1
Organizational Change Recommendations
Unit 5 Individual Project
Student Name Here
Organizational Strategy & Design
ODC870
Instructor Name
Date of Submission
2
Abstract
This paper offers a constructive look at the United States Air Force (USAF) Judge Advocate
General (JAG) Corps. As the newest of the branches, the USAF JAG Corps offers full service
legal advice and guidance to the Air Force. There are many opportunities to build upon within
the USAF JAG Corps. This paper includes the proposed assessment areas and will explore the
mission and vision of the USAF JAG Corps; it will also look to its organizational structure and
compare it to the Navy and Army JAG Corps. Utilizing a full spectrum research approach, I will
apply Dr. John Kotter’s 8-Step Process for Leading Change to the sections of organizational
design. At the conclusion, I describe the next steps for the next individual project paper.
3
Introduction to the Organization (Current State)
There are many areas that can be examined with the organization I selected. “On 25
January 1949, General Hoyt Vandenberg established the Department of the Judge Advocate
General -- what is now the Judge Advocate General’s Corps” (Rives, 2009, p. 2). Two senior
officers lead the USAF JAG Corps, and they have an advisory senior enlisted member (Air Force
JAG Corps, 2018). Figure 1 presents the current leadership of the JAG Corps. There have been
18 senior JAG Corps leaders and each one has done his part to influence Air Force JAG Corps
members. Unlike the United States Navy, an organizational chart for the USAF JAG Corps is not
available to the public, though the 2018 ABA document from which Figure 1 is taken provides a
textual description of the USAF JAG Corps leadership and makeup (U.S. Navy, n.d.).
A controversial figure himself based on personal favoritism and often targeted attacks, Lt
Gen Jack Rives painted the USAF JAG Corps in a positive light. He stated that when he would
speak with JAGs and commanders “[t]hey talk about the dedication, the incredible service, the
innovation, and the skills that judge advocates, paralegals, and civilian employees of the Total
Force JAG Corps provide. They really appreciate Air Force legal services: always professional,
candid, and independent” (Rives, 2009, p. 2). Considering his statement, it could also be argued
that members of the JAG Corps may not always be professional, candid, and independent? What
are the underlying motivations of those involved in the day-to-day administration of justice in a
military system? What are some of the competing interests that members of the AF JAG Corps
might face? For example, is it possible that senior leaders require loyalty above all else – even if
that might compromise the entire military justice system? It could be argued that, as members of
the military, members of the AF JAG Corps are not always independent. This paper will focus on
trying to assess certain targeted areas that could be examined and potentially modified to
4
strengthen the vision about which Jack Rives spoke. Initially, it is important to get an overall
sense and view of the makeup of the leadership of the Air Force JAG Corps.
Figure 1
JAG Corps Leadership
Note: From American Bar Association, Air Force JAG Corps, 2018.
The JAG Corps is comprised of over 4,300 individuals that include uniformed lawyers
and paralegals, and civilians (Air Force JAG, 2018). Of that number, 1,300 are active-duty
uniformed lawyers and 600 are civilian attorneys who form the backbone and continuity in many
areas of the legal services that are provided. Additionally, “there are over 900 paralegals on
active duty and over 300 civilian paralegals, court reporters, and other administrative staff” (Air
Force JAG, 2018, p. 2). The JAG Corps also has approximately 1,400 Air National Guard and
Air Force Reserve lawyers and paralegals who provide additional support to the overall JAG
Corps effort to provide seamless legal service to all parts of the Air Force. Figure 1 above shows
that the senior leadership of the Air Force JAG Corps is made up of two general officers and a
senior paralegal that provides the enlisted perspective to the Air Force JAG Corps leadership.
5
Within the Air Force JAG Corps are various sections, various specialties, and various levels of
opportunities in which one can practice law (American Bar, 2018). One section that this paper
will focus on is a group of attorneys and paralegals that serve on the defense side of the military
justice process.
Figure 2
Trial Defense (ADC)
Note: From American Bar Association, Air Force JAG Corps, 2018.
Figure 2 shows important stats about the military trial defense system – otherwise known
as the Area Defense Counsel (ADC). An area that I hope to focus on to improve upon current
processes and training is how the ADCs are trained and the support they are provided. It is also
critical that the “independence” that Jack Rives discussed above is truly present when it comes to
ADCs. The level of independence that should exist and how that can and should be achieved are
important issues that this paper will try and address.
Proposed Assessment Areas
In looking across the potential options for the USAF JAG Corps for assessment areas,
there are lots of areas to review. An organizational assessment is a critical tool that change
practitioners can use to evaluate the current state of an organization and use that as a framework
for what processes or other instruments within the organization need to be further examined for
6
possible change (Courtney, 2007). “Organizational assessment is a usual practice in high
performance organizations” (Bartuševiciene, 2013, p. 47). It is through this process of
assessment of the effectiveness and efficiency of processes that one can determine if things are
working at the level in which it could or should work. I believe that is the key to a successful
change practitioner; someone who can take a snapshot assessment through surveys or interviews
and truly determine the state of the organization. This approach helps customize the advice to the
specific organization rather than believing there is a one size fits all approach to every
organization. To some extent, one could change the culture of the USAF JAG Corps. However,
culture is an extremely difficult area to change. In fact, some would say changing the culture of
an organization is next to impossible (Cresie, 2005). But what happens when it is the culture that
needs changing? While, from a practical perspective it likely will never happen, little by little, it
is possible to create the desire and push for change that could lead to a wholesale change across
an entire organization (Cameron, 2008). While we continually have efforts across the military for
“continuing process improvement” and inspections such as Operational Readiness Inspections,
the JAG Corps itself has not truly taken an outside look at its processes (Cresie, 2005). I believe
that someone with knowledge of the systems and processes, but who is not currently immersed in
the day-to-day operations of the USAF JAG Corps is the ideal person to provide strategic
improvement ideas. In fact, such an outside perspective could make the person the perfect
“change agent” since many scholars agree a neutral outsider can usually be the best to identify a
wide variety of processes needing change (Henley, 2019). Having a true outsider enables
someone to take a critical and yet neutral perspective on the current state of the organization and
what can and should be changed (Ginsberg, 1991). Using Kotter’s model perspective, initially at
this early stage, below is what I anticipate the strategic thinking to be focused upon.
7
Military Justice
I believe military justice, or the enforcement of good order and discipline will be an
assessment area I would like to review. The Army, in 2019, presented their plan that military
prosecutors and those JAGs advising commanders would not be from the same organization
(Joint Service, 2020). I believe that this is a phenomenal start so that you don’t have the same
group of JAGs advising commanders who then will be going into court. The Navy JAG Corps
has already had several issues come to light and an investigation launched into how their military
justice system lost sight of the “justice” aspect of their job (Staff, 2020).
Training
Related to how military justice can be improved, most everything requires additional
training in various areas. This paper will focus on evaluating the current training that is known
and available to the public and looking at ways to enhance it. Training would need to start to
chip away at the overzealous nature of win at all costs and focus more on educating commanders
about the full effects of their decisions on military justice (Barr, 2021). However, training would
be more widespread. Training on how paralegals and attorneys work together can help an
otherwise tense office situation. While it could be argued that paralegals enhance and provide
excellent legal services, do attorneys in the USAF JAG Corps understand the value-added
support that paralegals provide (American Bar, 2021)? Substantial work can be focused on
making sure that the two seemingly different professions and work together to provide a better
service not just for the installation, but a better experience for the attorney and paralegal (Kao,
2007). Of concern, however, is to make sure that the ethical and legal distinctions of what
paralegals can and cannot do are never crossed since all state prohibit the unauthorized practice
of law.
8
Model
As I will describe in detail below, I selected Dr. John Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model.
I reviewed eight change management models and rejected their use based on their complexity or
my actual lack of interest, though all of them grow out of one of the original change models
which is Lewin’s Change Management Model (Levasseur, 2001). This model, I felt, was too
simplistic and did not really provide a feedback loop process for determining where in the
unfreeze and freeze state an organization would be in. Another student, via our class discussion
board, spoke very highly of the McKinsey 7-S Model. While this is a robust model, this model
focused on seven areas that began with the letter “s” (Ageng'o, 2018). These are: structure,
strategy, systems, skills, style, staff, and shared values. This model focuses on people and
personalities within an organization and much of what the military looks at is more structured
and systems based (Avant, 2019). As a political organization, the military is steeped in tradition,
processes and significant “red tape” that forces a change agent to use a model that looks beyond
the individual or, at the very least, to ensure one considers the processes and structure. As I go
forward, I think I would like to take a little from this model and apply it though into the
framework of what Kotter provides since there is a lot to be said about looking at the way change
may influence the individual. The other models I considered were the ADKAR change
management model, the Nudge theory, Bridges transition model, and the Kübler-Ross change
management framework. Of these additional models, the ADKAR model also provided some
useful insight into how I might slightly modify Kotter’s model (Hiatt, 2006). In that model, the
terms used are extremely like Kotter. For example, that model uses building blocks such as the
need to first build awareness, create desire, develop knowledge, foster ability, and finally
reinforce changes. Despite considerable time spent looking at these other models, I decided to go
9
with Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model as I believed that would be most effective as I worked to
assess the change(s) needed and how the model would help bring about the desired change.
Model Leveraged
The model that I have selected as I look to organizational design and implementing
change is Dr. John Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model (Richesin, 2011). The eight specific steps
that Kotter presented are as follows. I will introduce each one briefly here, and then when I do
the analysis, I will go a bit more in-depth on each step. First, one needs to establish a sense of
urgency. Second, you need to form a powerful guiding coalition. Third, the change agent,
working with the organization needs to create a vision – the vision of where the organization
should be going and what it would look like once you reached that state. Fourth, the organization
needs to communicate that vision and, in many cases, take the time to educate the members of
the organization on that vision. Everyone needs to be on board with and singular understanding
and comprehension of what that vision is. Fifth, one needs to ensure that people are empowered
to act. This can take on many forms. We understand that change is inevitable (Galli, 2018). Yet
as the vision is taking shape, people need to feel empowered to be a part of the vision. One must
ensure they remove all obstacles to change (Richesin, 2011). The sixth step is to plan for and
create short term wins. The process for change is a long and many times difficult journey and it
always helps for milestones to be setup along the way so that as incremental change is being
made, people are rewarded, and the organization is presented with just how things are improving
as the process goes forward. The seventh step is to consolidate the improvements and provide for
mechanisms to sustain the change. Kotter warns not to declare victory too soon and many times
it is individual accomplishment of small projects that can slowly move an organization towards
the desired end state vision (Rose, 2002). The desired change may end up taking several years so
10
this step is important to ensure the organization continues to move forward. Finally, the eighth
step is to institutionalize the new approaches. While it is possible that, along the way, the vision
may have needed to be changed due to internal or external circumstances, the desired end state,
once reached, needs to be institutionalized so that the “new” norms are just simply the norms of
the organization. What was in the past is not just history but forgotten. Kotter said that change
“sticks” once it is seen as the way in which things are done around the organization (Richesin,
2011). “Two factors are important to making the changes part of the organizational culture. The
first is to show people how the changes have helped improve performance. The second is to
ensure that the next generation of the organization believes in and embodies the new ways”
(Richesin, 2011, p. 13).
The Kotter model has been used on such diverse organizations as Coca-Cola, MTV, and
the World Bank. In the implementation and application of the model to the organization, an open
and transparent dialogue appears key to the success of the desired change. While there are no
guarantees of success, the Kotter model’s eight step process breaks down the change into
digestible components that are often easy to explain to leadership as well as the organization.
This was one of the most desirable factors for me, and why this model stood out among the
others for me to want to use. Before we move to an exploration of how we might look at
different sections of organizational design in the light of Kotter’s eight step model, we will first
examine a couple important concepts such as Appreciative Intelligence, Appreciative Inquiry,
and Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge.
The “Appreciative” Concepts
Seeing the good in an organization, seeing the potential of what an organization can
become is not an easy task. Significant work has been done by scholars to look at three general
11
concepts: (1) Appreciative Intelligence, (2) Appreciative Inquiry, and (3) Appreciative Sharing
of Knowledge. Many of these share things in common but a summary of them can help a change
agent understand the process – the vision – that they must have if they are truly to be successful.
Afterall, an organization generally wants to hire someone who can envision the strong and might
oak that is the potential of an organization, while those in the organization simple see an acorn
(Thatchenkery, 2009).
Appreciative Intelligence
Having the ability to see the potential of what something can become is truly a highly
valued skill (Thatchenkery, 2009). Appreciative Intelligence is seen more as an ability than
anything else. It is “a cognitive faculty in our brain mediated by cultural experiences and so
forth, as opposed to a process like Appreciative Inquiry” (Thatchenkery, 2009, p. 3). The
scholars and supporters of this framework see this as being the ability to create the future –
today. The true innovators of our time seem to have this ability. They can not only predict and
see incremental changes and improvements, but all new ways of doing things. Those with strong
Appreciative Intelligence abilities are said to truly be transformational. When one is working on
recommending changes to a governmental organization – a military organization – one needs to
be able to see things in a transformational setting that can truly make a significant positive
difference. Thus, Appreciative Intelligence “is the ability to see the mighty oak in the acorn. It is
the ability to reframe a given situation (or person), to appreciate its positive aspects, and to see
how the future unfolds from the generative aspects of the current situation” (Leadership Now,
2007).
Appreciative Inquiry
12
While at first glance, I believed that this approach was focusing only on the positive,
Appreciative Inquiry does not just focus on the positive (Bushe, 2007). “Appreciative Inquiry
gives people the experience of personal and collective power” (Whitney, 2010, p. 266). This
process can even help build self-esteem and self-expression. As we go through our examination
of the change process, we will keep in mind the four stages of the Appreciative Inquiry. This is
made up on four stages: Discovery, Dream, Design, and Destiny or Delivery (Cram, 2010).
Figure 3
Note: From Cram, 2010
Described as being a cousin to Appreciative Intelligence, this is seen more as a methodology and
an approach (Thatchenkery, 2009). In fact, as seen in Figure 4, there are various principles and
processes involved in this approach and each one of them are custom to the scenario and
situation the change agent might face (Gordon, 2008).
13
Figure 4
Note: From Gordon, 2008
Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge
The final consideration for the approach a change agent can consider is the Appreciative
Sharing of Knowledge (Thatchenkery, 2005). Here, the goal is how knowledge is shared. “How
to manage knowledge effectively is a question that has run through the literature of the
field of organizational behavior for many years” (Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 13). There are many
aspects of this which can impact a change agent and if one does not fully understand this
concept, the change initiative may fail before it even begins. Not only is knowledge power, but it
is also security (Thatchenkery, 2005). When an outside change agent comes to an organization,
they need to know what the members of the organization do. Here, the sharing of knowledge by
the employee can be unnerving. “Typically, employees may not want to share what they
know, fearing that once they share their specialized knowledge, they may not be needed.
(Thatchenkery, 2005, p. 16). Would employees feel comfortable potentially helping a change
agent who they feel may want to eliminate their job if a process can be done better or more
efficiently? When it comes to the proposed changes with the Air Force JAG Corps, would the
14
uniformed military members truly be willing to help the change initiative if it would take away
some of the authority of TJAG? I believe the most effective way for the sharing of knowledge is
for knowledge to flow in both directions. Letting members of the organization know that no
matter what the assessment leads to in terms of recommendations, that they will be part of the
process. This is where step two of the Kotter model plays such a crucial role. The
influential/steering committee is that entity where the free flow of information can go back and
forth. If members of the organization can see that there is obvious transparency, they may be
more willing to be active parts of the change initiative. Figure 5 below provides a summary of
the steps involved in the Appreciative Sharing of Knowledge process.
Figure 5
Note: From Thatchenkery, 2005
Relevant Literature
There are many reviews, articles, and other works regarding Kotter’s Eight Step Change
Model. As described above, this is a robust model that has stood the tests of time. Change is
critical to the success of any organization and this model provides the path to help organizations
(Richesin, 2011). Specifically, for the change process to begin, one must establish a sense of
15
urgency (Appelbaum, 2012). In a competing model this was simply unfreeze (Richesin, 2011).
However, with Kotter, he does discuss the process and the design that is needed. It is critical that
an organization be agile (Appelbaum, 2017). This provides the necessary framework to help a
business change. Without a design structure that includes agility, organizations will be stuck
doing what they have always been doing and typically that means not being able to easily
implement the Kotter model as even if urgency for change does exist, the organization may
simply not be designed in a manner that can begin the process (Appelbaum, 2012). Some
criticism of the Kotter model, however, is that it can be complex (Lazuardi, 2021). Because
workers are not initially brought in before the change process begins, this model is seen as more
of a top-down approach. Problems can also occur if a step is missed or if a step is implemented
improperly. Figure 6 shows a brief synopsis of some of the models for change.
As stated previously, Kotter’s model has been widely used across many different types of
organizations. For example, the Kotter model was successfully employed for digital
transformation of surgeries in Canada (Auguste, 2013). His model was also used for
implementing a warm handoff for providers in a hospital environment (Small, 2016). In that
case, the key to the success of the implementation of the change was the way in which Kotter’s
model enabled an entirely new cultural shift to take place. While the change was a significant
departure from the way things had been being done, the model allowed for the quick adaptation
of the new processes to become routine. Even in the academic world, the Kotter model is alive
and well (Calegari, 2015). Where accreditation is a critical component for institutions of
education, the Kotter model was used to build and increase faculty engagement. An example of
how Kotter’s model can be used to help foster a change initiative that can last for years is the e-
Governance initiative in India (Sacheva, 2009). There, because it was a government agency and
16
required the introduction of technologies that were not yet in existence, the process took many
years. This study enables us to see that even if change takes a long time, it can still happen and it
can still be successful.
Figure 6
Note: from Lazuardi, 2021
The overwhelming amount of literature reviewed provides full support for this model
with most reiterating that the steps remain as important and relevant today as they did when they
first came out (Appelbaum, 2012). It has also been labelled a very rational model (Kazmi,
2013).
Current Design Features
Overall, “[c]hange management is a systematic and structured process of developing and
implementing strategies and interventions for organizations transitioning from current state to a
desired state” (Tang, 2019, p. 47). The organization that I am looking at, the USAF JAG Corps
can be broken down into multiple parts and are broken out below. Remember that there are two
main areas that I believe should be looked at. First, a change to military justice wherein the
proposed changes include overhauling the structure of the way in which defense attorneys and
judges are supervised and assignments/promotions are handled. Second, I believe that training
for JAGs and paralegals should be changed to meet current organizational needs so that a greater
17
understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the other are shared in initial training and the
“refresher” courses that the JAG Corps hosts.
Mission
As stated above, changing the overall mission of an organization is difficult. The mission
of the USAF JAG Corps is “to provide the Air Force, commanders, and Airmen with
professional, full-spectrum legal support required for mission success in air, space, and
cyberspace” (Air Force JAG, 2018). On the other hand, the Army JAG Corps mission statement
is to “[p]rovide principled counsel and premier legal services, as committed members, and
leaders in the legal and Army professions, in support of a ready, globally responsive, and
regionally engaged Army” (Army JAG, 2012, p. 1). While subtle, the Army focuses on
principled legal advice, while the Air Force seems to ignore principles and focuses instead on
professional. The Navy also seems to lack a principled or ethical focus in this mission statement.
The Navy JAG Corps mission statement states that it “provides commanders, Sailors, and Navy
families with targeted legal solutions wherever and whenever required to enable effective naval
and joint operations” (Navy JAG, 2021). While they do have individual mission statements for
the subordinate sections, both the Navy and the Air Force do not seem to place justice or
principles first. Instead, they seem to place law as a tool of commanders rather than a protection
or guarantee of rights and protections. The basis for this has long been established. The military
requires people to follow orders without question, even when those orders contradict one’s own
sense of self-preservation (Westmoreland, 1971). Thus, many military leaders argue that the
preservation of good order and discipline is the key to the entire military justice system. As
stated above, the Navy has come under intense criticism for its failure to properly focus on key
protections of the law. So, what entity should be in charge of discipline? It is said that discipline
18
is the soul of a military branch (Alleman, 2006). Who is in charge of the soul? A “military
convening authority is singularly powerful with respect to his influence over the military justice
system. He has no civilian equivalent. He is not a lawyer and generally has no formal legal
training. His authority and discretion to make disciplinary decisions regarding the soldiers
serving beneath him, however, stem from the convening authority’s leadership position”
(Alleman, 2006, p. 170). Therefore, significant power over constitutional issues of military
justice is given to someone solely due to their position of authority, not because of their inherent
training, education, or skill. “By establishing such a dominant role for the convening authority,
the military justice system presents the potential problem of a commander using his power and
influence in such a way as to thwart the fairness, impartiality, and integrity of disciplinary
proceedings” (Alleman, 2006, p. 171). A commander may also not understand the full
ramifications of his actions and may be well intentioned on correcting an issue while perhaps
unknowingly causing lifelong trauma to a military member’s future success in ether the military
or civilian arena. Because there is a delicate balance that exists between a commander’s authority
and the knowledge and skill of his JAGs, I don’t think a huge change to the mission statement
should take place.
Using Kotter’s model, when it comes to mission, I would simply want to tweak the
mission statement just a little. Just as the Air Force added cyberspace to their mission statement
in recent years, I believe changing it to “…full-spectrum principled legal support . . .” would
help the USAF JAG Corps realize that their personnel must act with a principled legal approach
that placed the protections of the law first and foremost. While Kotter argues that some change
takes years, I believe that this change may not be accepted by everyone in the organization.
When you consider that “Integrity first” is the primary Air Force Core Value, the Air Force still
19
has issues with integrity (Ash, 2001). Thus, even a long-standing mission statement may not be
adopted by everyone within the organization (Del Val, 2003).
Regarding attorneys and paralegals, there is a belief that Air Force paralegals have the
same roles and responsibilities as civilian paralegals (Kenau, 2020). However, that is not always
the case. Most times they have fewer responsibilities as their civilian counterparts and often have
additional duties that are outside of and many times beyond the scope of their knowledge. In
both instances, what their attorneys know and understand about what they do is often very
limited. The JAG Mission Statement is in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7
Note: from Air Force JAG, 2018
Vision
The USAF JAG Corps states that to achieve their mission they created a vision, and that
vision is “[e]nabling the Air Force and the warfighter through mission-focused legal capabilities
honed for a dynamic environment” (The Judge Advocate, n.d., p. 1). A thorough search of Army
websites did not locate a vision for the Army JAG Corps. The Navy’s strategic vision for 2025
states that the Navy is “a diverse team dedicated to the needs of our Navy and the commitments
of our Nation. We provide solutions supporting military operations and promote confidence in
our legal system. We adapt our global law practice to operate in an increasingly complex,
specialized, and interconnected world” (U.S. Navy, 2016, p. 4). It is interesting that this was
written just before the Navy scandal exposed that they were not promoting confidence in the
20
legal system. Using Kotter’s approach, I would want to insert words that would help “refocus” or
“commitment to justice” or other terms that would show the ethical duties that lawyers have to a
system of laws, not to a commander and/or opinions. Also, using Kotter’s approach, I would
want to expand upon the JAG Corps’ training for paralegals and offer more in-depth and joint
training so that each part of this critical partnership has a better understanding of the other.
Structure
In the introduction we briefly looked at the overall structure and then I included Figure 2
above that looks at the ADC system. While I have not thought out nor done any structured
research nor had a plan approved to conduct interviews, I am thus not sure exactly how I would
restructure things. Change, however slight, is needed and the key many times is to foster creative
ways to address how things could be done differently (Gamieldien, 2010). The focus is on how
we would apply the model to implement some sort of change on an organization’s structure.
Here, however, I think this would be a challenge using the Kotter model – or any model. I
considered many of the other models and decided to stick with Kotter. The structure of an
organization is seen as stability and any time that members of an organization hear about
“restructuring” they immediately worry about their own role in the company and if they will be
restructured out (Pollack, 2016). With the two focuses I presented above, structure could mean
having civilian attorneys as ADCs as an example as a military justice structural change or having
lawyers directly rate paralegals as an example of structural changes to how lawyers can be
trained on what paralegals do. There is a lot involved when it comes to the structure of any
organization, but sometimes overhauling a system that is not working is needed. Just because
something may seem challenging or difficult, should not prevent it from being considered for
21
change. Numerous times, drastic structural changes have been made in the military justice
system, so it certainly can happen, as it has happened (McCormack, 1998).
With regards to the judiciary, the establishment and oversight of that is codified in law.
The guidance for the creation of the court states:
The United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals is an independent appellate
judicial body authorized by Congress and established by The Judge Advocate General
pursuant to his exclusive authority under Article 66(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ), 10 USC § 866(a). The Court has jurisdiction over: (1) trials by court-martial
where the sentence includes confinement for 12 months or longer, a punitive discharge,
or death; (2) cases forwarded for review by The Judge Advocate General under Article
69(d), UCMJ, 10 USC § 869(d); (3) certain government appeals of orders or rulings of
military trial judges, pursuant to Article 62(a), UCMJ, 10 USC §862(a); (4) petitions for
new trial referred by The Judge Advocate General pursuant to Article 73, UCMJ,
10 USC § 873; and (5) petitions for extraordinary relief under the All-Writs Act and
Article 6b, UCMJ, 10 USC § 806b (Air Force JAG Corps, 2018, p. 8).
Figure 8
Note: from American Bar, 2008
As for paralegal training, the basic training for a paralegal is 35 days (Kenau, 2020).
However, this is among the shortest of all military tech school training (Kenau, 2021). For
22
people dealing with critical issues of justice and people’s future, technical school training should
be expanded. In comparison, all the other schools have significantly more training for their
paralegals with the Navy providing eleven weeks of training for their new paralegals (Navy JAG,
n.d.).
Strategy
It is difficult within the time constraints of this assignment to research and explore the
full extent of what the strategy of each of the military services’ JAG Corps are. However, as a
brief introduction, I was able to find that the Navy provides that their strategy is:
“To execute our mission, vision, and lines of operation in the predicted future operating
environment, we must leverage technology and focus on the following strategic
objectives:
• Capabilities Alignment. Assess and adjust practice areas and the delivery of
legal services to meet the Fleet’s evolving mission requirements.
• Knowledge Management. Develop and sustain an interactive process to identify,
capture, evaluate, retrieve, and share the right information and expertise at the
right time in ways that improve our Community’s ability to deliver legal solutions
whenever and wherever required.
• Community Health. Maintain a strong, resilient JAG Community to meet future
challenges (U.S. Navy, 2016, p. 3).
23
While the Navy does add more stuff, that is the gist of their strategy. It is important to
note that Kotter said that one must have a vision to create a strategy and do so with clarity
(Kotter, 1995). As a military organization, the JAG Corps puts out their strategic visions
periodically to ensure that they are addressing the strategic vision of the Air Force, which in turn
is focused on the strategic vision for the Department of Defense which gets its guidance from the
President who ultimately establishes the strategy for all members of the Executive branch which,
of course, includes the military (House, 2021).
Figure 9
Strategic Planning
Note: From Burne, 2017
24
Figure 10
USAF JAG Corps Strategy
Note: From Burne, 2017
As you can see in Figures 9 and 10, the USAF JAG Corps is trying to fit in their vision
for a strategy within the other pieces of the puzzle what forms what the services must do. The
Air Force even implemented a new Air Force Instruction (AFI) which implemented a continuous
process improvement plan which strongly suggests that there is a constant monitoring of the
changes that the Air Force and the USAF JAG Corps is trying to implement. More on processes
in the next section.
25
Processes
Most organizations have processes and, usually, governmental organizations have lots of
processes (Brewer, 2010). The idea behind process improvement initiatives is to reduce or
eliminate chaos by creating a link between quality problems and their optimal solutions (Plenert,
2012). Process improvement is the new buzzword within the Air Force. With regards to the
implementation of the Air Force Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) process, the Air Force
provided the following:
Air Force CPI uses several widely accepted process improvement methodologies,
including lean, six sigma, theory of constraints, and business process reengineering. Key
principles contained in these methodologies include improving flow and reducing waste
within a process, focusing on factors that degrade product quality, identifying and
overcoming process constraints, and redesigning processes. The application of these
principles enables Airmen to integrate continuous improvement into day-to-day
operations across the full spectrum of AF operations” (Burne, 2017, p. 20).
Does this system look and see if a process is value added or useful? Not necessarily. The
Air Force inspection system is now more focused on processes than it is compliance with
checklist items. Not seeing the “whole picture” is a consequence of the CPI process (Ward,
1994). What if a process is not working? There are numerous drawbacks about relying solely on
CPI to be the agent for change and ensure an organization is being as optimal as possible.
Additionally, the Air Force does not utilize any of the models that we have been exposed to at
CTU so it would be interesting to see how Kotter’s model, for example, would apply in the CPI
system the Air Force has implemented.
26
Systems
The system itself has been relatively the same since the USAF JAG Corps was founded
and yet that does not mean that the system itself could not use work. When people outside the
military feel as though they do not have the resources to do their job, they have the courage to
speak up. For example, a public defender said that when they do not have the time and resources
needed to devote to their clients it is not only unjust, but it is unconstitutional (Peng, 2015).
Kotter himself warned us that the pace of change is much quicker than the ability for most
organizations to adapt to that change and, as such, organizations must learn to be more agile
(Kotter, 2012). Changing a system is not an easy task and yet, if a system can be identified for
change, there is no reason why applying Kotter’s eight steps should not work. Here, the military
justice system has been involved in change for quite some time (Schlueter, 2013). The balance
between a system that pushes to ensure discipline versus a system that focuses on justice is
something with which all the branches continue to struggle.
Figures eleven and twelve below show the current system and structure of the
organization of the defense attorneys within the JAG Corps. Additional research should be done
to determine how the overall judiciary should be handled. Currently, each major branch (Air
Force, Army, and Navy) has their own criminal courts and then there is a Court of Appeals for
the Armed Forces (CAAF) (Doyle, 2013). Fundamental fairness should require that potential
future judges also be separated, early on, from their prosecution masters and supervised under
the newly created defense chain as detailed in the proposed changes section below.
27
Figure 11
Figure 12
Culture
I mentioned above that culture was one of the most difficult things to change. With
agility as the focus, I can see that change within the United States Air Force (USAF) Judge
Advocate General (JAG) Corps moves incredibly slow and I understand that my proposed
changes may take years, if ever, to be implemented. The military itself is slow to change (Myers,
1999). However, some things – if there is enough political pressure – can change rapidly in the
military (NPR, 2021). If politicians believe that something must be done, it will get done. Even if
the military wants to make a change, the politicians (who seem to know what is best even if they
28
have never served) will tell the military it cannot make the change they want to make (Roza,
2021). If one applies Kotter’s approach of the need to create a sense of urgency, I believe that for
the military the sense of urgency will need to come from the outside and be forced on the
military. Even if there were a few senior leaders who wanted to do the right thing and implement
a change they could not create that true sense of urgency that Congress would be able to provide.
It is beneficial that the Air Force JAG Corps states that changing the culture is exactly what they
want to do. In their vision for strategic change, they state “The USAF Strategic Master Plan
(SMP) seeks to drive a change in Air Force CULTURE by translating our strategy…into
comprehensive guidance, goals, and objectives for the next twenty years” (Burne, 2017).
However, what this recognizes is that while changing the culture of an organization might not be
impossible, but providing a twenty-year period, it is an admission that it is a long and grueling
process. I believe there are some cultural concerns I would want to use Kotter’s model to try and
implement. Whether that is between lawyers and paralegals or the military justice system, when
a culture allows for improper actions to be tolerated and often accepted, the culture must be
changed. Once implemented, the Kotter step two steering committee members would continue to
act as a pressure valve and check on the system to see if the desired results are taking place as
originally hoped.
Ideal Future Design
My belief is that having both defense attorneys and prosecutors controlled, ultimately, by
the same chain of command causes a conflict of interest and does not provide the constitutional
protections that should be afforded all people of the United States, to include our military
members. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is heralded as the fairest judicial
system in the United States, if not the world (Rives, 2000). Many say that the demands of good
29
order and discipline outweigh the constitutional requirements afforded to the accused (Maurer,
2013). I disagree. Using Kotter’s model, let us see how we can go through each of these
individual sections to make things within the Air Force more justice focused.
Mission
I propose having two different mission statements, both of which would be justice
centric. The Air Force JAG Corps mission statement would be changed to state: our attorney and
paralegal teams deliver professional, candid, justice-centric independent counsel, and full
spectrum legal capabilities to command and the warfighter. Because the Air Force General
Counsel is getting a new mission, I have proposed a new mission statement for the SAF/JJ office
that would oversee the Judiciary and Defense Assets. The mission statement would be: we
provide independent advocacy in a relentless quest for the truth to Airmen and Guardians
fighting to protect justice for all. Currently, in the defense community, paralegals perform most
of the client interaction and handle the bulk of representation – except in court (Kenau, 2020).
Vision
A vision is basically a statement of beliefs (Herman, 1989). Like the mission statement, I
would change the Air Force JAG Corps’ mission statement to read: “our diverse attorneys and
paralegals provide the Air Force and the warfighter ethical, and justice focused legal capabilities
honed for a dynamic environment. I would create the following vision statement for the new
SAF/JJ office: our seasoned experts work tirelessly to provide Airmen and Guardians justice-
centered advocacy and complete independence from one’s chain of command. The JAG Corps
already has a mission for its military justice which is to:
30
uphold justice and maintain a disciplined force … [to] [p]ursue substantiated misconduct
and criminal activity of military and civilian offenders; ensure a just disposition of
offenses through military, federal, or state proceedings determined by jurisdictional lines
of authority, and, where possible, maximize commander prerogatives under the UCMJ.
Optimize processes using military justice management tools to meet established metrics
and milestones. Cultivate close working relationships with investigators, local and federal
prosecutors, and victim advocates. Scrupulously enforce the rights of the accused, victim,
and government (Burne, 2017, p. 27).
While this says all the right stuff, my vision that I proposed would be ingrained every day into
the minds of those who serve. Saying one thing on paper but doing another is not how a vision is
carried out.
Structure
When new attorneys join the Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps, they
almost always start off as a prosecutor. Then, if they show and demonstrate courtroom abilities,
they are offered an opportunity and can volunteer to become a defense attorney, known as an
Area Defense Counsel (ADC) in the Air Force. While usually the best and brightest become
ADCs, there are times in which the needs outweigh the willing and someone is simply assigned.
After an assignment as an ADC, that JAG can look to another ADC position, perhaps become a
senior Defense Attorney, or go back to a base legal office. There are a few problems with the
current process. First, most ADCs return to the operational side of the Air Force, where they
understand that their next assignment and promotion opportunities depend on their reputation
within the JAG Corps. While outside of the scope of my proposal, but perhaps might make it into
my final paper, I believe the judiciary should also be carved out of the JAG Corps. Using the
31
civilian side for comparison, it would be like having the District or County Attorney running the
Office of the Public Defender. In most jurisdictions, however, the Office of the Public Defender
is a division of the judiciary ensuring complete separation from prosecutors. Once a JAG
decides that they wish to become a defense attorney I believe that they can and should remain on
the defense side with the only other career opportunity being a judge. They should not be going
back and forth between defense and prosecution. While former United States Senator Ted
Kennedy called the UCMJ the gold standard for justice, in reality the system is more fool’s gold
and often presents injustice (Theurer, 2010). I believe that the Office of the General Counsel
would be best suited to provide a neutral chain of command for the defense assets for the Air
Force. As the slide shows in Figure 13, I would create a “three star” position that would be just
under the Air Force General Counsel to provide a military structure and chain of command and
be on par with the prosecution. That position would be SAF/JJ to stress the importance of
“justice.” Under that position, in addition to the defense assets, I would also include the Air
Force Judiciary as part of this reorganization effort.
Figure 13
32
Strategy
If my proposed changes eventually can go into effect, I believe the strategy of the Air
Force JAG Corps would fundamentally be altered. Already, if the current National Defense
Authorization Act is passed, there will be unprecedented changes to what a commander has the
authority to do when it comes to discipline (Maucione, 2021). Since the proposal takes away
authority from commanders to decide the forum and charges for crimes that are not inherently
related to a military crime, the JAG Corps will be gaining significant authority in deciding how
to handle cases. I think they would be wise to take a strategic position that they would focus on
justice and the facts of a case in deciding how to proceed with certain matters. The JAG Corps is
becoming more and more like a district attorney’s office – establishing how cases are processed
and what to charge and what charges would go to trial. By separating out the judiciary and
defense, then the JAG Corps would more properly reflect their civilian counterparts. As stated
above, we do not have judges and public defenders working for the chief prosecutor. Instead,
public defenders come under the control of the judiciary in the civilian world, and I believe the
proposed move made would be the ideal strategy to demonstrate to Congress, and those in
uniform, that the AF JAG Corps is focused on justice.
As for the future for paralegals, the JAG Corps only states that the role of paralegals will
be expanded (Burne, 2017). However, what will this entail? What more can they do? Recall that
a Navy paralegal receives 11 weeks of training. They have a much broader and expanded list of
responsibilities including handling ethics issues and serving as legislative liaisons (Navy JAG,
n.d.). What more should they do? I believe that a paralegal should be doing all things except
giving specific legal advice and, without prior approval, should not be arguing on behalf of a
client in court. At a bare minimum, paralegals across the branches should receive the same
33
training and should have similar responsibilities. While, of course, maritime law may be specific
to the Navy and Aviation law more suited for the Air Force, with Joint Basing and other joint
environments, there is no reason to specifically limit the ability of a paralegal to do all that they
can do – except practice law (Galbraith, 2013). For everything other than the prohibited practice
of law, senior officers within the JAG Corps need to see the incredible value that paralegals
provide to the Air Force and be given their proper respect.
Figure 14
From: Burne, 2017, p. 38
Processes
Recall that the model we are using is Kotter’s Eight Step Model for Change. The impetus
for change and the process begins when we create the impetus for change (Appelbaum, 2012).
There are various ways this would take place in the JAG Corps. Working internally or externally,
34
there would need to be persuasive communication. Kotter said that such communication had to
be communicated broadly and dramatically. Even he recommended that gaining support for
change outside the organization would help the organization. Here, within the Corps, it could
begin with articles in law reviews or even the Air Force Reporter. The scholarly discussion could
open a dialogue and perhaps garner support. Next, there would need to be legislative analysts
working with the Air Force Legislative Liaisons to craft language that would effectively
communicate why there is the need for the change in the first place. Noting that most bills die in
committee, there needs to be groundswell of support that continues to push and press this needed
sense of urgency as is step one of Kotter’s Eight Step Model (AACOM, 2021). While victim
rights groups may see this effort as weakening the justice system and therefore hurting victims,
but engaging groups that fight the wrongly convicted, a balance could be achieved between the
advocacy groups with the overall goal enriching justice overall (Holtzclaw, 2021). It is long
steeped in the history and fabric of our judicial process that it is better that ten guilty men go free
than one innocent man be punished by a conviction and thus all that can be done must be done to
create the sense of urgency needed to inspire the genuine belief that change is needed
(Halvorsen, 2004)
Kotter’s second step is to create a guiding coalition (Appelbaum, 2012). This coalition
must be made up of people who are in positions of power, have expertise, credibility, and
leadership. This step has been discussed significantly above because I believe that this step and
this coalition is vital to the success of the change initiative. I believe this is one of the most
crucial processes for a change agent to truly establish the change that the organization desires.
According to Kotter, there are critical characteristics that the members of this guiding coalition
must have. First, the members must have power. While that at first may seem like a “no brainer,”
35
the purpose for this is to ensure that the coalition that is shepherding the change does not run into
a block of powerful people who can hinder or oppose their efforts. As stated above, it is not easy
to change the culture of a governmental institution. Second, the group must have expertise.
When the Air Force was standing up the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, I
was a required attendee as an attorney since each of the “focus groups” or tiger teams that the Air
Force had for recommending changes to countless processes usually had some ethics or legal
element to it. So, as we developed this guiding coalition, I would want to make sure we have all
the right people to include influential employees such as union leaders, senior and junior
enlisted, and senior and junior officers. There should also be civilian representation since,
typically, they stay in the government longer than uniformed members (Moskos, 1977).
Third, Kotter says that this guiding coalition should have credibility in the eyes of the
organization. As such, I would want to make sure that not only would I be working with
management to select individuals, but I would want to select one or two people who were
nominated or selected by their peers. These people might not have the “expertise” or power that
Kotter suggest but would have the credibility in the eyes of their peers which would lend more
credence to the efforts the coalition would be making (Maximini, 2015). As stated, this coalition
would remain in place for the duration of the change process and while some members may
move on, separate, or retire – the goal is to make sure that everyone in your organization
“connects it with agile successes” (Maximini, 2015, p. 107). Finally, the guiding coalition would
need leadership – not just powerful managers, but actual visionaries who can “see” what the
future of the organization would look like after the change process was completed. “Good
managers keep the change management process under control while good leaders create the
vision to drive the change” (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 768). I believe that an effective guiding
36
coalition is the foundation for any change process. The group would be able to effectively
communicate with the rest of the organization. They would be able to take immediate feedback
and process that as the change was underway. Additionally, they would serve as the strongest
voice to the entire organization that their efforts are a team effort since the group would have the
credibility established by members being directly selected from the rest of the organization. A
room full of senior officers will not cut it as they would lack the credibility that Kotter suggests.
Additionally, they would lack the expertise. Here, for my proposal, I would include a member of
a nationally recognized “innocence project” expert. I would include a former convicted member
of the Air Force criminal process or even someone currently sitting in a military prison. I would
include a seasoned court reporter and at least two paralegals (in addition to the senior and junior
enlisted mentioned above) – one with many years of experience in the field and another who
teaches military justice at the Air Force JAG School. I believe that there would be many
opportunities for success if the guiding coalition can become the steering group for genuine
discussions on making real change and not ever being seen as a rubber stamp committee for
something some senior general wanted. The devil, as the cliché goes, is in the details (Chatfield,
2011). I believe that an effective guiding coalition would be the key process to help spur all the
other processes that would be involved in the changes that I am proposing.
The next step required is to create a clear and sensible vision (Appelbaum, 2012). This
will be the first real step of the guiding coalition. My proposal would recommend that the
coalition focus on why so many members of the military legal profession joined – a sense of
justice. As detailed above, the vision would need to be clear and focus on a true sense of justice.
“An effective vision is essential in breaking the status quo and looking beyond the immediate
goals of the organization” (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 769). The processes needing changing would
37
start from the very basic courses for JAGs and paralegals and continue through their career. They
would also need to make changes to commander’s courses to stress the importance of justice and
fairness. The guiding coalition should stoke passionate debate as to who is in change and who
should oversee the military justice system (Alleman, 2006). Already, the proposed language is in
place to break down the level of power that commanders possess (Maucione, 2021). As stated
above, should the current language in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
pass, there will be a tidal shift in all the processes Air Force – and DoD wide – that will need to
be put into place. This guiding coalition would be the perfect entity to help in this change
initiative and would be the perfect start. The next step would be working on the defense portion
of the military justice system and training of JAGs and paralegals as part of the vision. Recall
that Air Force paralegals receive significantly less training than their counterparts. As the process
changes from the NDAA are implemented, that could also be a catalyst for increased training of
paralegals.
The next step that we must consider, the fourth step, is communicating the vision
(Appelbaum, 2012). As stated above, there are many ways to do this withing the JAG Corps
current processes, but Kotter points out that a two-way form of communication is much more
effective. This confirms my argument above that active feedback and an engaged guiding
coalition should be heralded. Kotter also discusses how a verbal picture is incredibly helpful so I
would have the members of the guiding coalition who have experienced injustice firsthand go
from installation to installation and give a presentation at the different military schools and
courses to create this “verbal picture” that is so helpful in relaying the need for change.
The fifth step is empowering broad-based action (Appelbaum, 2012). Here, the work of
McKinsey’s model seems to get its foundation as Kotter recommends that “empowering
38
employees involves addressing four major obstacles: structures, skills, systems, and
supervisors” where he strays a bit from focusing on processes and looking a little at the
individuals (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 771). Here, communication and training can provide the
impetus needed for a cultural shift. As new members enter the JAG Corps, they will only know
what they are told is the process. Those already in, will eventually be swayed to accept the new
processes. If they resist, they may find that leaving the JAG Corps is the best thing for them –
and it would be the best thing for the JAG Corps. Having training scenarios in which members of
the JAG Corps and current and future commanders are given case-based scenarios and asked
what should have been done differently is a form of empowerment. As for paralegal and JAG
training, giving and challenging paralegals to do more can result in a significant increase in their
abilities. In short, “giving employees a small empowering opportunity can have a profound effect
on employee attitudes as this can provide them with some sense of control over the change
process and help move the change effort along” (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 772).
The sixth step is to generate short term wins (Appelbaum, 2012). Here, with the new
process of having the defense attorneys and judges under the Air Force General Counsel, we
could begin to see some short-term wins as people begin to adapt to and excel in the new system.
Having parity between the prosecution and defense can be a model for a justice system and the
guiding coalition can produce articles for newspapers, journals, and other publications wherein
the dedication of resources to the defense can be championed. As defense attorneys get promoted
– perhaps at a higher rate than their counterparts on the prosecution side – more people may
embrace the desire to become defense attorneys. As people accused of crimes can have
reasonable communication with their appointed attorneys and paralegals, they may see that their
rights are respected. As members who are accused get an investigator appointed to their case
39
they may see a tidal shift in conviction rates. Minorities, many of whom cannot afford to hire
outside counsel or pay their outside counsel for an investigator, may begin to see that conviction
rates and administrative separations are dramatically reduced (Landis, 1998). Ultimately, short-
term wins help provide a positive feedback that the change initiative is working. Kotter
recommends that high performance levels be set and that behaviors that show an acceptance of
the change be rewarded. As such, higher level decorations and promotion percentages could be
provided for those who embrace and champion the change. Opportunities for paralegals who
expand their skill set could include allowing them to serve as assistants to command chiefs or
other high-profile positions inside and outside of the JAG Corps.
The seventh step is to consolidate change and produce more change (Appelbaum, 2012).
This is simply the belief that once the processes begin changing and people are feeling included
and they are being rewarded, there is a positive feedback-loop in place that can continue to push
the change initiative – guided by the guiding coalition but also enhanced and pushed by
individual members of the organization. Kotter warns that one should not declare victory
prematurely. If one comes out and declares “mission accomplished” the momentum for change
could be lost, or the process stall and the culture revert to its old ways (Bensahel, 2006). In the
end, “changes associated with continuous improvement methods” and “transformative,
breakthrough changes” can be made by “encouraging people to initiate and experiment with
changing” (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 774). This adds to the feeling of empowerment that members of
the organization can feel and will help push the additional changes needed to reach the desired
end state.
The final step is to anchor the new approaches in the corporate culture (Appelbaum,
2012). Kotter suggests that the key here is to enable members of the organization to fine tune the
40
new culture and be allowed to provide input and “tweaks” where necessary. Kotter says that
“new behaviours are subject to degradation if they are not rooted in social norms and shared
values once the pressure for change is alleviated” (Appelbaum, 2012, p. 774). Thus, as the
processes become more embedded and wide-spread, it is vital that the members of the
organization do not feel the need to revert to the “old-ways” of doing things. I feel that this step,
for a governmental institution, will be the easiest since if all the previous steps are successful (as
listed in Figure 14 below) the basic nature of the military is to follow the culture and tradition. If
the culture and tradition have successfully changed, the change process and change initiative
become the new norm and our change is successful.
Figure 15
From: Kotter, 2021
Systems
For the systems that need to be changed, there are quite a few. We talked about the actual
physical structure above that includes the move of defense attorneys and judges to the Air Force
General Counsel. We discussed the creation of a senior military position within SAF/GC. We
41
discussed the need to increase training within the Air Force paralegal training process. The main
system that should be changed would be the process in which people are promoted, to meet
Kotter’s step of rewarding those who have embraced the change initiative. The military
promotion system is primarily based on one’s performance report (Moon, 2010). Yet, much of
what is factored into that report is based on assignments and opportunities which may not be fair
across the board (Butler, 1976). The performance report itself can also be very subjective and
commanders may not treat people across the board fairly (Moon, 2010). In the desired end state,
I proposed several recommendations for change and these changes are possible with either policy
changes to the current system, or statutory changes that could be done via legislation to include
having peers be able to help select those for promotion, at least to the most senior of positions
within the JAG Corps (Downey, 1976). The question has been asked for many years - are we
retaining the best talent and are we promoting the “best” within the JAG Corps (Moon, 2007)?
By rewarding those who move over to the defense track a bit more highly than their peers we can
recruit and retain the best and the brightest. By allocating funds, done through the NDAA, on a
level playing field between the prosecution and defense, we can “tweak” the systems involved to
the point where we can accomplish the change initiative being proposed.
Culture
As stated above, changing the culture may be difficult. However, we have already
recommended several ways in which we can begin to reward people who embrace the new way
of doing things and how this can help change the culture. Kotter states that “culture refers to
values that are shared be people in a group and that tend to persist over time even when group
membership changes” (Kotter, 2008, p. 4). Culture is also what new employees see when they
42
arrive and are indoctrinated into and adapt as the typical way of doing things. Figure 15 below
suggests the different forms of culture and values.
Figure 16
Note: from Kotter, 2008
Within the Air Force, the defense attorneys already have the semblance of independence
since the advertise that they advertise that they are outside of the local installation’s chain of
command (Air Force JAG, 2018). What they don’t state is that they are led by the same senior
leaders that the prosecution is and that as soon as their current assignment is over, they may
become a prosecutor or run a legal office giving recommendations on punishment which could
pose a conflict of interest. Because the culture of the Air Force, however, is to see defense
attorneys and judges as relatively independent, the shift in culture may not be as challenging as it
could otherwise be. Successfully employing Kotter’s model as described above, I believe the
culture can successfully be changed since elements of the foundation of the change proposed do
43
already exist so it would involve stressing that the defense and judges must be truly independent,
and most would simply agree that it makes common sense. When it comes to judges, scholarly
articles already exist proposing that military judges become independent from the “system” in
which they currently work (Lederer, 1994). In this critical article, the author writes that “[t]he
military judge…is appointed by the Judge Advocate General (TJAG) of the appropriate armed
service, serves without a fixed term at the pleasure of the Judge Advocate General, and is
evaluated at least annually by senior officers. Subsequent promotion and reassignment are
dependent upon the judge's annual officer evaluation and the personal knowledge and desires of
those senior officers responsible for assignments” (Lederer, 1994, p. 630). Currently, Congress
has stated that there is an acceptable balance with military judges. My change initiative would
help change the culture so that what would be “acceptable” would be a truly independent
judiciary. True independence is true justice. “One can plausibly argue that acceptance of, and
reliance upon, a legal system requires only that a population believe the system to be fair and
just. Reality and appearance can be different things. Because military morale is dependent upon a
belief that the military legal system treats personnel fairly, it is particularly important that the
judiciary be perceived as independent of command control and thus impartial (Lederer, 1994, p.
632).
Change Management Process
In this extensive paper, we have already discussed the processes that would be involved
in assessing the organization and advancing the change initiative. Below, we will break this
down a bit further and try and emphasize the change management process in a bit more detail.
44
Time
As stated above, changing a governmental organization is not an easy task. We presented
information above that the military itself is steeped in tradition and culture and would not change
without a continued effort. We argued above that the guiding coalition would be that
continuously guiding force and discussed the specifics on the makeup of that organization. In
looking at the steps to Kotter’s model, Figure 16 below shows a very brief and cursory timeline
of the implementation of each of Kotter’s steps. As you can see, this process may take many
years to reach a point in which we can say that the culture as changed, and the change initiative
has been successful. Even though the journey may be long, as argued above, it is not an
impossible feat.
Figure 17
Resources
The Air Force requested more than $207,000,000 for Fiscal Year 2021 (Tirpak, 2021).
The time, effort, and money needed would be something the Air Force Audit Agency,
contracting officer, or contractor would need to figure. Not knowing the numbers of people
45
involved or what I would charge were I to lead this change, I would estimate the costs for the
process to be around $5,000,000 while the actual cost in dollars to the Air Force could be more
than $15,000,0000 annually. This cost would reflect the hiring of additional personnel within the
Air Force General Counsel’s office to include the proposed military general officer as well as
civilian investigators. It may also include a need to fund more positions within the JAG Corps so
that the number of defense attorneys is increased by approximately ten percent. Part of the
annual increase to the Air Force legal system budget would also include some funds going to the
Air Force JAG Corps. This money would be used to extend the paralegal training classes
(including TDY and per diem increases). If additional instructors were needed, the fiscal impact
would be negligible since there is already a cadre at the Air Force JAG School (Air Force JAG,
2018). Most of the proposed changes simply re-allocate personnel from TJAG to the Air Force
General Counsel, so there would be a negligible difference in the costs of the salaries of
personnel. It is possible that the expedited promotions could have a line-item increase to the
overall military budget, but the actual costs are too soon to be determined.
Actions
There are a series of actions that would need to be hammered out by the change agent,
senior leadership, and the guiding coalition on what exactly would be the steps and processes
involved as we move forward. Much of this is discussed above, however the following would be
the recommended areas that currently would need to be considered:
Decisions On Career Paths And Promotions
Previously, we discussed and cited to resources that talked about the potential changes to
the promotion system to include having peers give their input on the promotion of senior leaders.
Members of the JAG Corps would need to decide if they were interested in becoming a military
46
judge in their future and, if so, they would need to select the path that has them leave the Air
Force JAG Corps and follow the defense path that is under the Air Force General Counsel. It
would be a critical choice that an Air Force JAG would need to make within their first
assignment, and some may not fully understand the ramifications involved by making that
choice. I recall when I applied for a Master of Laws degree and was told that by selecting that
path, I would become a subject matter expert and would be working within that field throughout
my career. However, in this case, my proposal for change would make the selection of one’s path
permanent.
Legislation
We have discussed that the NDAA is the controlling and steering mechanism for changes
that would need to take place – and the source of a potential major change already being
proposed. Using Kotter’s model, I believe I’d need to slightly modify the steps so that elements
of the official guiding coalition is in place early on, so that creating a sense of urgency is done by
these influential members. The legislative process includes staff work, committee work and
hearings, and eventually the writing of the bill (Smith, 2008). A critical component of any
legislation, however, is its implementation and that is where I believe the guiding coalition
would be critical (Bardach, 1977). The NDAA would also make whatever changes were
necessary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to include potential changes needed
to Article 6 of the UCMJ which establishes the roles and responsibilities of TJAG’s oversight of
JAGs and paralegals (Air Force JAG, 2018). This process would be interactive, and changes and
rewrites might be needed throughout the entire process as feedback is received from the field and
the guiding coalition is able to see what is and is not working and what might need to be
modified.
47
Model
Throughout this paper, I have consistently referred to Kotter’s model. I believe that the
model I would employ is the one developed by Kotter. As I have gone through an extensive
amount of reading and review for this paper, however, I would slightly modify a few things as I
have indicated above. To summarize, I would want to have the guiding coalition on board during
the create a sense of urgency step since this coalition, I believe, is vital to the success of the
change initiative (Appelbaum, 2012). Second, I would integrate some of McKinsey’s processes
into Kotter’s fifth step (Ageng'o, 2018). Recall that McKinsey focuses on people and how
change is perpetuated through them. I agree and would look to the steps McKinsey uses and
make that as part of the fifth step proposed by Kotter. Finally, if I were the change agent, I would
not be afraid to continue to tweak the process using Kotter and, to a small extent McKinsey, as
the framework for this change initiative.
Conclusion
Even in organizations where change can move at an extremely slow pace, change can still
happen. Sometimes that change must be generated by outside influences, such as Congress,
while other times the change can be generated or at least fostered and pushed internally.
Lessons Learned
As I went through this paper over the last many weeks, there were a few things that I
struggled with and is likely reflected as this paper evolved over time. First, I believe that I have a
great foundation for a future dissertation. I need to be more focused and not try and accomplish
too much within one document. For personal reasons, I am hyper-focused on the problems with
the military justice system. This has caused my tone, at times, to not remain neutral and could
make a reader believe that I am biased and therefore my proposal and perhaps eventual
48
dissertation could be dismissed for not having the appropriate level of neutrality and a lack of
bias which could lead to a form of cognitive dissonance, or at least writing that is too emotional
(Haynes, 2009). The more I researched the disparity among paralegal training, the more I
thought that might be a good dissertation topic since, in this paper, it reads as though it is an
afterthought. While I would still be passionate about that topic, it would not be so personal and it
likely would not have as many limitations for the change initiative as the military justice
proposal. It was revealing that many of the articles that discussed changes in the military justice
system were from the 1970s and 1990s and yet many of those proposals were never even
seriously considered. Ultimately, I want to graduate so I can then make a difference where it
needs to be made. That might mean working on a topic that might seem less appealing to me, but
it may be much less difficult to research and write.
Limitations
As stated above, organization such as the USAF JAG Corps will not be an easy
organization to assess, reorganize, and certainly to try and change (Roland, 2004). The JAG
Corps, as well as the Air Force and Department of Defense, are full of career bureaucrats,
officers, and senior enlisted personnel who may not be interested in fairness and justice. Those
who have strived for trying to make changes often get caught up in a seemingly never-ended
process of roadblocks and people pushing back. While the process may take time to make the
recommended changes, resources can and should immediately be re-allocated to try and level the
disparity between the prosecution and the defense.
Additional Areas of Exploration
There is a lot left to research and explore that could help create the sense of urgency
needed for this change initiative to be successful. A few of these areas are mostly procedural and
49
surveys, interviews, and further literature reviews could gather the data needed to create a sense
of urgency to get this change started. One major issue that came up is whether the change to the
defense community should happen across the branches. After all, why should “justice” exist in
one branch and not the other? I believe a proposal for change could be created that would make
the defense assets (JAGs and paralegals) joint-billets in that they are assigned to the Department
of Defense (DoD) and are completely independent of not just TJAG but also their individual
branch. Rather than moving the defense assets to a mainly civilian body, why not have them part
of (DoD). As I was considering this, I thought that the cultures in each branch are hard to change
and having a Marine no longer be under a Marine chain could be a bit too far of a reach. Going
further, having an Air Force ADC working with an Army paralegal on a Navy case might blur
the lines too much. Additionally, should judges become DoD assets? As proposed in one article
in 1994, should judges become truly independent? Currently judges in the military fall under the
executive branch, Article I of the United States Constitution (Pushaw, 1993). Should they instead
be part of a unique judiciary that oversees the military? Should they be an Article III court under
the Constitution? I believe there is still a lot to explore, and the options are nearly limitless. The
key is finding something that is most likely to be successful. Once we start changing the culture
of an organization, recall that Kotter says that change encourages more change (Appelbaum,
2012). Thus, little by little, it is possible to make big changes.
Applications to the Field
There are many options to consider here. For example, should all JAGs be warriors first,
and have attorney as a secondary duty (Whaley, 2001)? We already discussed above whether the
changes proposed to the Air Force should apply to the other branches. This could go even further
and lead to a proposal that civilians be the ones to be appointed to provide defense in military
50
courts which would be an even further shock to the overall culture of the military justice system.
If this change were successful, we might potentially see Inspectors General (IG) and other
offices across the military be moved or transformed to entities that are in appearance and reality
fully neutral. I recall, at Columbus Air Force Base, that the IG was selected by the commander,
worked for the commander, and was part of the wing staff that was under the Director of Staff
and the wing commander. If the IG is supposed to investigate complaints – is he truly neutral? If
this change initiative were successful, the application to the field could be very wide-spread and
lead to fundamental changes across the Air Force – and the military.
Recommended Next Steps
I believe that this paper will serve as the foundation for my dissertation. Through this
process, I have collected more than one hundred resources, many of them cited in this paper. I
believe that the next steps would include surveying recently retired military members and
civilian attorneys who practice law in the military justice system and see if there is the ability to
create a sense of urgency on this and what they believe would be an effective way to move
forward. I have already spoken to one civilian attorney who provided me some initial guidance
and got me thinking about the comparisons among the different JAG Corps across the branches.
Additionally, I have a colleague who is prior enlisted who can share the enlisted experience, as
well as having been an ADC and a Staff Judge Advocate. He has been a significant help in this
process, and I anticipate he will continue to be a major influence on my dissertation. Significant
articles already exist regarding the need for independence, and this would be the foundation for a
literature review for my eventual dissertation (Lederer, 1994). One final consideration would be
if the sense of urgency needed to start the change initiative would start internally, externally, or a
combination of both. Would it be Congress or Air Force leaders who would begin the process?
51
I believe that this paper forms the basis for the development of my dissertation and, from
here, it will be to develop the “Trio” and start considering my options for scholarly research.
Finally, recent proposals to change the military justice system as well as the vast number of
articles I have found, as mentioned above, leads me to believe that I will have a vast number of
resources to dig through as I go forward in my doctoral journey.
52
References
AACOM. (2021). How Congress Works. https://www.aacom.org/advocacy/advocacy-
resources/how-congress-works
Ageng'o, S. (2018). The Impact of Change Management on Organizational Success.
Air Force JAG Corps. (2018). The Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps. American Bar
Association.
https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/2018_ABA_Report.pdf?ver=2018-10-15-
085732-503
Alleman, L. N. (2006). Who Is in Charge, and Who Should Be? The Disciplinary Role of the
Commander in Military Justice Systems. Duke J. Comp. & Int'l L., 16, 169.
American Bar Association. (2021). Information for Lawyers: How Paralegals Can Improve Your
Practice. ABA. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/paralegals/profession-
information/information_for_lawyers_how_paralegals_can_improve_your_practice/
Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: revisiting
Kotter's 1996 change model. Journal of Management development.
Army JAG Mission. (2012). The United States Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps.
JAGCNET.
https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/Sites/jagc.nsf/homeContent.xsp?open&documentId=DEE6
13DFEC84B73B852579BC006142CE
Ash, E. (2001). Integrity First: Reflections of a Military Philosopher. Air & Space Power
Journal, 15(2), 112.
Auguste, J. (2013). Applying Kotter’s 8-step process for leading change to the digital
transformation of an orthopedic surgical practice group in Toronto, Canada. J Health Med
Informat, 4(3).
Avant, D. D. (2019). Political institutions and military change. Cornell University Press.
Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law.
Barr, R. (2021). Keeping in Step With 'Swift Discipline': Why Some Cases Should be Disposed
of By Discharge Instead of Court-Martial. Available at SSRN 3836161.
Bartuševiciene, I., & Šakalyte, E. (2013). Organizational assessment: effectiveness vs.
efficiency. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, 1(1), 45-53.
Bensahel, N. (2006). Mission not accomplished: What went wrong with Iraqi reconstruction.
Journal of Strategic Studies, 29(3), 453-473.
53
Brewer, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2010). The impact of red tape on governmental performance:
An empirical analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1),
233-257.
Burne, C. (2017). Strategic Flight Plan Edition. The Reporter.
https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/44_01_w170602.pdf?ver=2017-06-12-
152259-
020#:~:text=The%20Air%20Force%20Vision%20reminds,and%20retain%20innovative
%20patriots%20committed
Bushe, G. (2007). Appreciative inquiry is not about the positive. OD practitioner, 39(4), 33-38.
Butler, J. S. (1976). Inequality in the military: An examination of promotion time for black and
white enlisted men. American Sociological Review, 807-818.
Calegari, M. F., Sibley, R. E., & Turner, M. E. (2015). A roadmap for using Kotter's
organizational change model to build faculty engagement in accreditation. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 31.
Cameron, K. (2008). A process for changing organization culture. Handbook of organization
development, 14(5), 2-18.
Chatfield, K., Lempitsky, V. S., Vedaldi, A., & Zisserman, A. (2011, September). The devil is in
the details: an evaluation of recent feature encoding methods. In BMVC (Vol. 2, No. 4, p.
8).
Courtney, K. O., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Using organizational
assessment as a tool for program change. Journal of substance abuse treatment, 33(2),
131-137.
Cram, F. (2010). Appreciative inquiry. Mai Review, 3(1), 1-13.
Cresie, J. (2005). Changing the culture of your organization. Annotation.
Del Val, M. P., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical
study. Management decision.
Downey, R. G., Medland, F. F., & Yates, L. G. (1976). Evaluation of a peer rating system for
predicting subsequent promotion of senior military officers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(2), 206.
Gamieldien, S. M. F. (2010). Between the desire for change and the need for permanency. Abdul
Ghafar Ismail Mohd Ezani Mat Hassan Norazman Ismail Shahida Shahimi, 43.
Galbraith, W. S. (2013). The Complex Leadership Challenges of Joint Basing. ARMY WAR
COLLEGE CARLISLE BARRACKS PA.
54
Galli, B. J. (2018). Change management models: A comparative analysis and concerns. IEEE
Engineering Management Review, 46(3), 124-132.
Ginsberg, A., & Abrahamson, E. (1991). Champions of change and strategic shifts: The role of
internal and external change advocates. Journal of Management Studies, 28(2), 173-190.
Gordon, S. (2008). Appreciative inquiry coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review,
3(1), 17-29.
Halvorsen, V. (2004). Is it Better that Ten Guilty Persons Go Free Than that One Innocent
Person be Convicted? | Office of Justice Programs. Department of Justice.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/it-better-ten-guilty-persons-go-free-
one-innocent-person-be
Haynes, K. D. (2009). Coping strategies for diversity scholars. Getting culture: Incorporating
diversity across the curriculum, 299-307.
Henley, D. R. (2019). The role of the outsider as an agent for change (Doctoral dissertation,
Middlesex University).
Herman, J. (1989). Site-based management: Creating a vision and mission statement. NASSP
Bulletin, 73(519), 79-83.
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: a model for change in business, government, and our community.
Prosci.
Holtzclaw, B. (2021, August 10). Innocence Project at Santa Clara University Celebrates 20
Years of Restoring Lives. San Jose Inside.
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/innocence-project-at-santa-clara-university-
celebrates-20-years-of-restoring-lives/
House, T. W. (2021, March 3). Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/03/interim-
national-security-strategic-guidance/
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2020, May 6). Reports of the Services on Military
Justice for Fiscal Year 2019. Department of Defense.
https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/Article%20146a%20Report%20-
%20FY19%20-%20All%20Services.pdf?ver=2020-07-22-091702-650
Kao, F. P. (2007). No, a paralegal is not a lawyer. Business Law Today, 16(3).
Kazmi, S. A. Z., & Naarananoja, M. (2013). Collection of change management models-an
opportunity to make the best choice from the various organizational transformational
techniques. GSTF Business Review (GBR), 2(4), 44.
55
Kenau, C. (2020, February 5). Air Force Paralegals: What They Do, Pay, Training, And More.
Operation Military Kids. https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/air-force-paralegal/
Kenau, C. (2021, February 6). Air Force Tech School. Operation Military Kids.
https://www.operationmilitarykids.org/air-force-tech-school/#:%7E:text=6.-
,How%20long%20is%20tech%20school%20in%20the%20Air%20Force%3F,from%20si
x%20to%2072%20weeks.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). Corporate culture and performance. Simon and Schuster.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Accelerate! Harvard business review, 90(11), 44-52.
Kotter. (2021, May 7). The 8-Step Process for Leading Change | Dr. John.
https://www.kotterinc.com/8-steps-process-for-leading-change/
Landis, D., Dansby, M. R., & Hoyle, M. (1998). The effects of race on procedural justice: The
case of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Armed Forces & Society, 24(2), 183-219.
Lazuardi, M. L., & Muhyi, H. A. (2021). Change model combination: A comprehensive way for
successfully change. Journal of Public Value and Administrative Insight, 4(1), 1-10.
Leadership Now. (2007, April 19). Appreciative Intelligence | Leading Blog: A Leadership Blog.
https://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog/2007/04/appreciative_intelligence.html
Lederer, F. I., & Hundley, B. S. (1994). Needed: An Independent Military Judiciary-A Proposal
to Amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J., 3, 629.
Levasseur, R. E. (2001). People skills: Change management tools—Lewin's change model.
Interfaces, 31(4), 71-73.
Maucione, S. (2021, July 23). First look at Senate NDAA adds $35B to DoD, takes all
nonmilitary crimes out of chain of command. Federal News Network.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/congress/2021/07/senate-ndaa-adds-35b-to-dod-takes-
all-nonmilitary-crimes-out-of-chain-of-command/
Maurer, D. (2013). Going on the Offensive: Legitimacy and Fairness inside the Military Justice
Trinity of Interests. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 11, 311.
Maximini, D. (2015). The Guiding Coalition. In The Scrum Culture (pp. 107-113). Springer,
Cham.
McCormack, M. J. (1998). Reforming Court-Martial Panel Selection: Why Change Makes Sense
for Military Commanders and Military Justice. Geo. Mason L. Rev., 7, 1013.
56
Moon, C., Lee, J., Jeong, C., Lee, J., Park, S., & Lim, S. (2007, October). An implementation
case for the performance appraisal and promotion ranking. In 2007 IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (pp. 661-667). IEEE.
Moon, C., Lee, J., & Lim, S. (2010). A performance appraisal and promotion ranking system
based on fuzzy logic: An implementation case in military organizations. Applied Soft
Computing, 10(2), 512-519.
Moskos Jr, C. C. (1977). From institution to occupation: Trends in military organization. Armed
forces & society, 4(1), 41-50.
Myers, S. L. (1999, March 15). Training for Next War, Army Slow to Change. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/15/us/training-for-next-war-army-slow-to-
change.html
Navy JAG Corps. (n.d.). Navy Paralegals. Navy JAG Corps Careers.
https://www.jag.navy.mil/careers_ln/careers/inbrief_overview.html
Navy JAG Corps. (2021). Navy JAG Corps About Us.
https://www.jag.navy.mil/about.htm#:~:text=Mission%20Statement,effective%20naval%
20and%20joint%20operations.
Peng, T., & Peng, T. (2015, September 3). I’m a public defender. It’s impossible for me to do a
good job representing my clients. Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-public-defender-system-isnt-just-broken--
its-unconstitutional/2015/09/03/aadf2b6c-519b-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
Plenert, G. (2012). Strategic continuous process improvement: Which quality tools to use and
when to use them. McGraw-Hill Education.
Pollack, J., & Pollack, R. (2015). Using Kotter’s eight stage process to manage an organisational
change program: Presentation and practice. Systemic Practice and Action Research,
28(1), 51-66.
Pushaw Jr, R. J. (1993). Article III's Case/Controversy Distinction and the Dual Functions of
Federal Courts. Notre Dame L. Rev., 69, 447.
Richesin, A. L. (2011). Assessing the Implementation of a Non-profit Organizational Change
Initiative Using Kotter’s (1995) 8 Step Change Model.
Rives, J. (2009, April). THEN AND NOW: The JAG Corps Turns 60. The Reporter.
https://www.afjag.af.mil/Portals/77/documents/AFD-090611-119.pdf
Roland, G. (2004). Understanding institutional change: Fast-moving and slow-moving
institutions. Studies in comparative international development, 38(4), 109-131.
57
Rose, K. H. (2002). Leading change: A model by John Kotter. Retrieved December 5, 2006.
Roza, D. (2021, July 29). Air Force can’t get rid of its A-10 Warthogs just yet, Senate says. Task
& Purpose. https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/air-force-a-10-warthog-funding/
Sacheva, S. (2009). Change management for e-governance. I-Ways Journal of E-Government
Policy and Regulation, 32(2), 109-117.
Schlueter, D. A. (2013). The military justice conundrum: Justice or discipline. Mil. L. Rev., 215,
1.
Small, A., Gist, D., Souza, D., Dalton, J., Magny-Normilus, C., & David, D. (2016). Using
Kotter's change model for implementing bedside handoff: a quality improvement project.
Journal of nursing care quality, 31(4), 304-309.
Smith, G. H., & Riddick, F. M. (2008). Congress in Action (How a Bill Becomes a Law).
Wildside Press LLC.
Staff, N. T. (2020, January 17). VCNO hints reforms looming for Navy’s JAG Corps. Navy
Times. https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/01/11/stung-by-string-of-
scandals-sea-service-urges-legal-reforms/
Tang, K. N. (2019). Change management. In Leadership and Change Management (pp. 47-55).
Springer, Singapore.
The Judge Advocate General’s Corps. (n.d.). The Judge Advocate General’s Corps > Home >
Welcome. Retrieved July 19, 2021, from https://www.afjag.af.mil/Home/Welcome/
Thatchenkery, T. (2005). Appreciative sharing of knowledge. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos.
Thatchenkery, T. (2009). Appreciative intelligence: Seeing the mighty oak in the acorn.
ReadHowYouWant.com.
Theurer, K. M., & Russell III, J. W. (2010). Why military justice matters. Reporter, 37, 7.
Tirpak, J. (2021, August 4). USAF Budget Request Flat in 2021. Air Force Magazine.
https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-budget-request-flat-in-2021/
U.S. Navy JAG Corps. (2016). US Navy JAG Corps Strategic Vision 2025. U.S. Navy.
https://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/StrategicPlan_June_2016.pdf
U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps. (n.d.). U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps.
U.S. Navy. https://www.jag.navy.mil/organization.htm
58
Ward, J. A. (1994). Continuous process improvement. Information System Management, 11(2),
74-76.
Westmoreland, W. C. (1971). Military Justice-A Commander's Viewpoint. Am. Crim. L. Rev.,
10, 5.
Whaley, D. L. (2001). Scheduling the recruiting and MOS training of enlisted Marines. NAVAL
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA.
Whitney, D. D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical
guide to positive change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.