The Impact of Punishment and RehabilitationViews on Organizational CommitmentAmong Correctional Staff: A Preliminary Study

Eric Lambert & Nancy Hogan & Shannon M. Barton &

Shanhe Jiang & David N. Baker

Received: 5 June 2007 /Accepted: 7 August 2007 /Published online: 14 March 2008# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2007

Abstract It has been long recognized that organizational commitment is animportant component of effective organizations. It has, however, received relativelylittle attention in the correctional literature. Furthermore, much of the research todate on correctional orientation has focused on examining how various forces affectthe punishment and rehabilitation views of correctional employees, but ignored howthese views affect employees’ organizational commitment. Using a data set collectedfrom 272 staff members at a Midwestern, high security state prison, this studyexamined the impact of punishment and rehabilitation views on organizationalcommitment. It was found that support for rehabilitation was associated with higherlevels of organizational commitment while support for punishment was related withlower levels of organizational commitment.

Keywords Correctional personnel . Organizational commitment .

Rehabilitation views . Punishment views

Introduction

Staff are the most important resource for any correctional organization. They are thecritical link between the organization’s goals and the organization’s ability to meet thosegoals. Correctional staff must not only work together but also work with inmates. They

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98DOI 10.1007/s12103-007-9026-7

E. Lambert (*)Department of Criminal Justice, The University of Toledo, HH 3000A, Mail Stop #119, Toledo,OH 43606, USAe-mail: eric.lambert@utoledo.edu

N. HoganFerris State University, Big Rapids, MI 49307, USA

S. M. BartonIndiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809, USA

S. Jiang : D. N. BakerThe University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA

are responsible for ensuring that a humane and safe environment is created andmaintained. It is imperative to understand the forces that affect correctional staff. Farkas(1999) pointed out that “the attitudes of correctional officers are an area of study that iscritical in order to understand the dynamics of the organization” (p. 505). One of themost important job attitudes is organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is generally defined as having the core elements ofloyalty to the organization, identification with the organization (i.e., pride in theorganization and internalization of the goals of the organization), and involvement in theorganization (i.e., personal effort made for the sake of the organization) (Mowday et al.1979). “Organizational commitment is a bond to the whole organization, and not to thejob, work group, or belief in the importance of work itself” (Lambert et al. 1999, p.100). It is a salient force for any correctional organization. Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990)pointed out that “the committed employee’s involvement in the organization takes onmoral overtones, and his[/her] stake extends beyond the satisfaction of merely personalinterest in employment, income, and intrinsically rewarding work” (p. 22). Highorganizational commitment has been linked to positive correctional staff behaviors, suchas higher levels of job performance (Culliver et al. 1991), and inversely linked withnegative correctional staff behaviors, such as absenteeism and turnover (Camp 1994;Lambert et al. 2005; Stohr et al. 1992). Without committed staff, not only will thecorrectional organization suffer, so will other employees, inmates, and society in general;hence, studying possible antecedents of correctional staff organizational commitmentis critical. While organizational commitment is important for correctional organizations,it has received relatively little attention in the correctional literature. Punishmentand treatment views may be salient antecedents of organizational commitment; yet,their impact on correctional staff organizational commitment has not been studied.

The two main correctional staff professional views are support for punishment ofinmates and the support for treatment of inmates (Robinson et al. 1993). There is asmall but growing body of literature that has explored the viewpoints of correctionalstaff. Some studies have explored the degree that correctional workers supportpunishment and/or rehabilitation. Other studies have examined the antecedents ofcorrectional staff orientations toward inmates. Finally, a few studies have researchedthe effects of support for punishment and support for rehabilitation for on-the-jobstress and job satisfaction of correctional employees. This study augments the latterby examining the impact of correctional staff viewpoints on correctional organiza-tional commitment. This study was undertaken to examine the impact of punishmentand treatment views of correctional workers on their level of organizationalcommitment, while controlling for the effects of personal characteristics (i.e.,position, age, tenure, gender, educational level, and race) and job characteristics (i.e.,role stress, job variety, perceived dangerousness of the job, supervisory accessibility,fairness, candidness, work-on-family conflict, and family-on-work conflict). Thedata came from a 2000 survey of staff at a Midwestern prison.

Review of the Literature

Past research studies have examined potential causes for different levels of supportfor punishment and/or treatment among correctional staff. One area studied has been

86 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

the association between personal characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age, education,etc.) and attitudes toward inmates. Some studies reported that race was linked toviews of inmates, with Nonhite staff being more supportive of treatment than Whiteemployees (Cullen et al. 1989; Jurik 1985; Paboojian and Teske 1997; Van Voorhiset al. 1991; Whitehead and Lindquist 1989). Conversely, Crouch and Alpert (1982),Farkas (1999), Jacobs and Kraft (1978), and Klofas (1986) all reported that race hadno relationship with punishment among correctional officers.

Gender has generally been found to have no relationship with punishment andrehabilitation views (Cullen et al. 1989; Jurik 1985; Jurik and Halemba 1984; Leiber2000; Leiber and Woodrick 1997; Robinson et al. 1993; Whitehead et al. 1987), butnot always. Farkas (1999) reported that female jail officers were more likely to hold apunitive orientation in comparison to male officers. Likewise, age and tenure havegenerally not been observed to be associated with views toward inmates (Burton et al.1991; Crouch and Alpert 1982; Cullen et al. 1989; Gordon 1999; Leiber 2000; Leiberand Woodrick 1997; Robinson et al. 1993), but not always (Farkas 1999; Jurik 1985;Paboojian and Teske 1997).

The relationship between education and correctional orientation is unclear. Someresearch findings suggest that educational level has no relationship with theorientation of correctional staff toward inmates (Crouch and Alpert 1982; Cullenet al. 1989; Farkas 1999; Gordon 1999; Jurik 1985; Leiber and Woodrick 1997;Walters 1995), while other studies report that education is positively linked withsupport for treatment and negatively linked with a punitive custody orientation(Burton et al. 1991; Poole and Regoli 1980; Robinson et al. 1993; Teske andWilliamson 1979). Finally, it has been observed that correctional officers were lesssupportive of rehabilitation (Robinson et al. 1993).

While there are many functions of prisons today, two major functions are custodyand rehabilitation (Robinson et al. 1993). These two functions are not always inalignment with one another and may cause conflict for correctional staff (Hepburnand Albonetti 1980). There can be even greater imbalance between the goals of thecorrectional organization and the individual employee depending on his/her attitudestoward punishment and rehabilitation. Thus, research has examined the impact ofrole stress on the views of inmates by correctional staff. Role stress has been linkedto punitiveness, greater support for control of inmates, and less support forrehabilitation (Cullen et al. 1985; Cullen et al. 1989; Hepburn and Albonetti 1980;Moon and Maxwell 2004; Poole and Regoli 1980; Shamir and Drory 1981, 1982;Whitehead and Lindqusit 1989), including even prison chaplains where role conflictwas found to be related to a punitive orientation (Sundt and Cullen 2002).Researchers have also examined the impact of other work environment factors onpunishment and treatment views. Input into decision making was found to bepositively related to support for treatment of inmates among White correctionalofficers in a study by Whitehead and Lindqusit (1989), but was found to have nostatistically significant effect on punitive views among jail officers (Farkas 1999).

Research has been able to explain only a small amount of the variance in views ofpunishment and treatment among correctional staff by including the work environmentas antecedent (Cullen et al. 1989; Farkas 1999; Jurik 1985; Paboojian and Teske 1997;Whitehead and Lindqusit 1989). It could be that these views are formed early in lifebefore a person seeks employment in the field of corrections (Whitehead and

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 87

Lindqusit 1989). Robinson et al. (1993) reported Canadian correctional workers with apositive view about working in corrections and a desire to work with people hadincreased levels of support for rehabilitation. Because correctional orientation may beformed prior to working in corrections, it is possible correctional orientation mayhelp shape a person’s work attitudes. The three major correctional work attitudes arejob stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Shamir and Drory(1982) reported that correctional workers with punitive views toward inmatesgenerally reported lower job satisfaction. Jurik and Halemba (1984) reported thatofficers who had favorable attitudes toward inmates generally reported higher jobsatisfaction than those with more punitive attitudes. Farkas (1999) and Moon andMaxwell (2004) observed that job satisfaction was inversely associated with punitiveviews among jail staff and South Korean correctional staff respectively. Arthur (1995)found job satisfaction had a significant positive correlation with support for treatment,as well as Cullen et al. (1989) who observed that support for rehabilitation was linkedto greater job satisfaction. In a multi-variate analysis with job satisfaction as thedependent variable, it was found that support for treatment had a positive impactamong directors of juvenile correctional facilities (Caeti et al. 2003). They argued thatsupport for rehabilitation increased job satisfaction. Other research suggests that thereis no impact of job satisfaction on punitive views (Whitehead and Lindqusit 1989;Whitehead et al. 1987). Robinson et al. (1993) reported that job involvement ratherthan job satisfaction had significant effects on support for rehabilitation amongCanadian correctional staff.

Based upon a meta-analysis, Dowden and Tellier (2004) reported that those whosupported treatment reported less stress than those officers who did not. Walters(1995) observed that job stress was associated with correctional orientation amongU.S., but not Canadian correctional officers. Cullen et al. (1989), on the other hand,found that support for rehabilitation had no impact on job stress.

It is important to understand how support for rehabilitation and support forpunishment shape correctional staff organizational commitment. Farkas (1999)argued that “understanding officer orientation in the context of the larger politicaland ideological environment, as well as considering the inner workings of theinstitution is imperative for future research” (p. 505). She further argued that“correctional management needs to understand the attitudes of their correctional staffand their congruency with the goals of the organization” (p. 505). This meansunderstanding how the punishment and treatment views of correctional staff affecttheir level of commitment is paramount. Therefore, this preliminary study wasundertaken to determine the impact of punishment and treatment views onorganizational commitment of staff. Because they are often included in studies ofcorrectional staff work attitudes, the effects of the personal characteristics ofposition, age, tenure, gender, educational level, and race were controlled for in themulti-variate analysis (Armstrong and Griffin 2004; Dowden and Tellier 2004;Lambert et al. 2002). The small, but growing body of research on correctional stafforganizational commitment suggests that many work environment factors are salientantecedents (Hogan et al. 2006; Lambert 2004; Robinson et al. 1992). Therefore, theeffects of role stress, job variety, perceived dangerousness of the job, supervisoryaccessibility, fairness, candidness, work-on-family conflict, and family-on-workconflict were also controlled for in the multi-variate analysis.

88 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

Methods

Approximately 400 staff at a Midwestern, high security state prison were surveyedin the Fall of 2000, and 272 usable surveys were returned, a 68% response rate.1 Atthe time of the survey, the facility held approximately 1,000 medium and maximumsecurity level male inmates who were serving long prison sentences for drug andviolent offenses. The respondents represented all areas of the correctional facility,such as correctional officers, case managers, medical staff, industry staff, foodservice workers, etc., and were representative in terms of demographics of the entireprison staff. Of the total prison staff, about 77% were male, 86% were White, and53% were correctional officers. Among the respondents, about 76% were male, 81%were White, and 50% were correctional officers.

Personal characteristics Measures for the personal characteristics of position, age,tenure, gender, educational level and race were used as control variables. In terms ofposition, about 50% were correctional officers, 6% were unit management staff (i.e.,counselors, case mangers, and unit managers), 3% worked in industry, 4% worked ineducation, 3% worked in the medical department, 5% worked in the business office,3% were part of the administration, and 26% worked in other areas. If the respondentwas a correctional officer, he or she was coded as “1,”, and those who worked inother positions were coded as “0.” Half of the respondents were correctional staffand the other half were non-correctional staff. Age was measured in years. Themedian age was 44 and ranged from 20 to 61 years of age. The mean age was 42.55,with a standard deviation of 8.32. Tenure was measured as the number of years therespondent had worked at the prison. The median tenure was 9 years and rangedfrom 0 to 26 years at the prison. The mean tenure was 9.64, with a standarddeviation of 6.82. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were female (coded “0”)and 76% were male (coded “1”). Educational level was measured by asking therespondents their highest level of education. Approximately 10% had a high schooldegree or GED, 50% had some college but no degree, 20% had an associate’sdegree, 16% had a bachelor’s degree, and 5% had a graduate or professional degree.Education was collapsed into a dichotomous variable representing whether therespondent had a college degree (coded as “1”) or not (coded as “0”). For thedichotomous education variable, 41% had earned some type of college degree (i.e.,associates, bachelors, masters, or professional) and 59% had not earned a collegedegree. Approximately 81% of the respondents were White, 7% were Black, 2%

1 The data set used in this study has also been used in other studies. The survey was 16 pages in length,and there were 221 questions, which covered a wide array of work environment dimensions and issues.The data from this survey has been used in several different papers that have looked at centralization,formalization, work-family conflict, organizational justice/fairness, promotional opportunities, feedback,life satisfaction, instrumental communication, integration, supervision, job variety, job stress, stressors, jobinvolvement, turnover intent, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among on correctional staff.Therefore, there may be some familiarity in the methods section; however, none of the aforementionedpapers examined the impact of support for rehabilitation and support for punishment on correctional stafforganizational commitment. The full citations of above papers are available upon request.

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 89

were Hispanic, 3% were Native American, and 5% were of another race. Themeasure of race was collapsed into a dichotomous variable representing whether therespondent was White (coded as “1”) or Nonwhite (coded as “0”). Eighty-onepercent of the respondents were White and 19% were Nonwhite.

Work Environment Variables The work environment measures of role stress, jobvariety, perceived dangerousness of the job, supervision consideration, work-on-family conflict, and family-on-work conflict were included in the analysis as controlvariables. As previously indicated, these variables are theorized to be salientvariables in helping to shape the attitudes of correctional staff, includingorganizational commitment. Role stress represents the degree of role ambiguityand role conflict a person encounters at work. Role conflict occurs when tasks for agiven position are inconsistent with one another (Rizzo et al. 1970). Role ambiguityresults from uncertainty or a lack of information in carrying out the tasks for aposition (Rizzo et al. 1970). Nine items from Ivancevich and Matteson (1980), Rizzoet al. (1970), and Triplett, Mullings, and Scarborough (1996) were used to measurerole stress (e.g., “I am unclear to whom I report to and/or who reports to me” and “Ireceive conflicting requests at work from two or more people”). The nine items weresummed together to form an index of job stress that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79.

Job variety is the degree of variation in the job (Price and Mueller 1986). The fiveitems were adapted from Curry et al. (1986), Finlay et al. (1995), and Mueller et al.(1994) to measure job variety (e.g., “My job requires that I constantly must learnnew things” and “My job has a lot of variety in it”). The five items were summedtogether to form an index of job variety that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .76.

Dangerousness refers to the degree a person perceives his/her job as being adangerous one and was measured using four items from Cullen et al. (1985) (e.g., “Iwork in a dangerous job” and “In my job, a person stands a good chance of gettinghurt”). The four items were summed together to form an index that had a Cronbach’salpha of .82.

Three items from Wright and Saylor (1992) were used to create an indexmeasuring perception of accessibility, fairness, and candidness by the supervisor(e.g., “My supervisor encourages me in doing my job”). The three items weresummed together to form a supervision index that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77.

When work issues and problems spill over and affect quality of home life, thisleads to work-on-family conflict. When family issues and home problems spill overto work, this leads to family-on-work conflict. The items used to measure work-on-family conflict and family-on-work conflict were adapted from studies of work-family conflict outside the field of corrections (e.g., Bacharach et al. 1991; Bohenand Viveros-Long 1981; Higgins and Duxbury 1992). Twelve items were used tomeasure work-on-family conflict (e.g., “My job keeps me away from my family toomuch,” “Work makes me too tired or irritable to fully enjoy my family and/or sociallife,” and “I frequently argue with my spouse/family members about my job”), andtwo items were used to measure family-on-work conflict (i.e., “My family lifeinterferes with work” and “My social life interferes with my job”). The 12 work-on-family conflict items were summed to form an index that had a Cronbach’s alpha of.81, and the two family-on-work conflict items were summed to form an index thathad a Cronbach’s alpha of .77. All the items for the work environment indexes were

90 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded as“1”) to strongly agree (coded as “5”).

Punishment and Rehabilitation Views Support for rehabilitation was measured usingeight items from Cullen et al. (1985). The eight items were 1) Rehabilitating acriminal is just as important as making a criminal pay for his or her crime; 2)Inmates at this prison should receive treatment and rehabilitative services; 3) One ofthe reasons why rehabilitation programs often fail with prisoners is because they areunderfunded; if enough money were available, these programs would work; 4) Iwould support expanding offender rehabilitation programs that are currently in placein our prisons; 5) Treatment programs for inmates are a good idea; 6) The way to getrespect and cooperation from inmates is to take an interest in them; 7) We need moreeducational and vocational programs for inmates in prisons; and 8) It is important forprison staff to have compassion for inmates. The items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded as “1”) to strongly agree(coded as “5”). The eight questions were summed together to form an index ofsupport for rehabilitation with Cronbach’s alpha being measured at .84.

Support for punishment was measured using the nine items from Cullen et al.(1985). The nine items were 1) A criminal will only go straight when he finds prisonlife is hard; 2) All rehabilitation programs have done is allow criminals who deserveto be punished to get off; 3) Improving the life for inmates generally makes it worsefor staff; 4) Counseling inmates is a job for counselors, not for general prison staff;5) My job isn’t to help rehabilitate inmates; it’s only to keep them orderly so thatthey don’t hurt anyone in here or tear this place apart; 6) Many people don’t realizeit, but prisons today are too soft on inmates; 7) If a staff member is lenient withinmates, the inmates will take advantage of that staff member; 8) So long as theinmates I supervise stay quiet and don’t cause trouble, I really don’t care if they aregetting rehabilitated while they are in here; and 9) We should stop viewing criminalsas victims of society who deserve to be rehabilitated and start paying more attentionto the victims of these criminals. The nine items were measured using a five-pointLikert scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded as “1”) to strongly agree (codedas “5”). The nine questions were summed together to form an index of support forpunishment with Cronbach’s alpha being measured at .84.

Organizational Commitment The dependent variable in this analysis was organiza-tional commitment and was measured using nine items fromMowday et al. (1982). Thenine items were 1) I am willing to put forth a great deal of effort beyond what isnormally expected in order to help ensure that the prison is successful; 2) I tell myfriends that this is a great organization to work for; 3) I feel little loyalty to this prison(reverse coded); 4) I find that my values and the prison’s values are very similar; 5) Iam proud to tell people that I work at this prison; 6) This prison really inspires the bestin me in the way of job performance; 7) I really care about the fate of this prison; 8)Deciding to work for this prison was a definite mistake on my part (reverse coded);and 9) Often, I disagree with the prison agency’s policies on important matters (reversecoded). The nine items were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging fromstrongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The nine questions were summed togetherto form an index of organizational commitment that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88.

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 91

Results

The descriptive statistics for the measures are presented in Table 1. All the variablesappeared to have sufficient variation. Additionally, all the summed indexes had aCronbach’s alpha value higher than .70, which is accepted as good (Carmines andZeller 1979).

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was used to estimate the effects ofsupport for rehabilitation and support for punishment on organizational commitmentwhile controlling for the shared effects of the work environment variables andpersonal characteristics. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient between support forrehabilitation and support for punishment was −.70, which indicates that there maybe a problem of multi-collinearity. Multi-collinearity is the extent to which a lineardependence exists between two independent variables in a model, and it can affectthe results of a regression model (Bollen 1989). Therefore, the issue of collinearitymust be addressed. Because there was a high correlation between the indexes forsupport for rehabilitation and support for punishment, they were not entered into thesame OLS regression model. Instead, two separate OLS regression models wereestimated. In the first model, organizational commitment was the dependent variableand the personal characteristics, work environment variables, and support forrehabilitation were the independent variables (i.e., support for punishment was notincluded in Model 1). In the second model, organizational commitment was thedependent variable and the personal characteristics, work environment variables, andsupport for punishment were the independent variables (i.e., support for rehabilita-

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

Variable Description Mean SD Md. Min Max

Personal characteristicsPosition 0=non custody, 1=custody 0.50 0.50 0.50 0 1Age Age in continuous years 42.55 8.32 44 20 61Tenure Years at the prison 9.64 6.82 9 0 26Gender 0=female, 1=male 0.76 0.43 1 0 1Education 0=no college degree, 1=college degree 0.41 0.49 0 0 1Race 0=Nonwhite, 1=White 0.81 0.39 1 0 1

Work environment variablesRole Stress 9 item index (α=.79) 22.92 5.00 22 9 40Job Variety 5 item index (α=.76) 15.74 3.91 16 5 24Dangerousness 4 item index (α=.82) 13.58 3.54 14 4 20Supervision 3 item index (α=.77) 9.51 2.79 10 3 15Work on Family Con. 12 item index (α=.81) 30.47 6.63 30 14 49Family on Work Con. 2 item index (α=.77) 3.66 1.37 4 2 10

Punishment/rehabilitation viewsSupport for Rehab. 8 item index (α=.84) 24.39 5.64 25 8 39Support for Punish. 9 item index (α=.84) 27.26 6.49 27 10 45

Dependent variableOrg. Commitment 9 item index (α=.88) 29.75 6.64 31 9 45

Note. SD=standard deviation, Md=median value, Min=minimum value, and Max=maximum value. αrepresents the value of Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal consistency. Con.=conflict, Rehab.=rehabilitation, Punish.=punishment, and Org.=organizational.

92 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

tion was not included in Model 2). The results for both models are presented inTable 2.2

Based on the R−squared statistic, 54% of the variance in both models wasaccounted for by the independent variables. None of the personal characteristics hada statistically significant effect on organizational commitment in either model.Likewise, perceived dangerousness of the job and family-on-work conflict had non-significant effects. Role stress, job variety, supervision, and work-on-family conflictall had significant effects. As role stress and work-on-family conflict increased,organizational commitment decreased, while increases in job variety and quality ofsupervision were associated with increases in commitment. In Model 1, support forrehabilitation had a positive impact on organizational commitment. In Model 2,support for punishment had a significant negative effect on organizationalcommitment.

2 The high correlation between support for rehabilitation and support for punishment should not be asurprise. The two measures are at opposite ends of a continuum. A new measure was created where thepunishment items were reverse coded and summed with the rehabilitation items to form an index ofsupport for treatment. A new OLS regression model was estimated with the personal characteristics, thework environment variables, and support treatment as the independent variables and organizationalcommitment as the dependent variable. Similar results were found. The combined measure for support oftreatment had a statistically significant effect on organizational commitment (b=.11, B=.20, p≤.01).

Table 2 OLS regression results for the impact of support of rehabilitation and support for punishment oncorrectional staff organizational commitment

Variable Model 1 Model 2

b B b B

Personal characteristicsPosition 1.36 .10 1.26 .10Age −0.02 −.03 −0.02 −.03Tenure −0.07 −.07 −0.07 −.07Gender 0.40 .03 0.34 .02Education −0.48 −.04 −0.32 −.02Race −0.64 −.04 −0.79 −.05

Work environment variablesRole Stress −0.40 −.30** −0.42 −.32**Job Variety 0.29 .17** 0.26 .15**Dangerousness −0.14 −.08 −0.10 −.06Supervision 0.58 .25** 0.53 .23**Work on Family Conflict −0.17 −.14** −0.14 −.12*Family on Work Conflict 0.42 .04 0.67 .07

Punishment/rehabilitation viewsSupport for Rehabilitation 0.22 .19** – –Support for Punishment – – −.20 −.20**

R–Squared .54** .54**

Note. Variables descriptions in Table 1. b and B represent the unstandardized and standardized regressioncoefficient, respectively. Model 1 includes Support for Rehabilitation only. Model 2 includes Support ofPunishment only. Because of their high correlation (r=−.70), Support for Rehabilitation and Support forPunishment were not included in the same model.* p≤ .05 ** p≤ .01

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 93

Discussion

There are three main findings. First, personal characteristics had little or no impacton correctional staff organizational commitment in this study. The second mainfinding is that work environment factors were important in shaping correctional stafforganizational commitment. The work environment factors of role stress, job variety,supervision, and work-on-family conflict all had statistically significant effects onorganizational commitment. Role stress had a negative association with organiza-tional commitment. As role stress increased, commitment decreased. As previouslyindicated, role stress results from role conflict and role ambiguity. Correctionalemployees desire clarity in their work roles; they want directions and guidance(Hepburn and Albonetti 1980; Van Voorhis et al. 1991). Clear direction and guidanceultimately comes from the administration which represents the organization. In theend, role stress leads to a reduction in the bond between the employee and theorganization. Additionally, job variety had a positive relationship. The more varietya person experiences at work, the more committed they are to the organization. Theopposite of job variety is routinization. Repetitive jobs are often boring and non-stimulating. It appears that the organization is held responsible for a lack of jobvariety. The more job variety a person experiences, the more likely he/she will bondwith the organization.

Supervision had a positive association. As quality of supervision increased, so toodid organizational commitment. Supervisors are usually seen as representing theorganization, thus it is logical that supervision is linked with organizationalcommitment for employees. The more consideration supervisors provide toemployees, the more likely employees are to view the organization in a positivelight and to bond with it.

Finally, work-on-family conflict had a negative impact on organizationalcommitment. The more a person reported suffering from work-on-family conflict,the lower their reported level of organizational commitment. When problems at workspill over to the worker’s home life, not only does the home life of this person suffer,but the bond with the organization also suffers, as well. The person apparentlyblames the organization for creating the problems that impact his/her home life.Therefore, it is difficult for a person to bond with an organization, which is seen asthe source of discomfort and pain.

While most of the work environment variables had a significant effect onorganizational commitment, two did not. Perceived dangerousness did not have asignificant effect. Correctional staff might expect that prisons are inherentlydangerous places, and therefore not blame the organization if they perceive it tobe one. Additionally, family-on-work conflict also had non-significant effects withboth models. It is important to note that the lack of a direct relationship withorganizational commitment does not imply that these variables do not havesignificant relationships with other variables, such as job stress, job satisfaction, orlife satisfaction, nor does the lack of a direct relationship rule out a significantindirect relationship.

The third major finding, and the focus of the current study, is that punishment andtreatment views were significant antecedents of correctional staff organizationalcommitment. Support for rehabilitation was associated with higher levels of

94 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

organizational commitment, while support for punishment was related with lowerlevels of organizational commitment. One of the primary reasons for this relationshipis that one of the general goals of the state correctional agency, and the surveyedfacility in particular, was to provide treatment for confined offenders. For manyyears prior to the survey, the state prison system had made major investments intreatment programs including behavioral, cognitive, and substance abuse treatment.The state used unit management to help provide and oversee these treatmenttherapies. As previously indicated, one of the dimensions of organizationalcommitment is the employee sharing the core beliefs and values of the organization.Thus, those individuals who supported rehabilitation are more likely to identify andbond with an organization who has as one of its major goals to provide treatment forinmates. Employees who supported punishment of offenders may have felt frustratedworking for an organization dedicated to providing treatment for inmates, and thisfrustration could have led to a decrease in commitment. It is also possible that thosewho supported rehabilitation became more active in prison treatment activities,which were recognized and rewarded by the administration. This could lead togreater commitment from the employee. Conversely, those who supportedpunishment may have withdrawn from the major treatment efforts at the prison,and as a result, may have been rewarded less or, in some circumstances, evenpunished for their lack of support for treatment initiatives. In addition, they mayhave also left the prison, securing transfers to other institutions or quitting. These areuntested postulations.

This study indicates that punishment and treatment views of correctional staffhelp shape their level of commitment toward the correctional organization. It isimportant to identify and understand the factors which help shape the organizationalcommitment of correctional staff. As previously indicated, organizational commit-ment is critical for the success of correctional organizations.

There are administrative implications of the findings and the need to be aware thatthe punishment and treatment views of employees can impact their commitmentlevels. For the most part, past research has focused on whether or not the publicsupports rehabilitation. Recently, Nagin et al. (2006) confirmed that the generalpublic supports rehabilitation and is willing to pay for treatment programs. Althoughtheir research exclusively focuses on juvenile justice, this support is extended to theadult correctional system, as well (Cullen 2006; Cullen et al. 1988). Correctionaladministrators, influenced by a political environment and decreasing budgets, maybelieve cutting correctional treatment programs is the only option. It is not. As Naginet al. (2006) pointed out that “the evidence that the public values rehabilitation morethan increased incarceration should be important information to cost-consciouslegislators considering how to allocate public funds” (p. 646). Correctionaladministrators can add to this debate by showing that a rehabilitative environmentis cost-saving as well. As this study indicates, a rehabilitative orientation has apositive influence on organizational commitment. In turn, it would be expected thatdedicated employees would be less likely to abuse sick leave or leave the prison.These two areas are extremely costly to corrections (Byrd et al. 2000; Camp 1994;Camp and Lambert 2006; Lambert 2001).

This was only an exploratory study. Like all studies, it has its limitations. Staff atonly one correctional facility were surveyed. Staff at other correctional facilities need

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 95

to be surveyed to determine the impact of correctional orientation on organizationalcommitment. Much of the research to date on correctional orientation has focused onexamining how various forces impact the punishment and rehabilitation views ofcorrectional employees. Whitehead and Lindqusit (1989) argued that researchersshould not only look at the antecedents of correctional staff orientation, but also theconsequences of correctional employee orientation. It appears that these views canhave significant effects. For example, in a study of correctional officers at amaximum security prison, those higher in support for control and punishment ofinmates were much more likely to write disciplinary infractions than those withlower support of custodial orientation (Poole and Regoli 1980). The findings of thisstudy also suggest that such views help shape the commitment level of staff. Futureresearch needs to examine the consequences of punishment and treatment views.There are unanswered questions about whether these views influence the interactionsof staff with inmates, employees’ perception of working effectively and efficiently inthe correctional facility, workers’ level of activity in treatment efforts, and theirdesire to remain employed with the correctional organization.

In closing, correctional staff are the heart and soul of correctional organizations.The success or failure of correctional facilities hinges on their staff. Dedicated andcommitted staff are needed. Correctional staff have a significant impact oncorrectional organizations in general and inmates in particular. This study examinedthe impact of support for punishment and support for rehabilitation views ofcorrectional staff and found that these views help shape the level of organizationalcommitment. Among controlling variables, most work environment variables werestatistically significant while none of the personal characteristics affected organiza-tional commitment. The indication that rehabilitation views have a positive effect onworkers encourages a more human service approach to corrections rather than a“lock’em up” philosophy. When hiring new employees, correctional administratorsshould focus on persons more supportive of rehabilitation, as it will be beneficial tothe organization in the long run.

Acknowledgment The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper. The authorsalso thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

References

Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress amongtreatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592.

Arthur, J. (1995). Correctional ideology of Black correctional officers. Federal Probation, 58, 57–66.Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers:

Mediating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction as work. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 12, 39–53.

Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work schedules help?.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job

satisfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety of jail employees inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime andCriminal Justice, 23, 69–89.

96 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98

Burton, V., Ju, X., Dunaway, R., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The correctional orientation of Bermuda prisonguards: An assessment of attitudes toward punishment and rehabilitation. International Journal ofComparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 71–80.

Caeti, T., Hemmens, C., Cullen, F., & Burton, V. (2003). Management of juvenile correctional facilities.The Prison Journal, 83, 383–405.

Camp, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: Anevent history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305.

Camp, S., & Lambert, E. (2006). The influence of organizational incentives on absenteeism: sick leave useamong correctional workers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 144–172.

Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: SagePublications.

Crouch, B., & Alpert, G. (1982). Sex and occupational socialization among prison guards: A longitudinalstudy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 159–176.

Cullen, F. (2006). It’s time to reaffirm rehabilitation. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 665–672.Cullen, F., Cullen, J., & Wozniak, J. (1988). Is rehabilitation dead? The myth of the punitive public.

Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 303–317.Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress.

Justice Quarterly, 2, 505–533.Cullen, F., Lutze, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1989). The correctional orientation of prison guards: Do

officers support rehabilitation? Federal Probation, 53(3), 33–42.Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavior among

correctional officers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 277–284.

Curry, J., Wakefield, D., Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction andorganizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847–858.

Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis.Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47.

Farkas, M. (1999). Correctional officer attitudes toward inmates and working with inmates in a “gettough” era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 495–506.

Finlay, W., Martin, J., Roman, P., & Blum, T. (1995). Organizational structure and job satisfaction: Dobureaucratic organizations produce more satisfied employees? Administration and Society, 27, 427–450.

Gordon, J. (1999). Do staff attitudes vary by position? A look at one juvenile correctional center.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 81–93.

Hepburn, J., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role conflict in correctional institutions: An empirical examination ofthe treatment-custody dilemma among correctional staff. Criminology, 17, 445–459.

Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (1992). Work-family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 389–411.

Hogan, N., Lambert, E., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational stressors oncorrectional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of ContemporaryCriminal Justice, 22, 44–62.

Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: ScottForesman and Company.

Jacobs, J., & Kraft, L. (1978). Integrating the keepers: A comparison of Black and White prison guards.Social Problems, 25, 304–318.

Jurik, N. (1985). Individual and organizational determinants of correctional officer attitudes towardinmates. Criminology, 23, 523–539.

Jurik, N., & Halemba, G. (1984). Gender, working conditions, and the job satisfaction of women in a non-traditional occupation: Female correctional officers inmen’s prisons. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 551–566.

Klofas, J. (1986). Discretion among correctional officers: The influence of urbanization, age, and race.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 30, 111–124.

Lambert, E. (2001). To stay or quit: A review of the literature on correctional staff turnover. AmericanJournal of Criminal Justice, 26, 61–76.

Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff. Prison Journal, 84, 208–227.Lambert, E., Barton, S., & Hogan, N. (1999). The missing link between job satisfaction and correctional

staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24,95–116.

Lambert, E., Edwards, C., Camp, S., & Saylor, W. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back again the nextday: Absenteeism and its antecedents among federal correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice,33, 165–175.

Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98 97

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on theantecedents and consequences of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior,29, 115–143.

Leiber, M. (2000). Gender, religion, and correctional orientations among a sample of juvenile justicepersonnel. Women and Criminal Justice, 11, 15–41.

Leiber, M., & Woodrick, A. (1997). Religious beliefs, attributional styles, and adherence to correctionalorientations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 495–511.

Lincoln, J., & Kalleberg, A. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organization andwork attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. (2004). Assessing the correctional orientation of corrections officers in SouthKorea. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 729–743.

Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology ofcommitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.

Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.

Mueller, C., Boyer, E., Price, J., & Iverson, R. (1994). Employee attachment and noncoercive conditionsof work. Work and Occupations, 21, 179–212.

Nagin, D., Piquero, A., Scott, E., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versusincarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Criminology andPublic Policy, 5, 627–652.

Paboojian, A., & Teske, R. (1997). Pre-service correctional officers: What do they think about treatment?Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 425–433.

Poole, E., & Regoli, R. (1980). Role stress, custody orientation, and disciplinary actions: A study of prisonguards. Criminology, 18, 215–226.

Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and Turnover Among Hospital Employees. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press.

Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations.Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1992). Staff commitment in the Correctional Service ofCanada. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Correctional Service NCJ Document Number: 148402.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1993). The influence of career orientation on support forrehabilitation among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 73, 162–177.

Shamir, B., & Drory, A. (1981). Some correlates of prison guards’ beliefs. Criminal Justice and Behavior,8, 233–249.

Shamir, B., & Drory, A. (1982). A cross-cultural comparison of prison guards’ beliefs regarding therehabilitation potential of the prisoners, the rehabilitation potential of the prison and their supportiverole. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 23, 216–224.

Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of itscauses and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455–478.

Sundt, J., & Cullen, F. (2002). The correctional ideology of prison chaplains: A national survey. Journal ofCriminal Justice, 30, 369–385.

Teske, H., & Williamson, H. (1979). Correctional officers attitudes toward selected treatment programs.Criminal Justice and Behavior, 6, 59–66.

Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctionalofficers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 291–308.

Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctionalofficers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,28, 472–500.

Walters, S. (1995). The custody orientation of correctional officers: An international comparison.International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 19, 61–71.

Whitehead, J., & Lindqusit, C. (1989). Determinants of correctional officers’ professional orientation.Justice Quarterly, 6, 69–87.

Whitehead, J., Lindquist, C., & Klofas, J. (1987). Correctional officer professional orientation: Areplication of the Klofas/Toch measure. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 468–486.

Wright, K., & Saylor, W. (1992). Comparison of perceptions of the environment between minority andnonminority employees of the Federal Prison System. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 63–71.

98 Am J Crim Just (2008) 33:85–98