught me best. I mean, I'll go back to probably the first time I was at SOCOM when it was the, okay, get your gear. We know we're going to the pool. And it's like, I don't have time to go to the pool. I got a meeting. And I know, you know we're going to the pool. And, I mean, in those things stuck now. I might not be as good at practicing those right now, but, but just remember, like, you know, you kind of kind of disengage, even if it's for a half hour, to kind of get yourself to kind of just think through things a little bit more strategically. Otherwise, you can kind of get consumed. You can let yourself get consumed with the pressure and the pace, whether it's perceived or real, but sometimes it's just taking that step back and realizing, okay, just hey, we're all gonna live to see another day. And so just keep, keeping at it. And to me, that I think has always been that's been one of the best things and and for me, also, I think it's just like, hey, when you get over that, when you've overcome something, you know, hey, go celebrate that. I mean nothing, nothing drives, I think resilience like success, so, and I've seen that through the team, through teams that I've worked with over the years too.
Lauren Bedula 34:40
Love that, and in the spirit of advice, I have one more quick one, because I know we have a lot of founders and entrepreneurs who listen and would be so curious about your advice. What resonates with you when they come to see you, like non traditional tech companies, if they're able to come have a conversation with you, what stands out, or what advice would you give founders as they navigate these conversations?
Melissa Johnson 35:00
That's great. And you know, what I usually tell them is really simply describe to me the problem you think you're solving for us. I think if, if someone comes and tells me and just throws buzzword bingo out at me, you know, most of my team and I will, you know, I think you hear it so much, it's hard to discern, right? And so as certain markets start to get saturated. Well, what makes one what makes one AI app better than another AI app so like it's Tell me more, right? Just talk in plain English about what it is that makes your technology, your capability, your application, whatever it is, software or hardware that makes it better than the rest. Why should I listen? Why should I spend another moment listening to you and and I think it challenges them to think through, like, how do they respond to, you know, military applications? So, again, it's, it's a continual education piece of that. But I think keeping the story as simple as possible and be ready, because somebody will ask, like, you know, it's kind of well, show me the math or show me how you you got to that conclusion.
Lauren Bedula 36:06
That's more great advice. Mojo. Thank you so much for taking the time. We know how busy you are, and thanks for all you're doing on this front.
Melissa Johnson 36:12
I appreciate it. Thanks. It was a lot of fun. Thanks so much.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai