WK3Q&A

453

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2011 453-470

DOI: 10.1177/0093854811400716

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors

also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eric Lambert, Department of Criminal Justice,

3281 Faculty Administration Building, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: [email protected].

CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL

ORIENTATION IN A TREATMENT-

ORIENTED PRISON

A Partial Test of Person–Environment Fit Theory

ERIC G. LAMBERT

IRSHAD ALTHEIMER

Wayne State University

NANCY L. HOGANFerris State University

SHANNON M. BARTON-BELLESSAIndiana State University

This exploratory study examined several propositions of person–environment fit theory in an adult midwestern correctional

facility oriented toward treatment. Special attention was given to the manner that person–organization fit influenced correctional staff outcomes. Drawing from the need–supply fit framework of person–environment fit theory, the authors predicted that correctional staff whose values and objectives were congruent with those of the institution would experience better outcomes

than staff whose values and objectives were not congruent. The results generally supported these propositions. Staff who sup-

ported punishment had higher levels of role stress and work–family conflict, had lower levels of life satisfaction and moral

commitment, and were more likely to perceive the organization as unfair. Conversely, correctional staff who were supportive

of treatment perceived higher levels of integration and had higher moral commitment. These results suggest that efforts to increase value congruence between staff and the institution will improve outcomes among correctional staff.

Keywords: c orrectional staff; person–environment fit theory; support for treatment; support for punishment; role stress; organizational fairness; integration; life satisfaction; moral commitment

t the end of 2008, the United States housed more than 1.6 million adults in more than

1,200 correctional facilities, which collectively employed 350,000 people (Pastore &

Maguire, 2009; Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). The sheer magnitude of these figures establishes

corrections as a major social institution. The government allocates a sizable portion of its

budget to fund institutional corrections. Pastore and Maguire (2009) estimated that the annual

cost of corrections was more than $35 billion, and Camp and Gaes (2002) estimated that staff

expenditures accounted for 70% to 80% of a prison’s operating budget. The labor-intensive

nature of corrections means that the success or failure of an institution may well be based on

the quality of its staff. 454 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

Armstrong and Griffin (2004) were correct when they pointed out that “correctional

institutions are unique work environments in both context and purpose” (p. 577). Staff must

supervise and manage an unwilling group of adults who pose a potential risk of violence.

The myriad tasks, duties, and responsibilities that staff perform help ensure the detention of

offenders in a safe, secure, and humane environment. Furthermore, the reciprocal nature of

the work (i.e., the staff affect the prison and the prison affects the staff) highlights the need

to understand this relationship for the success of both staff and the institution.

The person

–environment fit (P-E fit) theory (Lewin, 1938; Parsons, 1909) lays a founda-

tion for the relationship between a worker and the employing organization and helps explain

the perceptions, attitudes, views, intentions, and behaviors of correctional staff (Cable &

Edwards, 2004). Essentially, the P-E fit theory is defined as the match between a person and

his or her environment (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). There needs

to be congruence between the attributes of the person and the environment (Cable & Edwards,

2004). If there is congruence, there is fit; if not, there is misfit. In this study, we examined

the relationship between support for punishment and support for treatment with various

outcome areas with staff at a treatment-oriented prison. The outcome areas observed were

role stress, organizational fairness, the impact of work-family conflict (hereafter referred to

as work-on-family conflict), integration (i.e., perception of group cohesion and cooperation

within an organization), life satisfaction, and moral commitment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

P-E FIT THEORY

The P-E fit theory traces its roots back to the vocational congruence idea proposed by

Parsons (1909), and it took shape with the work of Lewin (1938). The P-E fit theory is,

therefore, based on an interactional perspective, which states that an interaction between an

individual and his or her environment helps shape various outcomes (Sekiguchi, 2004a,

2004b). Most of the research on this theory has focused on the work environment (Cable &

Edwards, 2004). A good fit usually results in positive outcomes for the employee and the

organization, whereas a poor fit generally results in negative outcomes (\

Kristof, 1996). There are four major aspects of the P-E fit theory (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996;

Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). First, the person–vocation or person–occupation fit

is the broadest aspect of the theory. This area focuses on the vocational or occupational selec-

tions made by an individual and whether the selection fits the person. Holland (1959)

proposed that people should obtain employment in fields that fit them best; therefore, if a

person elects to work in a field that does not meet his or her needs, the person will likely be

disappointed. The second aspect of the P-E fit theory, person–group fit, focuses on how an

employee fits in with work teams and other groups of people, including coworkers, and the

compatibility between individual employees and their work groups, including skills, person-

alities, and personal relationships (Higgins & Sekiguchi, 2006; Kristof, 1996). The third area

of the P-E fit theory, person–job fit, centers on the fit between an individual with his or her

job, essentially the fit between what the person expects and wants from the job and what

actually occurs (i.e., the demands placed on the worker and the ability of the worker to man-

age these demands; Dawis, 1992; Edwards, 1991). The person–job fit refers to the congruence Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 455

between an employee and his or her job and not the entire organization; therefore, a person

can have a poor fit on one position but have a better fit in a different job within the same

organization (Kristof, 1996). The person–organization fit, the fourth area, refers to the com-

patibility between the employee and the organization, including the fit between the individual’s

values and views with the culture, values, goals, and norms of the organization (Kristof,

1996). This area deals with the extent to which the employee and the organization share

similar values, views, and goals (Kristof, 1996). The current study is derived from this last

aspect of the P-E theory, that there needs to be a fit between the personal values of the

employee and the goals and objectives of the organization (Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994).

Additionally, the P-E fit theory has two major frameworks: the demand–abilities fit and

the needs–supply fit. The demand–abilities fit focuses on the demands of the job and the orga-

nization as compared to the abilities of the worker (Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b). The needs–supply

fit focuses on the needs of the worker versus what is provided by the organization (Kristof,

1996; Sekiguchi, 2004b). That is, needs–supply fit is the fit between the needs, preferences,

and wants of the employee with the structure and function of the organization (Cable & Judge,

1994). The current study used the needs–supply framework.

CORRECTIONAL STAFF RESEARCH

Even without realizing it, many correctional researchers have either directly or indirectly

tested the P-E fit theory, with many focusing on the person–job fit aspect. For example, role

conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload all cause too many demands, eventually resulting

in reduced job satisfaction and increased job stress (Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1996;

Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). In the end, imbalanced job demands lead to poor

fit between the worker and the job, which ultimately results in negative outcomes for the

employee and possibly the organization as well. When there is a better fit between the

employee and his or her job, positive outcomes are more likely. There is indirect evidence

to support the contention that the person–group fit is important in the field of institutional

corrections. The job characteristics of job variety and job autonomy have been positively

linked with job satisfaction among correctional staff (Jurik & Winn, 1987; Wright, Saylor,

Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Supervisory support has been positively associated with job satis-

faction and inversely related to job stress (Lambert, 2004; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). Positive

relations with coworkers were observed to be positively related to job satisfaction and

inversely related to job stress (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan, 2006). Other research has provided indirect support for the needs–supply part of the person–job

fit aspect of the P-E fit theory. The research to date strongly suggests that organizational

fairness, instrumental communication, and participation in decision making lead to decreased

job stress and increased job satisfaction (Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert, Barton, Hogan,

& Clarke, 2002; Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006; Wright et al., 1997). These studies suggest

that if the needs of employees are met, there are positive outcomes for the employee and the

organization as well.

As part of the attraction-selection-attrition framework proposed by Schneider (1987),

turnover is a function of P-E fit (Sekiguchi, 2004b). Those who fit tend to stay with the orga-

nization, and those who do not fit tend to leave. Research has found support for this aspect

of the P-E fit theory among correctional staff. Among prison staff, perceptions of the various

dimensions of the work environment were linked to job satisfaction and organizational 456 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

commitment, and in turn, job satisfaction and organizational commitment were significant

predictors of turnover intent (Lambert & Hogan, 2009b; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992).

RESEARCH FOCUS

Overall, the correctional staff literature supports P-E fit theory; however, not all the aspects

of this theory have been explored. Most of the research to date has focused on the person–job

fit. There has been little research on the person–organization part of the P-E fit theory among

correctional staff; therefore, this exploratory study examined the relationship between cor-

rectional orientation with various outcome areas among staff at a treatment-oriented state

prison, which included correctional officers, counselors, case managers, medical staff, edu-

cational staff, food service workers, and so forth.

The state had designated the surveyed prison as one that should focus on treatment inter-

ventions for offenders and had assigned it a warden who strongly supported treatment. The

warden and top administrators at the prison indicated that the facility was treatment oriented

and that it was a testing ground for new treatment programs in the state. For the 5 years prior

to data collection, financial resources had been provided to the prison to fund many different

treatment interventions. During this time, new treatment interventions were implemented,

which resulted in new treatment positions being created, including the voluntary and invol-

untary cognitive self-change programs based on the model developed by Bush and Bilodeau

(1993). Housing correctional officers, case managers, counselors, and educational staff were

offered training for various treatment interventions. Furthermore, the warden stated that

the treatment efforts operated on the best-practices and evidence-based principles. In fact, the

data from this study came from a larger study examining the effectiveness of several of the

treatment programs at the prison. Several of the authors had the opportunity to examine

the cognitive treatment programs for a year and half. It appeared that the importance of

providing treatment programs to inmates was stressed by the administration to the staff of

the prison, and efforts were made to ensure that quality treatment efforts were undertaken

(Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). Organizational values represent the goals of the organization

and dictate how resources are allocated (Cable & Edwards, 2004). Correctional orientation refers to the views of individual staff on the functions of prisons.

The two major dimensions of correctional orientation are support for punishment and support

for treatment (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1993). Correctional orientation is an individual

value. Individual values are what a person views as important and influence the person’s deci-

sions, behaviors, and other outcomes. They are general views that transcend specific situations

(Cable & Edwards, 2004).

According to the person–organization fit aspect of the P-E fit theory, the fit between

personal views and organizational goals is important (Adkins, Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996).

According to Kristof (1996), optimum fit occurs when the employee and the employing

organization meet each other’s needs and share fundamental values in terms of the purpose

of the organization. The value fit is theoretically important in influencing various outcomes

for both the employee and the employing organization (Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996). Cor-

rectional staff members should find it more positive to work for an organization that shares

their views. Conversely, incongruence between the views of the worker and the value of the

organization can lead to dissonance for the worker (O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991). Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 457

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

This study examined the relationship between correctional orientation and the outcome areas

of role stress, organizational fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration (i.e., perception of

group cohesion and cooperation within an organization), life satisfaction, and moral commit-

ment. Role stress refers to the degree that work roles cause problems for an employee (Kahn,

Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Furthermore, role stress occurs when the individual’s

role causes strain and conflict, which can arise for a variety of reasons, including role conflict

and role ambiguity (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Strain and conflict can arise if an individual

feels that his or her role is to ensure the control and punishment of inmates when the organiza-

tion feels that the role of the employee is to support treatment interventions. In a study of southern

correctional officers, role stress and support for treatment were inversely related to one another

(Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985). Support for punishment was hypothesized, therefore, to

be negatively associated with role stress and support for treatment positively associated.

Organizational fairness refers to employee perceptions that organizational decisions are

fair and that the process by which the decisions are made is fair (Greenberg, 1990). In a study

of private correctional staff at a facility housing youthful offenders (i.e., younger than 20 years

old), support for treatment was positively associated with organizational fairness (Lambert,

Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa, 2010). Support for punishment was hypothesized to be negatively

associated with perceptions of organizational fairness and support for treatment positively

related.

There are two dimensions of work–family conflict, work-on-family conflict and family-

on-work conflict. Work-on-family conflict occurs when work conflict spills over and affects

the quality of home life (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In a study of staff working with juvenile

offenders, support for treatment and work-on-family conflict were negatively related with

one another (Lambert, Hogan, & Cheeseman Dial, 2010). If there is a poor fit in correctional

orientation between an employee and the correctional organization, there is a good chance

that the employee will experience problems at work. In turn, these problems can follow the

employee home and disrupt his or her home life. On the other hand, if there is a good fit,

then the chances of work problems decrease, as well as the likelihood that these problems

will cause strain at home. Thus, support for punishment was hypothesized to be positively

associated with work-on-family conflict and support for treatment negati\

vely related.

Integration deals with employee perceptions of the degree that there is group cohesion and

cooperation within an organization (Miller & Droge, 1986). Integration may be less successful

for those staff members who do not share the vision of the major efforts of the organization.

They could be left outside the communication network and may not be invited to be active

members of meetings and task forces to meet the goals and objectives of the organization

(Schneider, 1987). Integration and support for treatment were positively related among staff

at a private correctional facility housing juvenile inmates (Lambert & Hogan, 2009a). Hence,

support for treatment was hypothesized to be positively associated with perceptions of inte-

gration and support for punishment negatively associated.

Organizational commitment is the bond between the employee and the organization. There

are three different types of organizational commitment bonds that are theorized to occur (Jaros,

Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993). The first is continuance commitment. This form of com-

mitment refers to the bond that is formed by the investments an employee has made with the 458 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

organization (e.g., pension, friendships, etc.), and these investments tie the employee with

the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The second type is affective commitment, which is

the psychological attachment to an organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). With this

type of commitment, a psychological desire to belong to the organization develops and ties

the worker to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). Affective organi-

zational commitment has been positively associated with support for treatment (Lambert, Hogan,

Barton, Jiang, & Baker, 2008). The third type of organizational commitment is moral commit-

ment. Moral commitment is the acceptance of the norms of the organization and a moral sense

to be loyal to employers (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It derives from a sense of duty or obligation

(Jaros et

l., 1993). According to Weiner (1982), “committed individuals may exhibit certain

behaviors not because they have figured that doing so is to their personal benefit, but because

they believe that it is the ‘right’ and moral thing to do” (p. 421). Moral commitment was used

in the current study. When the employee and organization share common values, it is easier for

the staff member to bond with the organization. When there is incongruence between the worker’s

views and one of the goals of the organization, it is less likely that a bond will form between

the two. Staff members who support treatment express moral commitment because they prob-

ably view the prison more favorably, given the importance of rehabilitation that is shared between

the two entities. Conversely, staff members who support punishment are less likely to express

moral commitment for the prison because they do not agree on the approach in dealing with

inmates. Thus, support for punishment was hypothesized to be inversely linked with moral

commitment, whereas support for treatment would be positively related.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

The survey site was a state high-security prison that had been in operation for many decades

and housed approximately 1,000 male offenders, who were typically serving sentences of 12

or more years. All prison staff were provided a survey and were informed that participation was

strictly voluntary and responses would remain anonymous. A total of 400 staff members received

the survey, and 272 returned a completed survey (i.e., 68% response rate). The demographic

characteristics of those who responded are presented in Table 1. Of the overall staff population

(i.e., all the staff at the prison), approximately 77% were male, 86% were White, and 53% were

correctional officers. As presented in Table 1, among the participants, 76% were male, 81%

were White, and 50% were correctional officers. Thus in terms of the demographic character-

istics of gender, race, and position, the participants were similar to the overall staff at the prison.

MEASURES

Criterion variables . Summed indexes for role stress, organizational fairness, work-on-

family conflict, perceptions of integration, life satisfaction, and moral organizational com-

mitment were the criterion variables. Nine items from Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) were

used to measure role stress (Cronbach’s α

.79; see appendix for the items). An index for

organizational fairness was created using 5 items from Lambert (2003; α = .79; see appendix).

Work-on-family conflict was measured using 12 items adapted from studies of work–family

conflict outside the field of corrections (Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Higgins & Duxbury, Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 459

1992) and were reworded to reflect that the respondent was working in a correctional facility

(α = .81; see appendix). Perceptions of integration at work were measured by 5 items from

Miller and Droge (1986; α

.73; see appendix). Life satisfaction was measured using two

questions from Quinn and Staines (1979; α

.87; see appendix). Moral commitment was

measured using 3 items from Jaros et al. (1993; α

= .65; see appendix).

Predictor variables. The two predictor variables of interest in this study were support for

treatment and support for punishment. Adapted from Cullen et al. (1985), support for reha-

bilitation was measured by summing eight items (α

.84; see appendix). An additive index

measuring support for punishment was created using nine items from Cullen et al. (α

.84;

see appendix). The personal characteristics of gender, age, position, tenure, educational level, and race

were included, as the literature indicates that these characteristics can shape the perceptions

of the work environment and attitudes of correctional staff (e.g., Armstrong & Griffin, 2004;

Cullen et

al.,

1985; Triplett et al., 1996; Van Voorhis et al., 1991). As these personal charac-

teristics have been found to be predictors on the outcomes of role stress, organizational

fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction, and moral commitment, they

were included in the analyses to determine the relationship correctional orientation had with

the outcome areas independent of the personal characteristics.

RESULTS

See Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables and how they were coded. The median

and mean were similar to one another for the variables, suggesting that the variables were

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics of Variables in Study

Variable Statistics

Predictor/Control variables Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) 24% female, 76% male

Position (0 = noncustody, 1 = custody) 50% noncustody, 50% custody

Educational level (0 = no college

degree, 1 = college degree) 59% had no college degree, 41% had some type of college degree

Race (0 = non-White, 1 = White) 19% non-White, 81% White

Min. Max. Median MSD

Age (in years) 20 614442.54 8.32

Tenure (years at the prison)

0 26 9 9.64 6.82

Predictor

variables of interest

Support for treatment (α

.84)

8 362524.39 5.64

Suppor

t for punishment (α = .84) 10 45 2727.26 6.49

Criterion variables of interest Role stress (α

.79)

9 40 2222.92 5.00

Organizational

fairness (α

.79)

5 251515.10 3.89

ork-on-family conflict (α

.81)14 49 3030.47 6.623

Integration (α

.73)

5 22 1413.44 3.04

Lif

e satisfaction (α

.87)

2 6 4 4.11 1.09

Mor

al commitment (α

.65)

3 15 10 9.23 2.41

Note

. N = 272. 460 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

normally distributed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was also run, indicating that the variables

were normally distributed. The skewness and kurtosis statistics indicated no problems with

the distribution of the variables. Except for the index for moral commitment, the Cronbach’s

alpha values for the indexes were above .70. For the moral commitment index, the Cronbach’s

alpha was .65. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha values are similar to those found in past studies and

indicate that the indexes had acceptable internal reliability. A principal component factor

analysis was conducted for each latent variable (i.e., support for treatment, support for punish-

ment, role stress, organizational fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction,

and moral commitment). Specifically, the items for each index were entered into factor analysis

with no rotation to determine whether they would load on the predicted factor. From the

eigenvalues and the scree plot, a single factor was extracted for each latent index. All the items

for a particular latent concept had factor loadings above .40. The results from factor analysis

indicated the items loaded on the predicted factors, which indicated that each of the latent

variables was unidimensional and the items had convergent validity.

The correlations between the variables are presented in Table 2. As hypothesized, support

for treatment had a statistically significant positive correlation with organizational fairness,

integration, and moral commitment and a negative correlation with role stress and work-on-

family conflict. Contrary to our hypothesis, support for treatment had a nonsignificant cor-

relation with the life satisfaction variable. All the hypotheses for support for punishment

were supported by the correlations. Support for punishment had statistically significant nega-

tive correlations with organizational fairness, integration, life satisfaction, and moral com-

mitment and significant positive correlations with role stress and work-on-family conflict. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equations were estimated with role stress, orga-

nizational fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction, and moral com-

mitment as the criterion variables. The predictor variables were support for treatment, support

for punishment, and the personal characteristic variables (i.e., gender, age, position, tenure,

educational level, and race). None of the correlations presented in Table 2 were above .80,

which suggested that there was no issue with collinearity. For each of the OLS regression

equations, the tolerance values ranged from .49 to .98, and the variance inflation factor scores

ranged from 1.01 to 2.05. On the basis of the variation inflation factor statistics and the toler-

ance statistics, there appeared to be no issue with multicollinearity. In addition, the issues of

outliers, influential cases, normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals, and indepen-

dence of errors in the regression analyses were tested. The OLS regression results are pre-

sented in Table 3. The predictor variables accounted for 22%, 16%, 23%, 16%, 8%, and 23%

of the observed variances of the criterion variables of role stress, organizational fairness, work-

on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction, and moral commitment, respectively.

For the role stress equation, the hypothesis that support for punishment would be positively

related to role stress was supported, whereas the hypothesis that support for treatment would

be negatively associated to role stress was not. Among the personal characteristics, only tenure

had a significant association with role stress. As tenure increased, so did the level of reported

role stress. The surprising finding that role stress increased as tenure increased suggested that

as the roles of staff became more complex as a result of the prison’s focus both on custody and

treatment, this produced heightened levels of role confusion. Staff who had been at the prison

for a significant period of time probably experienced the transformation from a more control-

oriented facility to one that increased emphasize on treatment of inmates. This can lead to role

stress among staff who had adapted to the previous roles but not to the new ones. 461

TABLE 2:

Correlation

Matrix Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 1. Gender—

2. P

osition .23** — 3. Educational

level-.10-.20** — 4. Race -

.01 .07-.06 — 5. Age

.09 .19**-.01 .06 — 6. T

enure .23** .06-.25** .04 .40** — 7. Suppor

t for treatment -.10-.25** .29** .00 .16** -.01 — 8. Suppor

t for punishment .12* .31** -.24**-.07 -.14** .01 -.60** — 9. Role

stress .12* .10-.07-.16** .10 .17** -.34** .40** —

10.

Organizational

fairness-.05-.19** .02 .09 -.06-.08 .31** -.36**-.66** —

11.

ork-on-family conflict .10 .29** -.09-.09 -.12-.06 -.24** .44** .42** -.41** —

12.

Integ

ration -.12-.16** .17** .05 -.03-.15* .36** -.33**-.59** .50** -.32** —

13.

Lif

e satisfaction -.07 .00 .09 -.06-.14*-.03 .06 -.14*-.21** .25** .41** .11 —

14.

Mor

al commitment -.05-.21** .07 .13* .08 -.02 .42**-.43**-.38** .44** -.29** .39** .11

Note. Gender coded as 0

female and 1

male. Position coded as 0

noncustody and 1

custody. Educational level was coded as 0

no college degree and 1

college

degree. Race was coded as 0

= non-White and 1 = White. Tenure at the prison and age were measured in continuous years.

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. 462

TABLE 3:

Regression

Results of the Association of Correctional Orientation with Role Stress, Organizational Fairness, Work on Family Conflict, Integration,

Life Satisfaction, and Moral Commitment

Role Stress

Organizational Fairness

Work-on-Family Conflict

Integration

Life Satisfaction

Moral

Commitment

Variable bβb βbβb βb β b β

Predictor variables Gender (1 = male) .54 .05 .26 .03 .57 .04 -.18-.02 -.20-.08 .07 .01

Age .06 .10-.06-.12 -.01-.02 -.02-.05 -.02-.16* -.01-.01

Position (1 = correctional officer) -.05-.01 -1.09-.14* 2.32 .18** -.35-.06 .14 .06 -.52-.11

Tenure .10 .15**-.03-.06 -.07-.07 -.05-.12 .01 .09 -.01-.02

Educational level (1 = degree) .76 .08 -.98-.13* .00 .00 .22 .04 .22 .10 -.38-.08

Race (1 = White) -1.36-.10 .72 .07 -1.09-.06 .34 .04 -.31-.11 .60 .09

Predictor variables on interest Support for treatment -.12-.14 .08 .12 .18 .14 .13 .23** -.02-.08 .11 .25**

Support for punishment .24 .31**-.16-.26** .48 .47** -.06-.13 -.04-.23** -.09-.24**

.22** .16** .23**.16**.08** .23**

Note. See Table 1 for a description of the variables. The number of cases was 272. b represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, and β represents the standard-

ized regression coefficient.

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 463

For the organizational fairness equation, support for punishment had a negative association

as predicted, whereas contrary to our prediction, support for treatment had no significant rela-

tionship with organizational fairness. For the work-on-family-conflict equation, only one of

the two hypotheses was supported. Support for punishment had a significant positive associa-

tion with work-on-family conflict, whereas support for treatment had a nonsignificant relation-

ship. The results from the regression equation with integration as the criterion variable only

supported the hypothesis that support for treatment would be positively related; support for

punishment had no significant association. Likewise, the results only partially supported the

hypotheses for life satisfaction. As postulated, increases in the support-for-punishment variable

were negatively related to overall satisfaction with life, but there was no significant association

between support for treatment and life satisfaction, as was originally predicted. Finally, for the

moral commitment regression equation, both hypotheses were supported. Increases in support

for treatment were associated with increased levels of moral commitment, whereas increases

in support for punishment were associated with decreased levels of moral commitment.

Thus, in summary, increases in support for punishment were associated with increased role

stress, decreased perceptions of organizational fairness, increased work-on-family conflict,

and decreased satisfaction with life. Conversely, increases in support for treatment were asso-

ciated with increased perceptions of integration. Finally, both support for treatment and support

for punishment had significant relationships with moral commitment. An increase in support

for treatment was associated with an increase in the moral commitment measure, whereas

increases in support for punishment were associated with a decrease in moral commitment.

As correctional officers compose the largest occupational group in most prisons, the

multivariate analyses were repeated using only respondents who were correctional officers

136). Although not reported in tabular format, similar results were observed in terms of

statistical significance of the associations of support for treatment and support for punish-

ment with the criterion variables. For example, support of punishment, but not support for

treatment, had a significant positive relationship with role stress. Similarly, support for treat-

ment had a significant positive relationship with moral commitment, and support for punish-

ment had a significant negative association.

Finally, it should be noted that in general, correctional officers were higher in their support

for punishment than noncustody staff (mean = 22.29 vs. 25.27, t = -5.30, p ≤ .01). Likewise,

correctional officers were on average lower in their support for treatment than were their

noncustody counterparts (mean = 22.99 vs. 25.79, t = 4.23, p ≤ .01).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study examined the relationship between person–organization fit and outcomes for

correctional staff in a midwestern adult correctional facility. Relationships between the person-

organization fit and role stress, organizational fairness, work–family conflict, integration,

life satisfaction, and moral commitment were examined. The underlying theme of the study

was that correctional staff supportive of punishment would find their values and attitudes

incongruent with the culture of the prison under study and would therefore experience nega-

tive outcomes. Conversely, because the facility was oriented toward treatment, staff supportive

of treatment would see their values as congruent with those of the organization and, as a result,

fit well with the institution. 464 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

The analyses performed in this study largely provided support to the propositions offered

above, including when a subset of only correctional officers was examined. Support for

punishment was significantly associated with five of the six outcomes tested here. Addition-

ally, all of the relationships were in the expected directions. Less support was provided for

the proposition that support for treatment influenced correctional staff outcomes, but two of

the six relationships tested were statistically significant and in the expected directions. Taken

together, the findings reported here suggest that employees whose values and views are

incongruent with those of the organization have negative outcomes. Correctional staff who

were supportive of punishment experienced higher levels of role stress and work-on-family

conflict while also reporting lower levels of life satisfaction, moral commitment, and orga-

nizational fairness. For respondents supportive of punishment, the thought that convicted

felons were receiving treatment may have been perceived as unfair and unjust. Importantly,

this value incongruence between correctional staff values and organizational values also

increased the likelihood that employees would experience conflict at hom\

Correctional staff who were supportive of treatment appeared to perceive more integration

within the prison and also reported more moral commitment to the organization. Perhaps cor-

rectional staff who share values similar to those of the organization are more likely to approve

of the objectives of the organization and more likely to be included in those activities designed

to meet those goals and objectives. It could be that these employees find the job to be in line

with their values, which accounts for the strong commitment and integration experienced by

these employees. One question that emerges from the findings reported here is why was support for punish-

ment associated with more of the correctional staff outcomes than support for treatment? One possible explanation for this is provided by Resick, Baltes, and Shantz (2007), who

argued that person–job fit is more important in explaining employee outcomes than person–

organization fit when the person feels that the job is a good fit for him or her. Thus, for those

workers in our sample who were supportive of treatment, levels of role stress, work–family

conflict, and integration, as well as perceptions of organizational fairness, were likely dictated

by the nature of their job duties and their satisfaction with those duties. Another possible

explanation for these results concerns the methodology of the study. Participants were not

asked how important it was that their correctional orientation matched the objectives of the

prison. It is plausible that this issue could matter more for some emplo\

yees than others.

These findings suggest that efforts should be made to increase the likelihood that employee

values and objectives are congruent with those of the organization. Perhaps more effort should

be made to recruit, select, and socialize new employees to ensure that the fit will be good in the

long run. Consideration of such issues during the recruitment and selection process may benefit

both the employee and the correctional organization. This may prove difficult, however, because

many correctional facilities experience substantial correctional staff turnover, and adding more

selective recruitment criteria may complicate attempts to maintain adequate staffing levels. An

alternative option would be to provide training to existing correctional staff. For the sample

examined here, this would mean resocializing correctional staff supportive of punishment. This

resocialization process might involve activities that apprise correctional staff of the value and

efficacy of correctional interventions. This, of course, assumes that correctional staff are ame-

nable to such change. Additionally, attempts to resocialize correctional staff may be undermined

by inmate attitudes or behaviors that substantiate the idea that they are undeserving of treatment. Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 465

The findings from this study suggest only that such training would be useful for correctional

staff who support punishment but work in treatment-oriented facilities. It is unclear whether

similar results would be found with correctional staff who support treatment but work in facili-

ties that focus on punishment. It is interesting to note that support for treatment was the highest

among those who occupied positions aimed at providing treatment interventions to inmates,

such as case managers, counselors, vocational instructors, teachers, medical staff, and mental

health staff. Conversely, support for treatment was the lowest among those who were correctional

officers. Similarly, support for punishment was greatest among correctional officers and the

lowest among counselors, case managers, teachers, vocational instructors, medical staff, and

mental health employees. This suggests that the correctional orientation is not uniform across

a prison and may vary by the roles held by the staff members.

Efforts to ensure that correctional staff values are congruent with organizational objec-

tives must also take into consideration that good P-E fit may not always be good for an

organization. One such scenario where good P-E fit could be a detriment is in a punishment-

oriented prison transitioning to a more rehabilitative or treatment approach. Under such cir-

cumstances, good P-E fit could lead to homogeneity among employees and thus limit the

innovation within an organization necessary to adapt to changes and new demands (Chatman,

1989). On the other hand, high P-E fit in an organization can lead to greater efforts by

employees to ensure the success and survival of the organization (Ryan & Kristof-Brown,

2003; Sekiguchi, 2004b).

Although this study contributes to the existing body of literature on this topic, it also has

limitations. The representativeness of participants is always an issue when there is less than

100% participation in the study and when there is no means to determine why some employees

participated and others declined. This may be an issue, on the basis of the fact that 32% of the

surveyed prison staff did not respond. In a related fashion, it is important to point out that the

data were cross-sectional. Although it was theorized that correctional orientation would cause

the various criterion outcomes, this cannot be empirically demonstrated. Subjective measures

of P-E fit were used in this study. P-E fit can be measured objectively or subjectively (Caplan,

1987; Roberts & Robins, 2004). Previous research has noted the merits and limitations of both

objective and subjective indicators of fit (Cable & DeRue, 2002; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Resick

et al., 2007). The results could change if objective P-E fit measures were used. The study did

not measure the importance of correctional orientation among correctional staff or whether

employees desired a match between their correctional orientation and the correctional orienta-

tion of the facility. As a result, there is no way to ascertain the extent to which its importance

varies among staff and the implications that this has for the results. Moreover, P-E fit was

measured indirectly and the organizational goal of treatment was accepted on the basis of fund-

ing at the prison and from statements from the warden and other administrators that treatment

was a highly salient goal in the prison. Employee perceptions of organizational goals were not

measured to determine whether staff agreed that the primary goals and objectives of the cor-

rectional facility were treatment. The importance of value congruence for correctional staff

and the extent to which its associations for correctional staff vary were not tested in this study.

Additional research is needed. Given that this was a single study of staff at a single treatment-

oriented correctional facility, further studies are needed to determine whether the results can be

replicated. Furthermore, this study examined the issue of limited fit only in a treatment-oriented

prison. Results may differ by the type of correctional facility examined. It is especially unclear 466 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

whether the relationships found in this study would also apply to correctional staff who work

in strictly custody-oriented facilities, such as super-maximum-security prisons. It is important

to note that support for punishment may not be the opposite of support for treatment. Additional

studies are needed across a wide array of treatment- and punishment-oriented institutions to

comprehend how the focus of the correctional facility affects staff. As previously indicated,

the premise that this was a treatment-oriented facility was based on the state-funded programs

started at the facility on a trial basis and discussions with top correctional administrators. It is

unknown whether the staff actually perceived the facility to be treatment oriented. The issue of

how staff perceive the focus of the facility needs to be addressed in future research. Furthermore,

it is unclear how the staff perceived the quality of the treatment being offered at the facility. It

could be that staff could have perceived the treatment being provided as being of poor quality,

not effectively delivered, or meaningless to the problems concerning inmates.

Future research should examine whether P-E fit varies across different dimensions of the

work environment. The dominant approach taken by research on this topic has been to examine

the fit between an individual and a single aspect of the work environment. In reality, however,

people do not interact with only one part of their environment. Rather, they are simultaneously

nested in multiple dimensions of the environment (Granovetter, 1985; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,

Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Likewise, steps must be taken to explore the issues of selection and

socialization on P-E fit among correctional staff and whether these factors influence the per-

ceptions that ultimately affect the P-E fit for correctional staff. There is also a need to explore

the P-E fit both over time and in multiple correctional institutions. Such dynamic, multisite

models would give insight into question about the stability of P-E fit across space and time.

It could be that P-E fit is dynamic (i.e., both the views of employees and goals of the organiza-

tion change over time); thus, what may be a good fit today may be a poor fit many years down

the road. Moreover, longitudinal research is needed to explore the causal ordering of the rela-

tionships observed in this study. Future research needs to expand the scope of focus and explore

areas of fit other than those used in this study. Finally, studies are needed to establish whether

supplementary fit or complementary fit is more important in the field of institutional correc-

tions. Supplementary fit holds that the person brings similar skills and needs that others in the

organization have and, as a result, supplements these in the work environment. Here, employees

feel they fit because they share these common skills, needs, and values with the other members

of the organization (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2004a). Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) referred

to this as the person–person fit. Complementary fit holds that the employee brings character-

istics that are missing from the organization or that make the organization complete (Kristof,

1996; Sekiguchi, 2004a). In the current study, the focus was on supplementary fit. It is unclear

whether one type of fit is more beneficial to the employee or the correctional organization.

Only future research can answer these and the other issues raised by this study.

In closing, the P-E fit is a complex and multidimensional theory (Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b),

and in this study, the fit between the person and the organization was examined. Specifically, a

single dimension of fit perception (i.e., the compatibility between an individual and specific

aspects of the work environment) was studied. It was found that correctional orientations

are associated with the perceptions and attitudes of correctional staff. There are many other

dimensions of the P-E fit theory that need to be explored among correctional staff. It is hoped

that this study will spark interest in exploring the full spectrum of the P-E fit theory within

the field of institutional corrections. Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 467

APPENDIX

Except for the life satisfaction items, the items below were answered using a 5-point Likert-

type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

CRITERION VARIABLES

Role stress. (a) The rules and regulations are clear enough here that I know specifically

what I can and cannot do on my job (reverse coded). (b) I regularly receive conflicting requests

at work from two or more people. (c) When a problem comes up here, people seldom agree

on how it should be handled. (d) The rules that we’re supposed to follow seem to be very

clear (reverse coded). (e) There are clear, planned objectives and goals for my job (reverse

coded). (f) I clearly know what my work responsibilities are (reverse coded). (g) I am unclear

to whom I report and/or who reports to me. (h) I lack the authority necessary for me to fully

carry out my job responsibilities. (i) I know what is exactly expected of me (reverse coded).

Cronbach’s alpha

.79.

Organizational fairness. (a) My last annual performance rating presented a fair and accu-

rate picture of my actual job performance. (b) The evaluation of my performance at this

prison has been fair and objective. (c) Promotions are more related to who [sic] you know

rather than the quality of work (reverse coded). (d) There is a fair opportunity to be promoted

at this agency. (e) In this agency, promotions are seldom related to employee performance

(reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha = .79.

Work-on-family conflict. (a) Work makes me too tired or irritable to fully enjoy my family

and/or social life. (b) I frequently argue with my spouse/family members about my job.

tively affected my home life. (e) My time off from work does not really match other family

members schedules and/or my social needs. (f) I am frequently required to work overtime

when I don’t want to. (g) The uncertainty of my work schedule interferes with my family and/

or social life. (h) I have a good balance between my job and family time (reverse coded). (i) My

job keeps me away from my family too much. (j) In my life, I feel that I have more to do than

I can comfortably handle. (k) I feel that I need to work less and spend more time at home.

(l) I wish that I had more time to do things in my personal life. Cronbach’s alpha

.81.

Integration. (a) At this prison, interdepartmental committees are frequently setup to allow

for joint decision making. (b) At this prison, task forces are frequently set up to help inter-

departmental collaboration on specific projects. (c) At this prison, there is generally bargaining

among different department heads rather than competition. (d) At this prison, there is a great

deal of departmental interaction on most decisions. (e) There is bickering between the vari-

ous departments (reverse coded for the index). Cronbach’s alpha

= .73.

Life satisfaction . (a) Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are with your

life? (response: 1 = very happy , 2 = happy , 3 = not too happy ) (b) In general, how satisfying

do you find the ways you’re spending your life these days? (response: 1 = very satisfying , 2 =

satisfying, 3 = not too satisfying). Cronbach’s alpha

= .87.

(continued) 468 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

APPENDIX (continued)

Moral commitment. (a) It is my duty to support this prison. (b) I get upset when people

say negative things about this prison. (c) If you work for a prison, you should be loyal that

prison. Cronbach’s alpha

.65.

PREDICTOR VARIABLES

Support for treatment. (a) Rehabilitating a criminal is just as important as making a

criminal pay for his or her crime. (b) Inmates at this prison should receive treatment and

rehabilitative services. (c) One of the reasons why rehabilitation programs often fail with

prisoners is because they are underfunded. If enough money were available, these pro-

grams would work. (d) I would support expanding offender rehabilitation programs that

are currently in place in our prisons. (e) Treatment programs for inmates are a good idea.

(f) The way to get respect and cooperation from inmates is to take an interest in them.

(g) We need more educational and vocational programs for inmates in prisons. (h) It is

important for prison staff to have compassion for inmates. Cronbach’s alpha

.84.

Support for punishment . (a) A criminal will only go straight when he finds prison life

is hard. (b) All rehabilitation programs have done is allow criminals who deserve to be

punished to get off. (c) Improving the life for inmates generally makes it worse for staff.

(d) Counseling inmates is a job for counselors, not for general prison staff. (e) My job

isn’t to help rehabilitate inmates; it’s only to keep them orderly so that they don’t hurt

anyone in here or tear this place apart. (f) Many people don’t realize it, but prisons today

are too soft on inmates. (g) If a staff member is lenient with inmates, the inmates will

take advantage of that staff member. (h) So long as the inmates I supervise stay quiet

and don’t cause trouble, I really don’t care if they are getting rehabilitated while they are

in here. (i) We should stop viewing criminals as victims of society who deserve to be

rehabilitated and start paying more attention to the victims of these criminals. Cronbach’s

alpha = .84.

REFERENCES

Adkins, C., Ravlin, E., & Meglino, B. (1996). Value congruence between co-workers and its relationship to work outcomes. Group and Organization Management, 21, 439-460. Adkins, C., Russell, C., & Werbel, J. (1994). Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of work value congruence. Personnel Psychology, 47, 593-604. Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577-592. Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and family life: Do flexible work schedules help? Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Bush, J., & Bilodeau, B. (1993). Options: A cognitive change program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Cable, D., & DeRue, D. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875-884. Cable, D., & Edwards, J. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834. Cable, D., & Judge, T. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348. Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL ORIENTATION 469

Cable, D., & Parsons, C. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23.

Camp, S., & Gaes, G. (2002). Growth and quality of U.S. private prisons: Evidence from a national survey. Criminology and

Public Policy, 1, 427-450.

Caplan, R. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mecha- nisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267. Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349. Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly,

2 , 505-533.

Dawis, R. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction. In C. Cranny, P. Smith, & E. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance (pp. 69-88). New York, NY: Lexington Books. Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47.

Edwards, J. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. C. Cooper &

I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 6., pp. 282-327). London, UK: Wiley. Edwards, J., Cable, D., Williamson, I., Lambert, L., & Shipp, A. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827. Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and maintenance of quality services in offender rehabilitation pro- grammes. In C. Hollin & E. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour programmes: Development, application, and controversies (pp. 209-246). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structures: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76-88. Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-335. Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (1992). Work-family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 389-411. Higgins, C., & Sekiguchi, T. (2006). To influence or adjust: A dynamic model of person-group fit. In C. Schriesheim & L. Neider, L. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129-154). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Holland, J. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.

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

Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the with- drawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.

Judge, T., & Ferris, G. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in human resource staffing decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15(4), 47-67. Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25. Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., Rosenthal, R. (1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York, NY: Wiley. Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.

Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.

Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact of instrumental communication and integration on cor- rectional staff. Justice Professional, 15, 181-193. Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009a). Exploring the predictors of treatment views of correctional staff: A test of an integrated work model. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 504-528. Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009b). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96-118. Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 227-246.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Barton, S., Jiang, S., & Baker, D. (2008). The impact of punishment and rehabilitation views on orga- nizational commitment among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 , 85-98. 470 C RIMINAL J USTICE AND B EHAVIOR

Lambert, N., Hogan, N., & Barton-Bellessa, S. (2010). Research note: The association between perceptions of distributive justice and procedural justice with support of treatment and support of punishment among correctional staff. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Cheeseman Dial, K. (2010). The relationship perceptions of distributive and procedural justice with strain-based work-family conflict among correctional staff . Manuscript submitted for publication. Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 , 539-560. Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., Lee, T., Sablynski, C., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-1121. Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press. Muchinsky, P., & Monahan, C. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31 , 268-277. O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal , 34 , 487-516. Paoline, E., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: The impact of ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy views on the job stress and job satisfaction of ja\

il staff. Prison Journal, 86, 182-205.

Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Pastore, A., & Maguire, K. (2009). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics . Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/ sourcebook/ Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Resick, C., Baltes, B., & Shantz, C. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: Examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1446-1455. Roberts, B., & Robins, R. (2004). Person-environment fit and its implications for personality development: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality, 72 , 89-110. Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1993). The influence of career orientation on support for rehabilitation among correctional staff. Prison Journal, 73, 162-177. Ryan, A., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2003). Focusing on personality in person-organization fit research: Unaddressed issues. In M. Barrick & A. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 262-288). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sabol, W., West, H., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdfSchneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.

Sekiguchi, T. (2004a). Person-organization fit and person-job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54, 179-196.

Sekiguchi, T. (2004b). Toward a dynamic perspective of person-environment fit. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 55, 177-190.

Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478. Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional officers: 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 correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 28 , 472-500.

Weiner, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.

Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 524-546.

Eric G. Lambert is a professor of criminal justice at the Wayne State University. His research interests include organizational

issues, the evaluation of correctional interventions, and death penalty \

attitudes.

Irshad Altheimer is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. His research interests

include macrolevel theories of violence, correctional staff, offender interventions, comparative criminology, and neighborhood

processes and crime.

Nancy L. Hogan is a professor and graduate program coordinator in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University.

Her research interests include health issues of inmates, correctional staff, and the effectiveness of cognitive correctional

interventions.

Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology at Indiana State University. Her

research interests include evaluative research, delinquency prevention, \

and school violence.