-'12> """"' "‘11111111 .111 111111. 1111112212 MM . 1 ‘11" '111111'1111111'111 1 . 1“ 11 111 1'12 21224222"; '1'111'1'1"'11111111'111 11.1111 11 ”12' 2 2’22 111M111huw2h 11' 1'11 1 112' ""111L 11.'1,1L 11'1'1. . "" "'1 11111. 122 ' 2‘ "' 113111112 2 .J 11 ‘ '11} 3 3 __—_-:;_:_ ., ‘ h 22 ‘3 > 3.- ' , a A _ .. - 3‘ g V‘. O. ‘ -A I_ “— ‘— ..1 h J? —_—~a~‘. 2-: . . $331.:— a my _. ... 1: gm"; I - .3 . w *3: .. "l "" ——..—_. -* t- ... “z; . Wm 1 - a 3. .— 11:...- __ *____1 1'1 M "1‘2 "" ~11 "“1111” '1‘1'1'111 11111 11 1111111221212 1'1111 1 ""1‘11111 1 11'" ‘1111 1. 1111111 " 1 1.; 1 1 1.1,.“ ”“1111 1111 1112111 "12112121 "1111'. 11111; 11111 L111" 1' 1 ""1 1111111 11.2112 21: 1'1'" '111 111:” '11112212 1 _ _. 2 a . 3 ' "3’": ‘ - W1 11 a. o. h . o ‘ .. ‘ - 1. _. -. ‘ W . Q I u . ~ -‘ ’ - - v m I . .. 1 ‘. 'fm ‘7 . 1. h. .‘1 7 .. ‘t‘ F. ‘ ‘9', . up | ‘4 . 1' 1111 11111111911111 1'11'111111' 1‘ 1 11111 11""'11'12111” 222.:2 1111 Wv;":‘: "1 Z ..... \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l L_ W1 293 105124 ill 1' -\ [HELSIS wmnswr samurai-1k. 3:;- Mlfireuau 33;; g. xii-ate L Univea say 1 ._.__— This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Determinants of Job Dissatisfaction and Job Satisfaction Among Correctional Officers: An Exploratory Study presented by David W. Hayeslip Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. mgmem Social Science Miami ./ Major pro% 501' Date 8/8/82 MS U is an Afflnnau'w Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. DETERMINANTS OF JOB DISSATISFACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By David W. Hayeslip Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science/Interdisciplinary 1982 ABSTRACT DETERMINANTS OF JOB DISSATISFACTION AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By David W. Hayeslip Jr. Very little research has examined the reactions of Correctional Officers to their work. This research seeks to fill this void by examining the feelings of job dissatisfac- tion and job satisfaction which Correctional Officers develop. More specifically, the study attempts to answer the questions: What are the determinants of dissatisfaction and satisfac- tion among Correctional Officers; How intense and long lasting are such feelings; What are some of the outcomes of these feelings, and; How do these feelings and outcomes vary among employee subgroups? Fortydfour Corrections Officers were interviewed utilizing the critical incident methodology in order to answer these questions. The findings suggested that the major sources of dissatisfaction were administrative policies and actions as well as interpersonal relations with fellow officers and prisoners. Feelings of dissatisfaction tended to be quite intense and long lasting. Attitudes and behaviors of withdrawal were likely outcomes of dissatisfac- tion. In addition, it was found that satisfaction was a result of achievement on the job, interpersonal relations and David W. Hayeslip Jr. recognition. Satisfaction was not as intense or long lasting a feeling however. Satisfaction was likely to result in feelings of increased job commitment. Both of these feelings varied in intensity, duration and outcomes among various employee subgroups. The conclusions reached were that these feelings lent support for the two—factor theory of job satisfaction and that the critical incident methodology was quite useful in attitudinal research. Further, the results offered a number of implications for correctional officers, administrators, unions, future researchers and others in terms of what can be done to improve Correctional Officer reactions to their work. Copyright by David W. Hayeslip Jr. 1982 To My Dad For Instilling in Me the Value of Education ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Appreciation for completion of this doctoral disserta- tion should be extended to a number of people. First, my thanks to Terry Dungworth for getting me interested in going on for the Ph.D. and for stimulating my interest in social science research. Secondly, if it had not been for Dr. Frederick Wickert's guidance the design of this research would never have been realized. My appreciation should also go to my committee chairman, Tim Bynum, for his numerous and careful reviews of the many early concept papers and the eventual chapter drafts. Thanks as well to my other committee members, Ken Christian and Cleo Cherryholmes for their time and energy in by behalf. I am also deeply indebted to Bill Kime and Ray Kraft of the Michigan Department of Corrections for their interest and assistance. I would also like to extend my deep appreciation to William Barnett for understanding the demands of completing this study while teaching full time and for encouraging me to forge ahead. Most importantly, thanks to all of the "C.O.'s" who took time away from more important things to be of assistance to me in the completion of this research. iii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................. II. THE PROBLEM OF OFFICER DISSATISFACTION ....... III. IV. VI. 1. 2. 3. 4. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE U1 c~ Lo Ivra RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Introduction ............................. 2. Research Questions ....................... 3. Study Sample ............................. 4. Data Collection .......................... 5. Data Analysis ............................ 6. Possible Errors and Their Consequences . 7. Summary .................................. RESULTS ...................................... 1. Introduction ............................. 2. Characteristics of the Sample ............ 3. Research Questions - Dissatisfaction ..... 4. Research Questions - Satisfaction ........ 5. Summary .................................. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 1. TABLE OF CONTENTS The Job of Correctional Officer .......... Correctional Officer Ractions to the Job.. Outcomes of Dissatisfaction .............. The Dissatisfaction Problem .............. A Definition of Job Dissatisfaction ...... Theoretical Perspectives on Satisfacion/ Dissatisfaction ..................... Suggested Determinants of Correctional Officer Dissatisfaction ............. Suggested Determinants of Correctional Officer Satisfaction ................ Conclusions .............................. Conclusions .............................. iv Page 106 109 114 122 127 134 210 CHAPTER Page 2. Implications ............................. 227 APPENDICES A. Original Sample Contact Letter ........... 246 B. Original Sample Meeting Letter ........... 247 C. Original Sample Followup Letter Following Meeting Failures .................... 248 D. Contact Letter for Increased Sampling .... 249 E. Initial Interview Format ................. 250 F. Revised Interview Format ................. 253 G. Data Codebook ............................ 257 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................... 264 TABLE LII-DOOM 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Sample Characteristics ....................... Sources of Dissatisfaction and Satisfaction Intensity of Dissatisfaction ................. Most Important Factors of Dissatisfaction .... Crosstabulation of Most Important Factors of Dissatisfaction and Dissatisfaction Intensity ................................ Duration of Dissatisfaction .................. Crosstabulation of Most Important Factors of DissatisfactiOn and Dissatisfaction Duration ................................ Variability Among Subgroups on Factors Contributing Most to Dissatisfaction .... Variability Among Subgroups on Intensity of Dissatisfaction .- .................... Variability Among Subgroups on Duration of Dissatisfaction ...................... Variability Among Subgroups on Negative Outcomes of Dissatisfaction ............. Intensity of Satisfaction .................... Most Important Factors of Satisfaction ....... Crosstabulation of Most Important Factors of Satisfaction and Satisfaction Intensity ............................... Duration of Satisfaction ..................... vi Page 139 146 154 154 157 187 187 189 TABLE Page 17. Crosstabulation of Most Important Factors of Satisfaction wifiISatisfaction Duration ................................ 191 18. Satisfaction Outcomes ........................ 193 19. Variability Among Subgroups on Factors Contributing Most to Satisfaction ....... 197 20. Variability Among Subgroups on Intensity of Satisfaction ......................... 200 21. Variability Among Subgroups on Duration of Satisfaction ......................... 204 22. Variability Among Subgroups on Positive Outcomes of Satisfaction ................ 207 vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Single Factor Model ........................... 45 2. Two-Factor Model .............................. 46 3. Comparison of Sample and Population Characteristics .......................... 133 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It has been suggested that correctional officers or guards are the "line officers" of corrections in that they have the greatest day to day contact with sentenced prisoners and thus have the greatest insight into the day to day problems of prisons and the people who are sentenced there. In fact, some observers have come to the conclusion that the line officer may have the most influence over the possible rehabilitation of sentenced prisoners. Brooks summarizes this perspective when he concludes, ”There is considerable evidence that the correctional officer is the single most important change agent in the institutional environment."1 Yet, very little is known about the correctional officer, his background, attitudes or behaviors. The primary infor- mation available concerning this type of public employee stems from limited observational studies, the musings or remembrances of former prison officials.or the often sensational accounts of prison life by prisoners. As Duffee points out, while more research is currently being focused on correctional organizations and processes, little is still known about the majority of institutional Corrections personnel.2 In fact, Hawkins suggests the guard or correc- tional officer is rarely mentioned in books about prisons at all.3 Jacobs, one of the few researchers of correctional officers has concluded that ignoring the attitudes and persons of officers has not only been systematic4 but also unfortunate and surprising.5 He found this lack of research surprising since reformers and scholars have long recognized the importance of the guard in carrying out the goals of correc- tions. Recent events throughout the country, particularly a large riot in the Midwest which was said to be instigated by guards, clearly demonstrate that more needs to be known about the people who work in the job of guarding prisoners. Specifically, based on the author's own experience as a correctional officers, as well as his management level experience in corrections, it would seem that guards are a unique employment group in that they are often highly dissat- isfied with the work which they perform and yet perceive that their employment could be useful and potentially satisfying if factors associated with their conditions of employment were changed. In particular, it would seem that correctional officers are pivotal figures in the corrections organization in that they are primarily responsible for.the achievement of the goals of corrections. That is, correctional officers are responsible not only for custody but also are thought to be important in the achievement of prisoner rehabilitation. But their job expectations are often not met for a variety of reasons which will be examined, leaving them highly dissat- isfied and frustrated. These observations however are merely speculative in that they are based on experience rather than empirical data. Therefore, this research will focus on the potential sources of job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction among correctional officers, or guards, with the hope of providing some insight into this unique group and the conditions under which they worky/ It is further anticipated that as a result policy implications may become evident which may be of assistance to policy makers and administrators in large correctional organizations such that meaningful and worth- while changes in the management of these types of personnel can be made.: In addition, implications concerning the theoretical foundations of the two-factor approach to job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction may be developed along with the applicability of the critical incident methodology to attitudinal research. Other implications are also anti- cipated with respect to various groups within the correctional setting, such as correctional officers, inmates and union leaders and how these groups might benefit from the improve- ment of satisfaction and the reduction of dissatisfaction among officers. In looking at the issues of dissatisfaction and satis- faction a sample of correctional officers from the largest Michigan prison, State Prison of Southern Michigan, were interviewed based on the critical incident methodology. These critical incidents provide the basis for the deter- mination of the factors associated with the job of correc- tional officer which contribute to negative or positive 4 feelings about work. The use of the critical incident technique differs significantly from previous research concerning the attitudes of correctional officers. Previous investigations have relied on predetermined attitude questions or participant observations. The critical incident method, however, relies on factual descriptions by the officers them- selves of situations which contribute to these attitudes rather than on preselected perceptions by researchers. That is, this approach utilizes subject descriptions and obser- vations rather than those of the investigator. 'In addition, outcomes of these two feelings will also be investigated in terms of performance, relationships with inmates, peers, supervisors and the higher administration as well as career commitment. It is anticipated that dissat- isfaction will result in decreased job performance and more negative feelings toward the administration, supervisors, peers and residents. On the other hand, it is anticipated that satisfaction will result in increased job performance and more positive feelings toward these groups.‘ The next chapter will expand on the problem of guarding prisons and the suggested results of dissatisfaction in a correctional setting. The following chapter will review selected literature concerning job satisfaction and dissat- isfaction. Later chapters will describe the methodology of this particular piece of research followed by the results and then finally the conclusions and implications of the research. Footnotes 1Robert J. Brooks, "The Role of the Correctional Officer,” American Journal of Correction, (May-June, 1969), p. 23. 2David Duffee, "The Correction Officer Subculture and Organizational Change," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, (July, 1974), p. 155. 3Gordon Hawkins, The Prison: Policy and Practice, (Chicago; University of_Chicago Press)? 1976, p. 81. 4James Jacobs and Harold Retsky, "Prison Guard," Urban Life, (4:1, 1975), p. 183. 5James Jacobs, "What Prison Guards Think: A Profile of the Illinois Force," Crime and Delinquency, (24:;, 1976), p. 185. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM OF OFFICER DISSATISFACTION l. The Job of Correctional Officer In a survey conducted in 1976 by Edgar May it was found that in the adult correcticnal system in the United States there were slightly over 42,000 persons employed as state correctional officers.1 More recent reports of the nunber of persons employed specifically as officers are not generally available but since 1976 the total adult institutional population has risen from about 200,000 inmates to over 282,000 in 19802 so it is possible that the number of correctional officers employed in prisons my have also risen. In addition, there has been a recent increasing trend in terms of the meber of correctional institutions which would also indicate a possible rise in the nunber of correctional officers. Nonetheless, correctional officers would appear to be a sizeable employment group and considering their pivotal role within corrections, a group worthy of study. Fmrthermore, based on previous literature it would appear that correctional officers are quite dissatisfied with their employment. They have been repeatedly been characterized as being confused about their jobs, they have been said to suffer from frustration, conflict and alienation and they have been found to be cynical about their employment. As a result it has been mested that turnover is high and a wide variety of other personal and organizational problems result from such dissatisfaction. However, in coming to an understanding about the dissatisfaction 7 that correctional officers have with their jobs it would seen logical to first examine the job they perform. A job description from the Michigan Department of Civil Service outlines some of the tasks that correctimal officers mast perform; (has) constant and extensive face to face interaction with residents . . . Conducts thorough searches of residents, visitors, employees, cell blocks and other structures for such prohibited itens as critical tools , weapons, drugs or other contraband. Observes , through visual observation, residents activities to detect unusual or prohibited behavior which might be a threat to the security of the facility. Assists in controlling disturbances and isolating instigators . . . Works with counselors . . . l Attempts to modify residents' attitudes and behavior through one-to-one or group interaction. Attempts to obtain residents' carpliance with facility rules and regulations.3 While this job description is helpful in mlderstanding the basic duties of a correctional officer in the sense that it is kmwn that he must seach, observe, maintain compliance and security as well as facilitate attitude change, Sykes points omi' in greater detail the role and responsibility of the correctional officer within the larger correctional system; Now the Official in the lowest ranks of the custodial bureaucracy - the guard in the cellblock, the industrial shop, or the recreaticn yard - is the pivotal figure on which the custodial bureaucracy turns . It is ,he who must supervise and control the innate population in concrete and detailed terms. It is he who must see to the translation of the custodial regime fran blueprint to reality 8 and engage in the specific battles for conformity. Counting prisoners, periodically reporting to the center of communications, signing passes, checking groups of inmates as they come and go, searching for contraband, or signs of attempts to escape - these make up the minutiae of his eight hour shift. In addition, he is supposed to be alert for violations of prison rules which fall outside his routine sphere of surveillance. Not only must he detect and report deviant behavior after it occurs; he must curb deviant behavior before it arises as well as when he is called on to prevent a minor quarrel among prisoners from flaring into a more serious situation. And he must make sure that the inmates in his charge perform their assignez tasks with a reasonable degree of efficiency. In carrying out these various responsibilities associated with the job of correctional officer, it seems apparent that the employee must perform a variety of roles. Burns and Miller summarize the roles which the correctional officer must assume as basically fourfold. He must be a supervisor, a disciplinarian, a security agent and a person who is a communicator.5 That is, an officer must supervise the comings and goings of inmates and insure that his as well as the organization's directives are carried out by the inmates. In addition, he must stop rule breaking or disobedience as well as aggressive actions on the part of inmates and punish such behavior when it occurs. Security agent as a role is probably the most important role the officer must assume in that as Jacobs and Retsky suggest, ”Prevention of escape and riot is the primary n6 task around which the role of the guard is organized. These first three roles are not particularly new in that they 9 have been a primary focus of guarding since the 1830-1850 period when the vigilance of the correctional officer within prisons was stressed.7 However, the last role suggested by Burns and Miller concerning communication is relatively new. In fact, in the late 1800's conversation among inmates was strictly prohibited and guards could inflict corporal punishment in the form of flogging for inmates who even suggested any form of commun- ication.8 In addition to the roles suggested by Burns and Miller, Jacobs and Retsky have pointed out that the correctional officer is also supposed to be involved in the maintenance of prisoners and the prison or as they suggest, "In the prison new inmates must be processed, clothing must be laundered, medicine must be distributed, food must be prepared, lavatories must be kept clean, dining rooms and living quarters must be cared for; in short, the institution must be kept running."9 In other words, the correctional officer must also be involved in the day to day process of caring for people which is characteristic of any large scale institution where people are detained against their will. Or as Goffman points out, "The handling of many human needs by the bureaucratic organization of whole blocks of people is the key fact of total institutions."10 In addition, however, another new role has been suggested for correctional officers, that being as Brooks suggests, n11 the role of "behavioral coach and counselor or as Briggs 10 describes it, "consultant.”12 By this it has recently been suggested that the correctional officer should also be intimately involved in the rehabilitation of inmates. That is, the officer, in addition to his security and maintenance functions, now must also attempt to be a change agent, act as a model for inmate reform and assist in attitude change so that the inmates under his charge return after their confine- ment as productive citizens in the community. Or putting it another way, the officer must also assume the role of teacher whereby he "will facilitate the learning of new values, new orientations, and new experiences which will serive, in turn, to inhibit delinquent acts in the future."13 It should be pointed out that the addition of the role of change agent or teacher has led to some serious problems on the part of individual guards. These problems of "role conflict” will be discussed in the next chapter. The essence of these problems associated with the changing roles though is that guards have developed stress and conflict in attempting to satisfy both the roles of rehabilitator and custodian. In summary, the basic characteristics of the job of correctional officer are the supervision and discipline of inmates, fulfilling the daily routine activities associated with institutional people processing, the maintenance of security and custody and finally, participation in the process of rehabilitation of convicted criminals. 11 2. Correctional Officer Reactions to the Job Crouch and Marquart investigated why people are attracted to the work of a correctional officer in their participant-observation study and found, Typically, people do not have lifelong aspirations to become a prison guard. Rather, getting into correctional work typically seems to be a reaction to unanticipated job changes, the need for full-time employment, supplemental income, or other circumstances marking the job histories of many working class males. Under such circumstances men tend to select prison work when the prison is near at hand offering a secure pay check and when a Zriend or relative has already paved the way.1 Jacobs also came to a similar conclusion when he found that more than half of the guards entering correctional work in Illinois chose correctional work just because they needed a job,15 although they were attracted to the job becuase of the security it offered. Webb and Morris also found a clear indication that coming to the job of correctional officer was brought about by the likelihood of steady work with little possibility of layoffs.16 On the other hand Jacobs also found that these new officers perceived the job as one which would be stimulating.17 But despite the fact that few new officers had aspired to become correctional officers, Jacobs also found that those entering this type of employment were committed to the job in the sense that most intended to remain on the job for at least five years.18 However, it should be noted that there 12 is some evidence that this initial job commitment may vary by race in that Kinsell found in a survey of correctional officers in a medium security facility that blacks were not as likely to indicate a willingness to remain on the job for 19 In-service officers also seemed to the next five years. display commitment to their work as Jacobs and Kraft found in their officer survey that one-half to two-thirds of the respondents preferred the job they currently held over a variety of suggested alternative types of employment.20 Despite the apparent attractiveness of the job of correctional officer, based on job security and stimulation, and the voiced commitment of new and in-service officers it is also apparent that officers react to the characteristics of their jobs in ways which suggest that they are largely 21 In dissatisfied with the work they are asked to perform. fact, Lombardo suggests after recently studying guards at Auburn prison in New York that, "The alleviation of correction officer dissatisfaction should be a major priority of the correctional administrator."22 The evidence of negative reactions to the work of correctional officer comes from a number of writers. Jacobs points out in his study of the Stateville Penetentiary in Illinois that because of vague role prescriptions, activities associated with the job of guard generally led to frustration among the custodial staff.23 This observation again refers to the reaction on the part of correctional officers when they are asked to simultaneously fulfill role prescriptions 13 of custodians and rehabilitation agents. [Again as will be discussed in the next chapter where officers are asked to fulfill these two roles which they personally find incompat- ible they react to the conflict of policies with feelings of frustration and job dissatisfaction. Carroll also found that officers expressed a sense of frustration and futility because of inconsistency in rule enforcement and discretion- ary policies as exemplified by a quotation by one of the officers he spoke with; It's frustrating, damn frustrating. You're just never sure what you're supposed to be doing, and the next guy might be doingAthe exact opposite of what you re d01ng. %While the problem of rule inconsistency will be developed more fully later, it is still important to note that conflict- ing rules or directives and inconsistency in policies of applying these rules not only creates frustration but also uncertainty and confusion among officers on the joby/ Wicks also suggests that the problems associated with the day to day job of correctional officer become over- whelming and the reaction of the individual employee may be callousness, futility or anger, as well as confusion about the role of guard in the institutional system.25 Some correctional officers also seem to react to their employment by developing attitudes of cynicism, or as Farmer found, "Results indicated a moderately high level of operating cynicism in corrections officers, especially in O O O O 2 those who work in 'treatment' institutions." 6 Brodsky 14 further presents evidence that some guards may react to their employment by developing long term work stress.27 That is, guards develop a recognition that they are no longer function- ing automatically and realize that their physical and psy- chological discomfort and resultant anxiety are directly related to their job.23’kf Furthermore, in a recent study about alienation among correctional officers Poole and Regoli found after studying 144 officers employed in a large maximum security prison that, The weakening of their position vis-a-vis inmates has fostered a sense of powerlessness, meaninglessness, and isolation; the ambiguous and contradictory nature of the operational directives of superiors has generated sentiments of normlessness, powerlessness, and isolation; and the deterioration of the working relations among the guards has contributed to feelings of normlessness, isolation and self-estrangement.29 Finally, there is also some evidence that correctional officers react to their work by forming pathological ways of thinking and behaving. Haney, Banks and Zimbardo demon- strated in their classic experimental study of a simulated prison that a homogeneous experimental group of subjects, after being assigned roles as guards, developed abnormal behavior described by the experimenters as, "pathological and anti-social,"30 and, in particular, about a third of the subjects became tyrannical and arbitrary in their use of power.31 Sebring also found in a prison where there was a situation whereby conflict existed because of differing 15 treatment philosophies that paranoid behaviors deveIOped among the staff as evidenced by ”covering" themselves, being guarded, suspicious and defensive.32 Thus, the picture which seems to emerge from the observations and limited empirical work concerning correc- tional officer reactions to their job suggests that the correctional officer is hardly satisfied with the type of work he is asked to perform. The guard has been character- ized as being frustrated, callous, angry and confused. Further, he appears to view his position as futile, stress- ful, and has sentiments of powerlessness, isolation, mean- inglessness and self-estrangment plus he may develop paranoid or pathological behavior as a result of his employment. In sum then, based on these observations, despite the initial commitment to corrections work and the anticipated stimula- tion it should produce, the correctional officer finds certain aspects of his job dissatisfying and personally irritating. 3. Outcomes of Dissatisfaction Over the years administrators of a variety of organ- izations have subscribed to the common sense view that some- how a "happy worker is a good worker." That is, in other words, an employee who is satisfied with his job will be a better performer on the job. Conversely then a dissatisfied worker will be one who performns poorly in his particular 16 type of work. The influence that satisfaction and dissatisfaction have on performance has been studied repeatedly over the years but the evidence of a causal link between the two has been quite limited. In a survey of thirty-one correlational studies Srivastva found that ”a positive relationship existed between job satisfaction and performance,"33 but went on to further conclude that a wide variety of moderating variables could account for such findings and that in particular the strength of such a relationship was quite low over large populations.34 In addition to the normal caveatSA associated with correlational studies it should also be noted that there is also some disagreement about the time priority of these two variables. For example, Lawler and Porter have suggested that since performance leads to rewards and rewards to job satisfaction, that in fact performance is a determinant of satisfaction rather than the other way around.35 So, as Lawler points out, the view that satisfaction influences performance "has now been discredited, and most psychologists feel that satisfaction influences absenteeism and turnover but not job performance."36 In other words, withdrawal behaviors are predicted outcomes of dissatisfaction rather that performance. However, despite any apparent link of satisfaction and dissatisfaction to performance it still would seem that such attitudes could still have serious consequences in work organizations. In particular, it would seem that having 17 dissatisfied employees within large prison organizations is particularly troublesome. The outcomes of the existence of dissatisfaction can be roughly grouped into the effects on the organization and effects on the individual employees. More specifically, dissatisfaction can result in large organ- izational costs because of absenteeism and turnover as well as an inability to achieve organizational goals because of sabotage and the failure of employees to carry out directives or to actually subvert the administration. Furthermore, group activities such as unionization, job actions or strikes may develop which can also be costly and in the correctional setting certainly dangerous. Secondarily, on the individual level it appears that dissatisfaction can result in the development of personal problems in terms of mental and physical disorders. For example, as noted earlier, abnormal mental processes may develop such as nervous breakdowns and job related physical disorders may also evolve among highly dissatisfied workers. In the corrections literature most attention has been paid to the organizational problems resulting from employee reactions to the job. For example, a number of writers have pointed out that turnover has long been a major organizational problem for corrections both on the state and local levels.37 In fact, retention problems date back to the beginning of guarding prisoners when "warders," "turnkeys" or ”guards" chose the job of guarding as temporary employment until some- thing better came along.38 18 Turnover in the field of corrections remains a signif- icant problem today. A survey in 1976 indicated that turn- over rates for state correctional agencies ranged from 2.5% to 72% per year.39 Agencies in this survey averaged a turn- over rate of 22.4% with 26 out of the 44 agencies indicating that they lost over a quarter of their officers on a yearly basis. This average turnover rate is about the same as it was in the early 1960's as reported by Lunden.40 In addition, it has been reported that at least one state correctional agency loses 44% of its new employees within the first month of employment41 and that some of the larger maximum security prisons lose over 100% of their correctional officers per year.42 While there is some confusion about how turnover was actually measured in these studies, that is whether it was percentage of total employees which left or the percentage of those hired per year, these turnover statistics are nonethe- less consistent with previous dissatisfaction studies. Srivastva again found in his review of twenty-three studies that there was a negative correlation between satisfaction and withdrawal behavior although the labor market in the area of employment seemed to moderate the situation somewhat!+3 Lawler also came to the same conclusion when he noted that "Although relationships between satisfaction scores and turn— over have not always been very strong, the studies in this area have consistently shown that dissatisfied workers are "44 more likely than satisfied workers to terminate employment. If the reported state correctional agency turnover rates 19 in 1976 were converted into organizational costs as suggested by Lawler, nationally the costs associated with officer turn- over was well in excess of $30,000,000 in 1976.45 Eight state agencies each incurred turnover costs of over $1,000,000 for the year (Florida, California, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas and Vir- ginia). In addition to the economic costs associated with the problem of retention and the shortages of trained personnel, there are a number of other organizational costs. Attempts to achieve the goals of custody and security can be problem- atic given high turnover rates and organizational efforts at prisoner rehabilitation can be thwarted through a continuing influx of inexperienced officers. Further, where high turn- over exists correctional administrators become more concerned about the quantity rather than the quality of employees.46 A closely related organizational problem in correctional institutions is that of absenteeism. Jacobs and Retsky found in 1975, again at Stateville, that, "Absenteeism is stagger- ing, sometimes approaching 40%. In a job that has few objective criteria for evaluating performance, simply report- ing to work is likely to become the most important factor on which the guard will be rated."47 A somewhat more current study by Jacobs and Kraft found that the daily manpower shortage was not quite as serious but stated, "If 120 men are scheduled to appear on the 7AM to 3PM shift, sometimes only 85 percent show up. This means certain posts will not be 20 covered, certain programs cannot be carried out, and the daily routine cannot run on schedule."48 Obviously in such a situation the achievement of correctional goals is likely to be diminished. Again these observations suggest the relationship between dissatisfaction and withdrawal and this has been confirmed in other studies. Lawler in fact has concluded that absenteeism is not only related to dissatis- faction but that, "If anything, the relationship between satisfaction and absenteeism seems to be stronger than the relationship between satisfaction and turnover."49 The consequences of dissatisfaction among officers who do routinely come to work and decide not to leave corrections for alternative types of employment are also important in that organizational goals can also be threatened by a variety of means. For example, in his study of cottage parents Cressey found that dissatisfaction led to failures to cooper- ate with administrative directives, and indeed occassional avoidance of directives altogether.50 In addition, he also found evidence that some workers reacted by simply doing enough to get by and were generally listless on the job.51 Other writers have also observed that correctional officers may react to unhappiness on the job by engaging in work slow- 52 or even work stoppages.53 An incident cited by downs Jacobs illustrated how dissatisfaction can lead to work stoppages. Guards in Stateville became quite dissatisfied when a new warden eliminated their personal authority to "walk" inmates from their assignments and despite resistance 21 from the officers the warden refused to rescind his order. In order to express their dissatisfaction the officers ultimately refused to unlock the cell houses which led to the new warden changing his orders soon afterwards.54 Lombardo also found that officers reacted to their dis— satisfaction by engaging in what he called "sabotage-type behaviors.”55 By this he suggested that officers may attempt to adapt administrative directives and force intentional breakdowns in the institutional status quo. Poole and Regoli also found that when guards see their jobs as stressful they become punitive or custody oriented which leads to more disciplinary reporting, closer surveillance and control.56 This increased custody orientation, as will be discussed later in the literature review of role conflict, can run counter to organizational goals of rehabilitation since treatment is often thought to require an open and flexible environment. It has also been suggested that guards can react to their job dissatisfaction by developing highly aggressive behaviors.57 For example, as Cressey points out, cottage parents who were dissatisfied with their jobs reacted aggressively toward children in ways ranging from mild dis- pleasure "all the way to the infliction of some bodily blow or some other type of pain."58 Again these types of outcomes would tend to deter efforts toward attitude change on the part of prisoners. While the above outcomes of dissatisfaction clearly have 22 importance to correctional organizations, probably the most critical outcome of dissatisfaction is the increased likeli- hood of violence in institutions where officers react neg- atively to their jobs. Bidna found, for example, where officers become more security oriented in one institution that the levels of violence, as measured by inmate assaults and stabbings, rose.59 However, it should be noted that violence may also be situationally determined as other insti— tutions in his study found decreased levels of violence following the employment of tighter security methods. Vernon Fox suggested that such circumstances as oppres- sive custody,strict discipline and a general punitive attitude on the part of the line staff can also be a cause of prison riots.60 Sykes noted the riots in New Jersey were partially explained by high guard turnover and careless work assign- 61 ments among a variety of other factors. The commission which investigated the Attica riot also found that officer dis- satisfaction with their jobs contributed to the 1971 riot. In particular, dissatisfied experienced workers managed to leave the cellblocks to work in the towers to avoid contact with prisoners through a union practice of "bidding." This left inexperienced officers in charge of the inmates and contributed to the conflict and tensions among the inmates and the custodial force, a situation which later was con- ceded as disastrous.62 The most recent evidence of the link between officer dissatisfaction and violence has been offered by the 23 Governor's Committee which investigated several riots in Michigan's prisons during the summer of 1981. They found that the guard force at the State Prison of Southern Michigan, in particular, was highly dissatisfied with the inmate dis- ciplinary system and as a result of this dissatisfaction a number of officers took matters into their own hands and began an unauthorized lock down of prisoners, which they concluded caused the ensuing riot; The threatened unauthorized lockdown of the State Prison of Southern Michigan by prison guards the morning of May 22 was the immediate cause of the rioting there. Prisoners, upset by the possibility of spending the holiday weekend in their cells, took advantage of confusion between the administration and the line staff to seize control of cellblocks 3 and 4 in the Central Complex. While nearly 1,000 prisoners roamed the yard, fires were set in the counselors' offices and in the former officers' dining room and caused extensive damage. The inmate store was looted, and windows in several buildings were broken. Prisoners in the North Complex attempted to set fires in the module housing unit there, and succeeded in destroying one. ff Another organizational problem, although perhaps not as important as the riot outcomes, which can result from officer dissatisfaction is union organization and representation. Again as Jacobs pointed out, officer dissatisfaction with the "walk" policy change led to a situation where "guards flocked to join the union."64 While trade union development in of itself would not seem at first glance to pose a serious organizational problem, Jacobs found that such a movement is basically incompatible with a paramilitary structure 65 24 which is characteristic of many correctional organizations. He argues for example that taking orders is inconsistent with how unions view officer employment and illustrates this by describing the following situation; As the union argues that this is "just a job" and that "you're not being paid to be a hero," it can be expected that the guard will become less committed to an espirit de corps. In early May 1975, for example, hostages were seized at the Joliet prison. Tension was high at Stateville and the administration feared that a similar riot might be triggered. As the guards came off the 7a.m.-3p.m. shift, the captain asked for volunteers to work overtime (at time- and-a-half) in case of trouble. Only one man volunteered. Five years earlier it was reported that in similar circumstances guards demanded to stay on the job until the threat had passed.66 A project focusing on management-employee relations in corrections also found that in some cases union organizations were having an adverse effect on correctional programming. John wynne, author of the final report concluded that unions have hindered the development of improved inmate programs, have resisted due process developments and community programs on the grounds that such programming would have adverse safety effects with respect to the guards.67 In fairness to administrators, however, he also noted that the problems which may develop as a results of unionization and increased activism may not all be the fault of the guards since in fact "correctional managers are ill-equipped to handle the new demands made upon them by prison employee unionism and collective bargaining."68 Nonetheless, it is still apparent 25 that dissatisfaction by officers can and has resulted in increased union efforts and officer activism concerning his work environment which certainly can create problems for the organization's management. In addition to the organizational consequences of dis- satisfaction there is also some evidence, although quite limited, that stress and conflict on the job can affect correctional officers both mentally and physically. For example, Cressey pointed out in his study that "nervous break- downs were frequent” among guards."69 And as was noted earlier, Zimbardo and others also suggested that paranoid and pathological thinking patterns can develop among those assum- ing the role of guard. Brodsky also found that twenty-one prison guards which he studied developed symptoms of physical illness such as headaches, neckaches, backaches, gastrointestinal problems, cardiovascular disorders and vision problems as a direct result of long term stress associated with their employment.70 Brodsky concluded that these physical ailments were primarily due to the work of correctional officers and that even when these workers left their jobs, their various physical dis- comforts remained.71 In summary then, the outcomes of dissatisfaction among correctional officers may result in various organizational problems. Dissatisfied workers may leave this type of employ- ment in large numbers or have excessive rates of absenteeism. Such workers may adapt or avoid administrative directives, 26 participate in work slowdowns or otherwise sabotage organ- izational routine. They may also become more punitive and security oriented or aggressive toward the prisoners. In addition, negative reactions to the job may result in riot situations, or the incidence of other types of violence in prisons. In addition, there is also some evidence that correctional officer dissatisfaction can result in increased union activities and resultant organizational problems such as collective bargaining, breakdown in paramilitary operations and opposition to changes in prisoner programs and due process provisions. This is not to say that unions in and of themselves are necessarily negative outcomes of dissatis- faction yet the organizational problems associated with such groups have received some attention. Also, mental or physical disorders may arise in dis- satisfied officers and these disordersmay be serious and long lasting sources of discomfort for the individual officers. 4. The Dissatisfaction Problem Again, while the evidence is sparse and the conclusions previously discussed are speculative in the sense that they are based on limited and isolatedstudies or simple obser- vations by various writes, it would seem that correctional officer dissatisfaction is a serious problem confronting correctional administrators. While new officers appear to come to the job with 27 expectations of stimulating work and a certain degree of job commitment, they become frustrated and angry about their work, and express feelings of confusion and futility about the job they are asked to perform. As a result turnover and absent- eeism may be high and organizational directives may be dis- torted or ignored. Guards may react by becoming more punitive and security oriented toward inmates and such tightened custody can result in violence both on an individual level and group level within the prison. Also it has been suggested as a result of dissatisfaction officers may become rebellious on the job by ignoring or altering directives and they may also become more active in challenging administrative authority through union efforts. Also on an individual level long term dissatisfaction may result in personaldiscomfort among guards in the form of mental and physical illnesses. Thus, the costs of dissatisfaction among guards may be substantial for large scale correctional agencies. It has often been said that the two primary goals of modern corrections are the attainment of custody and control of inmates and the provision of programs leading to rehabilita— tion of criminals. In a situation where guards are highly dissatisfied with their jobs, the attainment of either of these goals is unlikely. As noted earlier, manpower short: ages can mean that certain rehabilitative programs simply cannot be run, and where absenteeism is high; even efforts at maintaining custody can be problematic. In addition, ‘where dissatisfied employees react by sabotaging programs 28 and directives and actually create circumstances for the disruption of the status quo, attainment of custody and rehabilitation as goals may also be unlikely. From the economic perspective dissatisfaction is also costly to correctional organizations in that worker shortages require continual recruiting and training of new employees. Furthermore, sabotage and violent reactions by inmates create economic losses for correctional agencies which in difficult economic times may be difficult to recoup. In addition, mentally or physically ill workers compound the manpower shortage problem and are also economically costly to correc- tional organizations. Thus, uncovering the determinants of dissatisfaction and developing courses of action to remove or minimize them would seem to be particularly important to the adult corrections field. By doing this it would seem more likely that the goals of corrections may be realized and the costs associated with employee dissatisfaction may be minimized. Thus, far "dissatisfaction" has only been spoken of in very vague and general terms. In the next chapter the concept of dissatisfaction will be defined and more closely investigated. Further, selected literature concerning the theoretical and empirical explanations of dissatisfaction among a variety of workers will be examined and more attention will be given to what various observers and researchers in corrections have to say about the causes of dissatisfaction among correctional officers. 29 Footnotes 1Edgar May, "Prison Guards in America," Corrections Magazine, (December, 1976), p. 35. 2American Correctional Association, Juvenile and Adult Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Paroling Authorities, (College Park, MD; American Correctional Association), 1981, p. xxiv. 3"Corrections Officer,” Memorandum, Michigan Department of Civil Service, Lansing, MI, p. 2. 4GreshamM. Sykes, "The Defects of Total Power," Societv of Ca tives, (Princeton; University of Princeton Press , I97I, p. 54-55. SHenry Burns and Spencer Miller, "General Responsibil— ities of a Correctional Officer," American Journal of Correction, (May-June, 1969), p. 40¥43. 6James B. Jacobs and Harold G. Retsky, ”Prison Guard," Urban Life, (4;l, 1975), p. 7. 7David Fogel, ”. . . We Are The LivingProof. . . , (Cincinnati; Anderson Pusblishing), 1977, p. 73. 81bid. 9Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 7. 10Erving Goffman, Asylums, (Garden City, NJ; Anchor Books), 1961, p. 6. 11Robert J. Brooks, ”The Role of the Correctional Officer,” American Journal of Correction, (May-June, 1969), p. 22. 12D. Briggs and J. Dowling, "The Correctional Officer as Consultant: An Emerging Role," American Journal of Correction, (26:3, 1964), p. 29. 13Richard Jessor, "A Behavioral Science View of the Correctional Officer,” Federal Probation, (March, 1963), p. 9. 14Ben M Crouch and James W. Marquart, "On Becoming a Prison Guard," in Ben Crouch (ed.), The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1980, p. 69—70. 30 15James B. Jacobs, "What Prison Guards Think; A Profile of tge Illinois Force," Crime and Delinquency, (24:1, 1978), p. 1 7. 16G.L. Webb and David G. Morris, "Prison Guard Conceptions," in Ben Crouch (ed.), The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1980, p. 153. 17Jacobs, op. cit., p. 187. lsIbid. 19Lynn W. Kinsell and Randall C. Shelden, "A Survey of Correctional Officers at a Medium Security Prison," American Journal of Correction, (January-February, 1981), p 20James B. Jacobs and Lawrence J. Kraft, "Integrating the Keepers: A Comparison of Black and White Prison Guards in Illinois," Social Problems, (February, 1978), p. 314. 21Joseph Roucek, ”Sociology of the Prison Guard," Sociology and Social Research, (20, 1965), p. 146. 22Lucien Lombardo, Egards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work, (New York: Elsevier), 1981, p.168T 23James B. Jacobs, Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Societ , (Chicago; University of Chicago Press), 1977, p. 179. 24Leo Carroll, ”The Frsutrated Hacks,” in Ben M. Crouch (ed.), The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1980, p. 310. 25Robert J. Wicks, Guard! Society's Professional Prisoner, (Houston; Gulf Publishing),—l980, p.62-63. 26Richard E. Farmer, "Cynicism: A Factor in Corrections Work," Journal of Criminal Justice, (Fall, 1977), p. 237. 27Carroll M. Brodsky, "Long Term Work Stress in Teachers and Prison Guards," Journal of Occupational Medicine, (February, 1977), p. 133-1387 281bid., p. 135. 29Eric D. Poole and Robert M. Regoli, "Alienation in Prison, " Criminology, (August, 1981), p. 268. 30Craig Haney, Curtis Banks and Philip Zimbardo, "Inter- personal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison, " International Journal of Criminology and Penology, (February, 1973), p. 90. 31 31Philip G. Zimbardo, "Pathology of Imprisonment,” Society, (March, 1972), p. 6. 32Robert H. Sebring and David Duffee, "Who Are the Real Prisoners? A Case of Win-Lose Conflict in a State Correctional Institution," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, (l3;l, (1977), p. 26-27. 33Suresh Srivastva, et. a1. , Job Satisfaction and Productivity, (Case Western Reserve; Department of‘Organ- izational Behavior), 1975, p. 25. 34Ib1d. 35E.E. Lawler and L.W. Porter, "The Effect of Performance 3n Job Satisfaction, Industrial Relations, (7, 1967), p 0-28. 36Edward E. Lawler, Motivation in Work Organizations, (Monterey, CA; Brooks/Cole PubliShing), 1973, p. 82. 37Gordon Hawkins, The Prison:Policy and Practice, (Chicago; University of Chicago Pres§),71976, p. 96. 38Fogel, op. cit., p. 72. 39May, op. cit., p. 35. 40Walter A. Lunden, "Staff Turnover and Salaries in Correctional Institutions," American Journal of Corrections, (January-February, 1967), p. 16. 41Crouch and Marquart, pp: cit., p. 102. 42Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 8. 43Srivastva, op. cit., p. 25. 44Lawler, op. cit., p. 85. 45Ibid, p. 150. Lawler suggests that recent research indicates that it costs an organization at least five times the employee's salary to replace him. The figure was derived by using May's 1976 survey information on turnover and salaries. 46John K. Hudzik, et. a1., Criminal Justice Manpower Planning;_An Overview, (Washington; U.S. Government Printing Office), 1980, p. 124. 47Jacobs and Retsky, o . cit., p. 10. 43Jacobs and Kraft, OE. cit., p. 281 32 49Lawler, o . cit., p. 86. 50Donald R. Cressey, The Prison, (New York; Holt, Rien- hart and Winston), 1961, p. 203. 511b1d., p 206. 52Irving Piliavin, "The Reduction of Custodian- Professional Conflict in Correctional Institutions," Cpipg and Delinqpency, (April, 1966), p. 125. 53Carroll, op. cit., p. 319. 54Jacobs, Stateville, op. cit., p. 177. 55Lombardo, o . cit., p. 166. 56Eric D. Poole and Robert M. Regoli, ”Role Stress, Custody Orientation and Disciplinary Actions," Criminology, (August, 1980). P. 219-220. 57Bruno M. Cormier, The Watcher and the Watched, (Plattsburg, NY; Tundra Books),_1975, p. Iii 58Cressey, pp. cit., p. 201. 59Howard Bidna, "Effects of Increase Security on Prison Violence,” Journal of Criminal Justice, (Spring, 1975), p. 38. 60Vernon Fox, ”Why Prisoners Riot," Federal Probation, (March, 1971), p. 12-13. 61Sykes, op. cit., p. 121. 62New York State Special Commission on Attica, Attica, (New York; Bantam Books), 1972, p. 126-128. 63Governor Milliken's Committee Investigating Prison Riots, Report to Governor Milliken, (August 4, 1981), p. 1-2. 64Jacobs, Stateville, on. cit., p. 177. 651b1d., p. 194. 66Ibid. 67John M wynne, Prison Emplqyee Unionism: The Impact on Correctional Administration and Pro rams, (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office), 1978, p. 228. 681bid., p. 230. 69Cressey, op. cit., p. 138. 33 7O Brodsky, o . cit., p. 135-136 71Ibid., p. 137. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE l. A Definition of Job Dissatisfaction A major problem in discussing job dissatisfaction, and satisfaction, is first defining what is meant by these terms. Unfortunately,, the varied usage of these terms makes theo- retical and empirical comparisons difficult, particularly when one considers that it has been estimated that by the early 1970's between 3,3501 and 4,0002 articles or disser- tations had focused on this topic. In fact, Wanous and Lawler suggest that one of the possible reasons for conflict- ing results in various studies of job satisfaction may be that different researchers are simply defining the term differently.3 Part of the confusion with these terms and their usage is that they are often used interchangebly with other terms such as "morale."4 For example, Ivancevich suggests to practitioners that differentiating between satisfaction, attitudes or morale really does not contribute to increasing practical knowledge and thus he uses the terms synonymously.5 However, as Carroll points out "morale" is more often equated with group concepts such as espirit de corps or enthusiasm rather than with individual attitudes.6 Clearly within this study it is necessary to be more precise in specifying what is meant by the terms job satisfaction and dissatisfaction 34 35 to avoid confusion resulting from using multiple concepts to indicate a particular phenomenon. Lawler reviewed job satisfaction literature since the 1930's and concluded that the term in general has been used to "refer to affective attitudes or orientations on the part of individuals toward jobs."7 Katzell further suggests that to the extent that there is any consensus on the use of the term, "job satisfaction is the verbal expression of an incumbent's evaluation of his job."8 Indicative of the use of the term job satisfaction in this general way is the definition used by Beer, Job Satisfaction is defined as the attitude of workers toward the company, their job, their fellow workers and other psychological objects in the work environment. A favorable attitude toward these ipdicates job satis- fact1on and v1ce versa. Locke reiterates the evaluative component of job satisfaction when he notes that while job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are complex emotional reactions to the job, observations of these phenomena are gained through worker introspection10 and appraisal "against the standard of what he considers good or beneficial."11 This general approach to the term job satisfaction appears to be rather broad in that satisfaction would appear to be a single phenomenon, or more technically it would seem that satisfaction is to be treated as a single variable based on definitions such as Beer's. However, Vroom suggests that, in fact, most investigators over the years have treated it 36 as really a complex set of variables.12 Or as Hulin and Smith point out, Later studies have indicated that job satisfaction is not a unidimensional variable but should be considered as being made up of a number of factors or areas of satisfaction.13 Steers and Porter put this issue a little differently by suggesting that there is an attitude on the part of workers called ”global job satisfaction” which evidence suggests may be made up of "at least partially independent subcomponents'.’14 Wanous and Lawler, in particular, feel that this distinction between overall satisfaction and subcomponents is important in that operational definitions of overall satis- faction assume certain combinations of what they call ”facet" satisfactions.15 For example, they point out that there are bascially nine ways in which researchers have developed models of overall satisfaction by combining facet satis- factions. These different combination schemes range from simple additive models through weighted discrepancy models.16 The debate about satisfaction with facets of employment and how they may be combined need not be discussed at this point since that is basically a measurement issue of rele- vance only when overall satisfaction is the object of measure- ment., In fact, some researchers simply ignore overall satisfaction completely as exemplified by Smith, Kendall and Hulin. This developed a measure of satisfaction which focused on five job areas; the type of work, the promotional opportunity, pay, supervision and co-workers. And as they 37 point out, their "job satisfaction index” is ”directed toward specific areas of satisfaction rather than global or general satisfaction."l7 Despite the fact that Smith, Kendall and Hulin ignore global satisfaction it still seems apparent that in defining satisfaction and dissatisfaction a distinction between broad and narrow considerations muSt be made. That is, these phenomena must be viewed from an overall perspective and a facet perspective as well. However, whether one speaks of overall dissatisfaction or dissatisfaction with certain aspects or facets of a job it is apparent that certain common elements need to be recog- nized in defining these terms. First of all, dissatisfaction clearly is an affective attitude, or more simply, a "feeling" based on an evaluation of conditions of employment. Further- more, as Dubin points out, these reactions are on the parts of individuals.18 Moreover, these attitudes are necessarily grounded within the particular content and context of employ- ment and can be considered time bound in that attitudes and situations can change. Thus, for the purpose of this study two definitions of job dissatisfaction are offered; Overall or Global Dissatisfaction - An overall negative affective attitude by an individual worker based on his evaluation of the content and/or context of his job at a particular time. Facet Dissatisfaction - A negative attitude by an individual worker based on his evaluation of one or more elements of the 38 content of his job and/or one or more elements of the context of his job at a particular time. Job satisfaction will be considered as favorable affective attitudes in both of these areas for definitional purposes. The question of whether satisfaction and dis- satisfaction are polar opposites on an attitudinal continuum or really separate attitudes will be deferred until further discussion of the theoretical perspectives on these attitudes and how these attitudes are to be measured. 2. Theoretical Pespectives on Satisfaction/Dissatisfaction In investigating the underlying theoretical perspectives concerning the causes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction it is readily apparent that there is no single commonly agreed upon lawlike generalization in this area. In fact, Wanous and Lawler suggest that "there is a serious lack of good theory about the very meaning of job satisfaction."19 Lawler alone goes even farther by stating that, Despite the many studies, critics have legitimately complained that our under- standing of the causes of job satisfaction has not substantially increased during the last 30 years . . . for two main reasons. The research on job satisfaction has typically been atheoretical and has not tested for causal relationships. Since the research has not been guided by theory, a vast array of unorganized virtually uninterpretable facts have been unearthed. . . One thing the research on job satisfaction has done is to demonstrate the saying that "theory without data is fantasy; but data without theory is chaos.20 39 Despite this rather strong conclusion Lawler nonetheless points out that there have been four general areas where theoretical work has been developed, those being need fulfill- ment theory, discrepancy theory, equity theory and the two— factor theory.21 Fulfillment theory appears to have developed relatively early in the study of job satisfaction as the major works in this area were accomplished during the early 1950's. In 1953 Schaffer summarized the basic theoretical perspective of the fulfillment approach when he stated, Over-all satisfaction will vary directly with the extent to which those needs of an individual which can be satisfied in a job are actually satisfied; the stronger the need, the more closely will job satisfaction depend on its fulfillment.2 In this study Schaffer examined the extent to which the ful- fillment of twelve different needs (such as recognition, affection and achievement) correlated with an overall measure of job satisfaction among 72 employed males. His basic finding was that indeed need fulfillment predicted overall job satisfaction, particularly when a person's two or three strongest needs were examined.23 Morse restates this perspective slightly differently when she hypothesized that, Satisfaction depends basically upon what an individual wants from the world, and what he gets. The least satisfied person is the one who wants a great deal and gets very little. The most satisfied is the one who wants a great deal and gets it. She went on to conclude after studying 742 clerical and 73 40 first and second line supervisors that "satisfaction is increased directly by the amount the individual's tensions are reduced and decreased directly by the amount of remaining tensions."25 In other words, workers with unfulfilled needs have internal tensions which have to be reduced through ful- fillment of the needs in order to create worker satisfaction. Thus, satisfaction under this approach is simply determined by jobs fulfilling the needs of the workers. However, she also discovered that simple need fulfill- ment was not the only factor which needed to be taken into consideration, which shed some doubt on the simple need theory. Individual differences in desires also had to be taken into account when predicting satisfaction. To illu- strate the importance of individual desires Morse offered the following example, Suppose we take two people who both have a need for five apples and one gets three and the other only gets one. We would expect that the man who got the greater number of apples will be more satisfied or less dissatisfied than the one who got less. On the other hand suppose a person wants five apples and gets three and another wants three and gets just that number. It seemed logical that the one who still has a need for five apples will not be as satisfied as the one who gets just what he wanted. Lawler suggests that the next theoretical perspective attempted to take into account individual differences in desires and can be characterized as discrepancy theory.27 He points out that many psychologists "maintain that satis— faction is determined by the differences between the actual 41 outcomes a person receives and some other outcome level."28 While he further notes that the various approaches under this general theoretical heading differ in their definitions of what is meant by the other outcome level he concludes that, "all of the theoretical approaches argue that what is received should be compared with another outcome level, and when there is a difference - when received outcome is below the other outcome level - dissatisfaction results."29 Katzell typifies this approach to satisfaction when he proposes a model which is that facet satisfaction = l-f((X-V)) /V) where X is the actual outcome received while V is the amount of a particular outcome which is desired. In other words, he suggests that under his model that people differ not only in the extent to which certain outcomes are needed but also in the extent to which they desire outcomes. Thus, for him dissatisfaction would result when there is a dis- crepancy between desired outcomes and actual outcomes received. As an aside, he also concludes that satisfaction is a linear combination of these various facet satisfaction discrepancies.30 Locke also assumes that discrepancies are the key to understanding satiSfaction and dissatisfaction but he takes issue with Katzell's approach by suggesting that this model ignores individual values and thus is in error.31 For Locke, actual outcomes are not what is important in assessing discrepancies rather it is perceived outcomes which are what is important. Or as he says, "Job satisfaction and dis- 42 satisfaction are a function of the perceived relationship between what one wants from one's job and what one perceives it is offering or entailing."32 In other words, in under— standing satisfaction and dissatisfaction one has to recog- nize that there may be discrepancies which occur in various facets of employment but these discrepancies among indiv— iduals result from individual value judgments concerning desired and actual outcomes. That is, satisfaction and dis— satisfaction are value responses to a situation and entail estimates of what is wanted, how much is obtained and the personal importance of obtaining something.33 Porter has also taken a discrepancy approach but in measuring satisfaction he too takes a different perspective. In his study of 278 management level workers he defined satisfaction as the discrepancy between what a manager was receiving and what he thought he should receive.34 While this approach is similar to Locke's in that value judgments necessarily were made my these managers, there still is a major distinction in Porter's discrepancy approach. That is that it is not so important to determine hOW’mUCh a person wants, rather it is important to assess how much a person feels he should receive. While discrepancy theory builds upon fulfillment theory in the sense that it takes into account the importance of individual values and recognizes that people do differ in their values, it is nonetheless vague on how people come to decide what their outcomes should be. In other words, the 43 evaluative component of satisfaction is not clearly specified. Lawler goes on to suggest that equity theory, while primarily a motivational theory, does shed some light on this perspec- tive of satisfaction.35 Adams suggests that it is not merely discrepancy between what is received and what is desired which creates feelings of fairness or satisfaction, rather there is "an element of justice" which must also be taken into account.36 More specifically, Adams feels that the amount of effort a worker puts into his work in comparison to what he receives is also an important element of satisfaction or dissatisfaction or as he defines inequity, Inequity exists for Person whenever his perceived job inputs and/or outcomes stand psychologically in an obverse relation to what he perceives are the inputs and outcomes of Other.37 Or as he puts it slightly differently, When the normative expectations of the person making social comparisons are violated - when he finds his inputs and outcomes are not in balance in relation to those of others - feelings of inequity result.38 Thus, for Adams it is important to recognize when looking at dissatisfaction that people also evaluate their efforts and their impact on outcomes or rewards. Furthermore, in addition to perceptions of the ratio of input to outcome, others in the social environment are compared to the individual worker in developing the attitudes of satisfaction and dissatis- faction. Zalesnick also stresses the importance of equity on the 44 job as a componenet of satisfaction or dissatisfaction as he states, "one important source of employee complaint and dissatisfaction is a sense of being wronged, or being dealt with unjustly in comparison with other people . "39 He goes on to outline what he calls a theory of retributive justice in which it is suggested that workers contribute certain investments to their work ranging from actual physical effort to psychological investments such as hopes or aspirations. If however, the outcomes of work are not in line with perceived investments then he suggests that feelings of injustice will resultf'0 Justice, on the other hand is spoken of in terns of the worker's feeling that his investments and rewards or outcanes are in line with one another. After studying clinical evidence an’ong department members in a marmfacturing company Zalesnik concluded that there was indeed "a relationship between dis - satisfaction and out-of-line conditions between rewards and social investments . "41 Thus , both of these authors concluded that attitudes of satisfaction or dissatisfaction result not only fran need fulfillment and reducing the discrepancy between what is desired and what is received but also frcm an evaluation of the worker's current situation in relation to others. Porter and lawler surmarize this by defining satisfaction as, the extent to which rewards actually received meet or exceed the perceived equitable level of rewards . The greater failure of actual rewards to meet or exceed perceived equitable rewards , the more dissatisfieda person is considered to be 1n a g1ven s1tuat10n. Deepite the obvious differences in these three previous approaches , there still appears to be a cannon assumption which is shared in all three. That is that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are really polar 0'3 he nAA um A v" 1". 45 extremes along an attitudinal continuum. For example, under fulfillment theory if needs are not fulfilled there is worker dissatisfaction while increasing fulfillment leads to increased satisfaction. Discrepancy theory as well assumes that when great discrepancy exists so does dissatisfaction but by reducing discrepancies satisfaction will increase. And finally, equity or distributive justice assmes that when things are unfair or inequitable that dissatisfaction results but by reducing the inequities associated with the job then satisfaction will increase. So these three approaches view the attitude of satisfaction/dissatisfaction based on the following model; l l Dissatisfaction Neutral Satisfaction Figure 1 - Single Factor Model The final theoretical approach suggested by Lawler views satisfaction and dissatisfaction radically different from the model cited above which is associated with the first three approaches. Two-factor theory, which was originally developed by Herzberg, Mausener, Peterson and Capwell in 195743 assumes that various job factors could contribute to job satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In other words, rather than suggesting that there is an attitudinal continuum along the lines of the other theoretical approaches, under this two-factor approach satisfaction and dissatisfaction were 46 considered to be different attitudes produced by different things. Some time after this initial proposal Herzberg summarized this conclusion by saying, the factors involved in producing job satisfaction were separate and distinct from the factors that led to job dissatisfaction. Since separate factors needed to be considered, depending on whether job satisfaction or job dissatisfaction was involved, it followed that these two feelings were not the obverse of each other. Thus, the opposite of job satis- faction would not be job dissatisfaction, but rather no job satisfaction; similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is no job dissipisfaction, not satisfaction with one's job. Under this approach then there are really two independent attitudinal continua which can be represented as follows; __A l ‘—1 Dissatisfaction No Dissatisfaction l I No Satisfaction Satisfaction Figure 2 - Two Factor Model The initial empirical support for this theoretical per- spective was published by Herzberg, Mausener and Snyderman in 1959.45 In their original study they interviewed a group of accountants and engineers employed in Pittsburgh and they attempted to identify major sources of satisfaction and dis- satisfaction on the job. The basic interview technique consisted of asking the respondents to describe critical incidents on the job which they felt led to feelings of 47 extreme dissatisfaction or extreme satisfaction, after which they also probed for the strength of these feelings and the effects that they had personally on the workers and on the company.46 Based on a content analysis of the critical incidents provided by those studied the authors concluded that indeed different factors contributed to feelings of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction. They concluded that there were basically five sets of factors which contributed to each separate feeling. For job satisfaction they suggested that achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement were more often associated with satisfaction.47 In other words, the subjects in this initial study when describing situations on the job when they felt exceptionally good often. referred to being personally recognized by supervisors, peers or others. They also indicated that the actual performance of job tasks was a source of positive feelings about the job as were successful completion of tasks or seeing the results of one's work, that is achievement. In addition, advancement in terms of change of status or position were often cited as contributing to satisfaction. Finally, the subjects also derived satisfaction from being responsible for their own work or being given additional personal responsibility or authority over others. On the other hand, they further suggested that job dis- satisfaction resulted from company policy and administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal relations and working 48 48 In terms of company policy and administration conditions. incidents reflected such situations as inadequate work organ- izationcm.lines of communication. Supervision factors referred to technical supervision as it was related to immediate supervisory competence or fairness. Salary in general was characterized in terms of unfulfilled salary expectations. Interpersonal relations were further seen to contribute to dissatisfaction in terms of situations where interactions between peers and supervisors were seen as negative in the critical incidents described. Finally, working conditions referred to negative references to the physical environment, amount of work to be performed, type of equipment utilized and the like. This original study has been replicated a number of times and a variety of researchers have demonstrated similar findings among a variety of workers. For example, similar results occurred in studies of military officers, engineers, scientists, housekeepers, teachers, assemblers, lower level supervisors, foremen in Finland, Hungarian engineers, professional women, agricultural administrators, hosptial 'workers, nurses, manufacturing supervisors, food handlers and management level personnel who were dxnm to retire.49 The consistency of these findings has led Herzberg to not only conclude that dissatisfaction and satisfaction are different attitudes with different determinants but also that determinants of satisfaction are primarily intrinsic to the job while the determinants of dissatisfaction are 49 extrinsic to the job.50 That is, for example, the type of work done can contribute to job satisfaction but on the other hand the conditions under whiCh the work is performed can lead to dissatisfaction. Under this theoretical approach then, a worker can simultaneously be dissatisfied and satisfied with his job because of different factors. It is apparent that Herzberg's approach to satisfaction and dissatisfaction focuses on the facet elements rather than global definitions. Thus, no attempt is made under this approach to explain the extent to which various factors combine to produce overall attitudes, rather the factors identified refer to specific situation effects on attitudes. Despite the intuitive appeal of this last approach to studying job attitudes it should be noted that it has come under vigorous attack from some writers. One of the strong- est criticisms was by Dunnette, Campbell and Hakel who concluded that, not only are the findings obtained under replications of this approach a result of the methodology utilized but also, there are ”grave flaws in the story tell- ing method" and the method of interpreting results is highly oversimplified and subject to all sorts of subjective interpretation. In addition, they suggest that interviews in and of themselves provide no safeguards against defensive or socially desireable responses by subjects. Further they note that the two-factor theory implies causality which really can not be inferred without resorting to the experi- 51 mental method. Their quite harsh conclusion is that it is 50 time to "lay the two-factor theory to rest, and we hope that "52 These criticisms will be more it may be buried peaceably. carefully examined in the later discussion of the methodology of this research. Thus, in summary there appears to be no universally accepted theory of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction. It would seem that fulfillment theory ignores values of workers and further elaboration of discrepancy theory, while account- ing for values, was somewhat deficient concerning the eval- uative component of attitudes. Equity theory looks more closely at the evaluation against certain standards but assumes as the other two do as well that dissatisfaction and satisfaction fall along the same attitudinal scale. Finally, two-factor theory assumes that dissatisfaction and satis- faction are distinct feelings which are determined by different factors associated with the job. So, while admittedly the observations in the criminal justice literature do not expressly look at correctional officer dissatisfaction in terms of any of these four theo- retical perspectives, it may be possible to assess the extent to which researchers in this field have implicitly taken one or more of the approaches as outlined in this section in suggesting causes of dissatisfaction. For example, if need fulfillment underlies assumptions about dissatisfaction we would assume that observations and studies would suggest that officers are dissatisfied with their needs for achieve- ment, security and the like not being fulfilled. Or 51 alternatively, if discrepancy theory underlies these observations then conclusions would most likely suggest that officers should be receiving outcomes at a different level than they currently are. Equity perspectives would probably lead to suggestions that officers are dissatisfied since their rewards are out of balance with respect to the inputs brought to the job. And finally, under the two-factor approach we would expect that the literature on correctional officer dissatisfaction would stress that factors associated with the context of the job of guard are the primary deter- minants of dissatisfaction. It would seem appropriate then at this point to more fully examine what various writers and researchers have suggested are the primary determinants of dissatisfaction among correctional officers in order to summarize the basic theoretical assumptions associated with this phenomenon. 3. Suggested Determinants of Correctional Officer Dissatis- faction In reviewing the literature concerning correctional officer job dissatisfaction it is apparent that most authors speak of dissatisfaction in a vague way. However, they also do not, in general, refer to dissatisfaction in the global or overall manner as defined earlier. Rather, the various pieces of literature tend to try to explain dissatisfaction from a facet perspective. That is, the literature focuses 52 on dissatisfaction with various factors associated with correctional employment rather than overall dissatisfaction with the specific job of corrections officer. More specifically, fifteen characteristics of correctional officer employment have been suggested as being conditions leading to dissatisfaction. These factors include; Salary, Isolation, Boredom, Work Environment, Reality Shock, Danger, Adversity and Uncertainty, Promotional Practices, Lack of Career Ladders, Unclear Behavioral Rules, Inconsistent Rewards, Role Conflict and Limited Role, Powerlessness and Alienation. While each of these various factors may be of individual interest it appears rather clearly that they all are consis- tent with the theoretical perspective as offered by Herzberg's two-factor theory. For example, Herzberg too, as noted earlier, found that salary was a significant contributor to dissatisfaction. In addition, promotional practices, lack of career ladders and behavioral rules, unknown rewards and role conflict can be thought of as factors which are associated with administrative policy and administration which Herzberg also found to be a major source of dis- satisfaction. The danger, environment, isolation and bore- dom obviously are conditions associated with working conditions of a correctional officer. Adversity, powerless- ness, authority corruption and uncertainty may refer to conditions which result from interpersonal relations with inmates and fellow workers and thus again fall under iHerzberg's model of dissatisfaction. And finally, alien- 53 ation and unclear rules result from lower level supervision which also is a characteristic of the two-factor theoretical approach. Thus, it is apparent that the observers of correctional officer dissatisfaction, while not explicitly recognizing it, treat the causes of dissatisfaction from the same sort of approach as utlized by Herzberg and others. That is, dis- satisfaction is primarily a result of salary, policy and administration, working conditions, interpersonal relations and supervision. It should be noted that the entire two-factor theory is not totally embraced by writers in the field of corrections since the assumptions concerning satisfaction on the job are not shared by these writers. However, that is primarily a result of the fact that virtually nothing has been said or studied about how satisfied officers are. As noted earlier, the picture of correctional officers at work is a gloomy one where dissatisfaction is the primary attitude expressed by these workers. Put simply, no one suggests that correctional officers are in any way satisfied with their work. This is a serious void in the understanding of correctional officer attitudes about employment which will be more closely addressed later in the chapter. In looking at what the observers and researchers say are the causes of dissatisfaction the various literature will be roughly summarized under the same basic headings proposed by Herzberg. 54 Salary - Sykes was one of the earliest observers of corrections to suggest that low salaries were a significant contributor to job dissatisfaction among correctional officers. In his study of the New Jersey State Prison in the 1950's one of his major conclusions was that, "there can be little doubt that the low salary scale accounts for much of the prison's high turnover rate."53 He went on to suggest that the largely transient guard force accounted for a great number of organizational problems for the New Jersey Prison which probably could be alleviated somewhat if salary dis- satisfaction were reduced. In a national survey of custodial officers throughout the United States in 1958 Lunden also concluded that there was a clear relationship between salary levels and separations from correctional work. In particular, he found that in areas of the country where salaries were low the turnover rate was high while in areas where salaries were high turnover tended 54 He later reaffirmed this observation when he to be low. conducted a similar study of Prison Officers in Britain and concluded that stability and solidarity of the custodial staff was in part due to "relative good salaries and retire- ment benefits."55 A number of years later the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training looked a little closer at the extent to which pay levels were dissatisfying elements of correctional officer work. Based on a Lou Harris survey of correctional personnel throughout the country it was found 55 that only five percent of those surveyed mentioned good salaries as attractions of their job while thirteen percent indicated that "low pay" was the major dislike of their 56 At first this finding would not seem too significant jobs. if one concluded that only thirteen out of a hundred workers thought that pay was a major factor in dissatisfaction. However, the Commission went on to suggest that this thirteen percent figure was really an underestimate of the actual level of discontent. As evidence that this figure was an underestimate they cited a further survey finding‘ that fifty- seven percent of all correctional employees who left the "57 field did so because of economic reasons, low pay. Jacobs and Grear also found that the amount of pay was a factor in correctional officer resignations in Illinois in that twenty-six percent of those who resigned from Stateville 58 However, they also Prison cited salary as a major reason. went on to caution that dissatisfaction with salary was probably not the only factor contributing to turnover of officers. That is, other factors leading to dissatisfaction, such as working conditions or family problems, may have been more important. However, it is still apparent that a large number of officers who left employment with this particular prison were indeed dissatisfied with their salaries. In summary flung it would seem that in the past correct- tional officer dissatisfaction with salary has been signif- icant. It has been shown to be related to turnover of officers nationally and in at least one major institution. 56 However, the extent of the actual dissatisfaction with salary is relatively unknown and the importance of low pay in deter- mining dissatisfaction has really not been thoroughly studied. Finally, dissatisfaction with salary is only one component of dissatisfaction as a number of other factors have also been suggested as being determinants of this attitude. Policy and Administration - In the literature on correct- ional officer attitudes toward administration and policies probably the sharpest criticisms by officers have been directed toward promotional practices and policies in correctional facilities. In particular, it would seem that promotional policies are often either lacking, not enforced or because of equal opportunity requirements they are viewed as discriminatory against the most senior officers. In a situation where policies on promotion are not explicit or are simply ignored favoritism seems to result and as Jacobs and Retsky found in interviews with thirty guards, "Claims of favoritism are a common complaint and another cause of "59 They also found that administrative policies resentment. had not been developed which could work to reward guards who demonstrated promise on the job. Or in other words, there ‘were no established career ladders for guards and that many of them simply view being a prison guard as a "dead end."60 In another study of the attitudes of 929 guards at the Illinois Correctional Training Academy, Jacobs further found support-for the view that officers are dissatisfied with ‘promotional policies. In this study he found that seven out 57 of ten guards surveyed stated that the promotional system was either "very unsatisfactory" or "somewhat unsatis- n61 factory. In addition, he also found that two-thirds of the guards felt that politics or who you knew was the main factor in determining promotions.62 Additional discontent with promotional practices and policies was found by Jacobs and Grear in interviews with 55 officers who left their jobs as guards. In this study they found that blacks complained that they did not have entree to top positions and cited promotions of white officers over blacks as evidence of favoritism. In addition, white officers who terminated employment cited the policy of the administration to appear that they were not discrim- inating seemed to lead to unfair promotion of blacks to higher positions even when they did not have equal seniority as other white officers.63 Based on these three studies then it would appear that correctional officers are in large numbers dissatisfied with the promotional practices and policies of the correctional administration. They are dissatisfied because of the promotional system itself, perceived favoritism and discrim- inatory practices. It should also be noted however that these results all came from studies within the same institu- tion and thus this level of dissatisfaction may only be situationally determined. That is, without replication in tither facilities it is difficult to firmly conclude the generality of dissatisfaction with promotional policies among wn he .n e‘v'c Thi ill 58 other officers employed elsewhere. A second area of administration and policy which has received some comment is the dissatisfaction among officers based on what they view as vague, inconsistent or non- existent rules for work behavior among the guards. That is, policies about how to perform one's job appear to further contribute to dissatisfaction. In a participant observation study in a medium sized facility Leo Carroll found that in fact the lack of rules for officer behavior can be an intentional policy approach for correctional administrators. In this particular facility he found that the administration, in an attempt to create a "home away from home" atmosphere, actually abolished rules governing inmate behavior which was evidenced by a quotation from the inmate guide book which stated, "we refrain from listing a series of do's and don'ts."64 This lack of rules he concluded, however, resulted in a sense of futility and frustration among the custodial staff and rule enforcement evolved into a highly discretionary and inconsistent activity. This sense of dissatisfaction with the lack of rules may be illustrated by a quotation from one officer who was particu- larly frustrated, That's the biggest problem today. There's no policy, no guidelines. You know I consider myself to be a well balanced person and I try to understand what they mean by not listing "do's and do'nts." But you just can't run an institution without a written policy of some sort. But fantastically enough that's what we're doing. wi 55 it n: ce in 1 AL 59 Further, even in institutions where rules may exist Fogel points out that these rules are not clearly spelled out and while the guard force may look like a military unit, "discretion and accompanying confusion reign nearly supreme. It is hard for a guard to know what will be rewarded."66 Lombardo reaffirms the problem with inconsistency resulting from unclear rules in his study of guards at Auburn Prison when he found that, ”Many officers also experience dis- satisfaction with what they perceive as inconsistencies in "67 As an example of this type of institutional procedures. rule inconsistency he noted that there is no standardization of rules from one institution to another. For example, certain goods may be purchased by inmates in one institution in New York while at Auburn these same goods may be pro- hibited. Jacobs and Retsky when looking at the problems of working as a tower guard also found problems with rules and policies affecting attitudes of these officers. In particular, they point out that the tower guard is placed in a uniquely uncomfortable position for it is his duty to prevent escapes and attacks on fellow officers through the use of lethal ‘weapons if necessary. Yet Jacobs and Retsky also found that rules that did exist with respect to the use of dealy force ‘were very ambiguous.68 Thus, the lack of administrative policies in terms of *written rules for inmates or guards appears to be another source of dissatisfaction for correctional officers. Even 60 where rules do exist a number of observers have suggested that they are ambiguous or unclear and this results in inconsistency and frustration among the guard force since they don't know what they are supposed to do nor if they will be rewarded for a particular action. The last source of dissatisfaction which can be viewed as falling within the general heading of administration and policy has been variously described as role conflict or role stress among officers. This refers to the observation that guards have been asked by administrators to fill basically two different roles on their job but since these two roles are so incompatible, personal conflict and stress result from attempts to satisfy policy directives to fulfill them both simultaneously. As noted earlier, in the early days of guarding prisoners the guard had a simpler task to perform on the job than he does today. His mission was simply to prevent escapes and to maintain order and silence within the institutions. But as Fogel points out, this mission slowly began to erode by the mid-to-late nineteenth century.69 By that time in addition to the task of security or custody the guards had to adapt to the growing influences of reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. Again Fogel ‘notes that over the years a variety of disciplines have entered the prison to ply their trades in order to effect individual change in inmates.7O This influx of "profession- als" seriously complicated the role of the guard, or 61 correctional officer, for now not only was his security function difficult but in addition he was also supposed to personally become invovled in the rehabilitation process. As Poole and Regoli point out, the introduction of the term "Correctional Officer” itself is a clear indication of the changing expectations by policy makers and administrators 71 Rehabilitation and treatment as of the guard's role. organizational goals, however, assume certain approaches to the processing and handling of prisoners. First, inmates in order to be rehabilitated must be treated individually. Individuality further implies there should be no hard and fast rules applying to everyone. Furthermore, treatment professionals should be able to apply their techniques in an open and flexible environment. However, these assumptions are in direct conflict with the prevailing custodial orientation within the guard's role. That is, in order to maintain order and security the guard has traditionally had to rely on rules and regulations. Flexibility and openness were threats to security and custody. Furthermore, inter- action and openness with inmates was thought to compromise a guard's custodial efforts. Putting this change in role slightly differently Jacobs and Retsky noted that the addition of the role of rehab- ilitation had meant that, "Inmates are to be understood, not 'blamed, and formal disciplinary mechanisms should be II72 triggered as infrequently as possible. Yet it was also .apparent to Jacobs and Retsky that directives on how to 62 perform the new rehabilitation role were often vague and this led to frustration among the guard force such that they either left the job of guarding or fell back on their security and maintenance functions since that was the only one on which they could be objectively evaluated.73 Thus, when administrative policy makers suggest that in addition to custody a guard must also assume an active position in the rehabilitation of inmates through relaxation of rules and acceptance of treatment professionals, as well as the mandated active interest in inmates as individuals, personal role conflict has resulted. The essence of this role conflict is that for the guard the two roles are basic- ally incompatible. Order and custody are to be maintained but within the context of flexibility and openness- obviously a contradiction. As Carroll notes, when such a conflict exists or when the officers' role becomes so confused the new role of rehabilitation or treatment is not afforded the same legit- imacy among guards as is the role of security. Or as he suggests, "They continue to refer to themselves as guards, to view their primary function as security and control, and to hold a custodial perspective on the nature of crime and the proper treatment of inmates.”74 Again while the evidence concerning the extent of role conflict is somewhat limited, Crouch found in a survey of guards in a southwestern prison that about sixty percent of those surveyed experienced some degree of role conflict.75 63 That is, six out of ten guards found the policies of rehab- ilitation and custody to be in conflict and incompatible. Lombardo also found some evidence of role conflict in his study of guards at Auburn Prison although the proportion indicating role conflict was somewhat less than Crouch's study in that only one-third indicated such conflict.76 Farmer also found that where administrators create policies which suggest that guards must perform both roles of custody and treatment that administrators may not realize that they are in fact creating a policy "that is impossible for the custodial officer to implement."77 Being put in such a situation could of course lead to dissatisfaction. He goes on to find in a study of 58 officers in different types of facilities that indeed role conflict developed from such policies and the guards adapted to this conflict by becoming more cynical about their jobs and the expressed marked alienation from both inmates and the supervisory staff as a result.78 Poole and Regoli found similar results in a study of 144 guards where they found that because of a shift from traditional custodial orientation policy toward rehabilitative or treatment policy orientations that the guards felt more powerless and isolated.79 Thus, where administrative policy within prisons has suggested to guards that they perform the dual roles of custody and reform it is apparent that dissatisfaction results. The policies being so incompatible lead guards to positions of not knowing what to do on the job because of 64 role conflict and they have been shown to exhibit a variety of attitudes indicative of dissatisfaction with their employ- ment. In summary then, it is apparent that correctional officers are dissatisfied with various facets of organizational policies and administration. In particular, they find promotional practices to be a source of resentment and view the job of correctional officer as a dead end because of the lack of career ladders. They also view the rules for work as being vague or inconsistent such that discretion and confusion result. And finally, where administrative policies suggest that the guard perform two incompatible roles the guard is likely to become frustrated and feel alienated from not only the administration but also from the inmates he is supposed to control. That is, officers may be asked to control and rehabilitate at the same time and not being able to do either effectively leaves the officer confused and angry with those making such policies and the inmates who ate one moment he must discipline and at the next counsel. Working Conditions - The next general area of factors which correctional officers apparently are dissatisfied with roughly fall within the category of working conditions. That is, officers in addition to being dissatisfied with salary and policies also are apparently dissatisfied with various aspects of the conditions under which they are supposed to actually perform their work. Within this general framework three basic facets emerge from the literature on correctional 65 officers. Those three basic factors are danger, the environ- ment itself and boredom or isolation. As one might logically expect working in an institution where murderers, robbers and other convicted felons are housed for long periods of time creates a situation where fear is prominent among officers. Aggression by dangerous men clearly seems likely, if not in reality certainly in potential and as Brodsky notes, "guards . . . are the most available target for this aggression."8O Jacobs and Retsky summarzie the dangerous nature of a guard's work by noting that "tension continually looms over the prison threatening to explode into assault or even "81 riot. This potential for personal injury is further confounded by the fact that guards are in essence personally defenseless, or a Jacobs and Retsky go on to point out, Within the maximum security prison guards carry no weapons because they might be overpowered by the greater number of inmates and have the weapons turned on them. Ironically, many inmates are armed or have easy access to lethal weapons like shivs, razors iron pipes, bats and broken glass.82 Dissatisfaction with the danger associated with the job of correctional officer appears to be rather commonplace as eVidenced by a number of studies. Jacobs found in his survey of 929 officers that when they were offered an unstructured question asking them to list the major dis- advantage of the job, 49% of those surveyed responded by suggesting that danger was the most important disadvantage.83 66 To measure the relative strength of this disadvantage Jacobs utilized a seven point scale ranging from (1) extremely dangerous to (7) not dangerous at all and found a mean response of about ”3" with 29 percent of the officers responding with a "1" indicating that they felt the job was extremely dangerous.84 Lombardo found similar results in his study of Auburn officers whereby about one-third of the officers interviewed referred to danger or tension as "the worst thing about the job."85 He further concluded that "most officers express the opinion that large-scale violence is a constant possibil- ity and can be precipitated by seemingly random events."86 Officers working in a medium security institutions also apparently are dissatisfied with the element of danger present within their type of employment. Kinsell and Shelden in their survey of 63 officers in a medium security prison in Nevada found that personal or general "security was the most important problem associated with their job."87 Replicating Jacobs' seven point scale concerning the inten- sity of the feeling of danger they found that 38.5% believed that their job was extremely dangerous and 60.2% of their sample fell on the "dangerous end of the con- tinuum."88 As again noted earlier dissatisfaction is often related to turnover and in their interviews of those separated from employment at Stateville, Jacobs and Grear found that danger was the most cited reason contributing to a decision on the 67 part of officers to resign. They found that 52% of those interviewed indicated that danger was an influence in their resignation decision.89 Thus, while the research is confined to a limited number of institutions, it is clear that officers are dissatisfied with the amount of danger associated with their job of guard- ing prisoners. They have variously referred to the danger on the job as being the greatest disadvantage, the worst thing about the job or the most important problem on the job. In addition, they also cite this as an important reason for leaving employment as a correctional officer. The second area associated with the actual working conditions may be roughly categorized as the environment of the prison itself. In particular, the large fortress type prison is unique in its environment as a work place and some have suggested that this work environment is a significant source of discomfort and dissatisfaction among officers. Almost five decades ago Roucek was one of the first to recognize that working conditions in prisons had to be improved as he observed that the hours were long and the work of a guard had to be carried out in ”irksome and confining conditions."90 However, one can easily conclude that this statement is an oversimplification.when applied to the work- ing conditions of correctional officers today. A large number of fortress type prisons currently in use in state correctional systems were built over a century ago when the prevailing prison philosophy required such massive 68 structures to house prisoners in small single cells. Today these facilities are often in poor physical condition, over- crowded and are outdated legacies of a past era. Yet they continue to be the work place of many officers and other correctional employees. Crouch and Marquart have rather graphically described what it is like to work under "ghettolike" conditions in these large maximum security prisons where as many as 2,000 convicted criminals are housed when they described what officer recruits were likely to encounter in the cell blocks; This concentration of life presents the new guard with an unfamiliar and at the very least distracting sensory experience as the shouting, radios and televisions playing and food trays banging; he smells an institutional blend of food, urine, paint, disinfectant, and sweat. Another kind of shock in store for the new recruit involves the sexual behavior of inmates. The unisex world of prison both thwarts sexual desires and offers aberrant sexual alternatives. . . (And they conclude) the more visable inmate homosexuality may provide the greatest reality shock for the new guard. Of course a number of guards are not put in direct contact with inmates on a regular basis but rather are given the task of providing for security in the form of preventing escapes from the perimeter of the institution. These officers often work in the position of perimeter or tower guard. Yet such a job, while removed from the reality shock of the cell block is hardly much better in terms of the environment within which officers must work. Jacobs and Retsky offer 69 another lucid description of such an environment; . . his lunch is delivered in a metal canister which is hauled up to the tower by rope. During the winter, coal for a 50-year-old pot-bellied stove is hauled up in the same fashion. The stove is inadequate to heat the tower because of wind leaking through the windows In the summer, the towers are always intolerably hot; the only relief is being supplied an ice container hauled up along with the food.92 While such graphic descriptions suggest that the working conditions of correctional officers are discomforting, to say the least, really little research has focused on the extent to which guards actually are dissatisfied with the working conditions of large prisons. However, it does seem apparent that under conditions where officers are expected to work in facilities which are old and deteriorated and where large masses of prisoners are grouped together that officers are likely to experience feelings of dissatisfacion. Again while this has not been empirically demonstrated perhaps the closest verification of this observation of the extent to which working conditions can affect attitudes of correctional employees is offered in a notation by Fogel concerning the Vienna Illinois Correctional Facility. This facility is relatively new having been built in 1971 and it is operated under a "suburban model" rather than a cellblock model since inmates live in rooms rather than in cells and there are no walls to climb or towers to shoot from. Depsite the high turnover at the nearby Stateville facility, the waiting list for prospective employees was 1400 people in 70 93 1975 at Vienna. Further, Fogel reports that an unpublished evaluation study demonstrated that this facility had a human- izing effect on not only the inmates but on guards as well.94 Again though, while it has been suggested that working conditions will affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of correctional officers, the evidence is limited. The final factor associated with the working conditions of officers and one which is thought to be a source of dis- satisfaction is the boring and repetitive nature of the job that officers perform. By and large the day to day activities of the correctional officer are rather constant and routine because of the people processing nature of their jobs. For example, the inmates are awakened and fed at the same times each day, sent to work in the same manner and told to go to sleep at the same time each day. Jacobs and Retsky note that in such a situation where officers main concerns focus on inmates being Vworked," "fed" and "housed" that the most obvious resulting character- istic of prison work becomes its "boredom and routine."95 Furthermore, they point out that the large fortress type prison is really an institution which is in most ways, in particular physically, isolated from the rest of the world. Where such isolation exists they suggest that the prison becomes a "closed and timeless society where days, weeks, and months have little to distinguish them. With the exception of infrequent riots, few exceptional happenings are likely to 6 occur."? CI 71 Within these isolated societies boredom is further compounded by the continuous repetition of tasks which are environmentally created. For example, the guard at the gate must continually open and close the gate to let inmates and staff move from one area of the facility to another. Like- wise, to assure that the environment is not disturbed through inmates escaping, the ritual of the count is carried on over and over throughout the workday. Based on the author's own experience the ritual of the count at night provides a clear example of the boring nature of the job the officer must perform. The night officer has absolutely nothing else to do except periodically make sure that there are the same number of bodies present in the locked cells as there were when he came onto his work shift. The dimly lit cellblock at night and the requirement that the counts be done regularly certainly creates boredom among the officers. In fact in Pennsylvania, and I suspect elsewhere as well, the night guards must punch time clocks at various points within the cellblock throughout the night as evidence that the boring nature of their work did not result in their falling asleep. The cell block guard is not the only person to be sub- jected to boredom and repetitive tasks. The tower guard as ‘well finds that the environment in which he works is also boring and particularly isolated. Another quotation from Jacobs and Retsky's description of the tower guard illuss trates how isolated and bored a tower guard really is; ff ( T (“f r—h (3 72 The tower guard is alone. Except for telephone or walkie-talkie communication with the security headquarters, he has no contact with other individuals during the eight- hour shift. It is forbidden to bring either a radio or reading material into the tower. Wicks points out that while some employees may welcome the boredom associated with their jobs, by and large, such a boring and repetitive environment is unappealing to most guards and serious consequences may result. In particular, he suggests that these circumstances may lead to negative defenses on the part of guards. Or as he observes, "Goals may be lowered in life; fantasy may be used to an extreme to escape the drudgery. Low grade depression or apathy may result. And alcohol or drugs may be used to help them get through the day."98 In the only study of correctional officers which touched on the element of boredom within the working environment, Lombardo found in his study of Auburn guards that more than a third of the guards stated that they had experienced difficulties with the boredom and routine associated with 99 He too found that adaptation to the boredom their work. of the work place led to a number of outcomes. The first he found.was that some officers reacted by developing what he called "prison stupor," which refers to guards simply turn- ing themselves off from the need for any outside stimuli 100 throughout their work hours. Furthermore, he noted that bOrEdom.and repetitiveness created a situation where guards 73 adapt by imposing rigid routines during the course of their work day in order to create landmarks by which they can measure the progress toward the end of the shift. This in turn though creates more repetition and in fact may compound the boredom encountered in the prison. In sum, while the evidence is again limited, it does appear that officers in correctional institutions are dis- satisfied with various working conditions associated with their employment. They find the work dangerous and see them- selves as targets of aggression against which they have little or no defense. Furthermore, the environment in which they work is isolated, outdated and in may ways a "ghettolike" atmosphere. Personal discomfort and isolation are also cited as contributing to dissatisfaction. And finally, the environment creates jobs in which boredom is prominent as is routine activity and repetition. Thus, officers are dis- satisfied with various working conditions and these various facets may each contribute to overall job dissatisfaction among officers. Interpersonal Relations - The next area of factors which officers apparently find dissatisfying can be roughly categorized as factors emerging from interpersonal relations on the job. In particular, correctional officers seem to be dissatisfied with interpersonal relations with the inmates themselves. It has been suggested by a number of writers that guards have to suffer through a great deal of adversity on the part of the inmates and despite the apparent legal 74 power associated with their positions in fact find themselves with their authority undermined by inmates leaving them in a situation of uncertainty and virtual powerlessness. Adversity on the part of inmates is of course associated with the aggressive nature of the individuals confined to prisons. As was noted earlier, the prisoners confined to these institutions are often aggressive and the guard may be the target of such aggression. This level of aggression and adversity is unique to this type of employment in that few other workers are required to interact personally with people who do not want to be institutionalized, do not necessarily want to abide by the institutional routine and in fact look upon the employee as a symbol of the authority which is keep- him isolated from free society against his will. Cormier notes the uniqueness of these types of interpersonal rela— tionships when he says, "Few individuals in a democratic society are exposed, day after day, year after year, to such paranoid thinking as are prison guards. They are constantly exposed to persecution."101 The type of adversity in interpersonal relationships with inmates should be distinguished from the type of aggression which may take the form of physical attacks or riots, however. This type of adversity refers to the hostile manner in which inmates personally act in their interactions ‘with officers. That is, repeatedly inmates interact with guards in a sarcastic and negative manner. A quotation from an interview conducted by Lombardo exemplifies the nature 75 of this adversity in interpersonal relationships with inmates; Being able to take a little guff, sarcasim and insults from the inmates. No matter who the inmate is, you're difficult to accept. Even if a guy asks you to do something for him, he says it in a sarcastic manner. I ask him to go away and come back later and he goes away cursing. A few days, he comes back and he's okay. After that I might see him in the hall or out of place and tell him to get where he belongs and he mumbles under his breath. To put up with this kind of stuff every day is tough.102 Adversity encountered by guards on the part of inmates of course is not always as blatant or open as these types of verbal challenges to the guard. Often such adversity takes the form of what Goffman calls "ritual insubordination." By this Goffman means that inmates in a variety of institutions create adversity in their relations with their keepers by placing a barrier between themselves and the guard and subtlely challenge the guard's ability to control them either 103 The most obvious sorts of individually or collectively. insubordination take the form of those described by Lombardo where griping, bitching and similar behaviors are not really designed to bring about any changes but merely are use as a vehicle to challenge the officer and to create adversity. The second type of insubordination, however, is more subtle but is also at least equally effective in terms of creating such adversity. This type of insubordination is accomplished through the creation of parody by way of strict adherence to the rules, often accomplished in small groups. 76 Goffman offers an example cited by Cantine and Riner to illustrate this type of insubordination; How to express comtempt for authority? The manner of "obeying" orders is one way . . . Negroes are especially apt at parody, sometimes breaking into a goose- step. They seat themselves at table 10 at a time, snatching 884 caps simultan- eously and precisely. Another form of insubordination associated with parody is the phenomenon of inmates labeling unpleasant or theaten- ing portions of their environment with nicknames which challenge the institutional authority. For example, again referring to a mental institution, the punishment block may 105 And finally, inmates be referred to as the "tea graden." may also react to guards in a manner whereby they remain aloof, rigid and cool in their interactions. While such insolence is not sufficient to bring about punishment on the part of the custodians, it is nonetheless another efficient manner by which inmates can project their rejection of the guard and his authority and thus create adversity in terms of the relationships which exist between the guard and the guarded. The evidence concerning the extent to which guards experience such adversity and perceive it as a source of dis- satisfaction is again limited. However, in Lombardo's study it was found that 28% of those interviewed suggested that the type of treatment they received from inmates was a source of 106 dissatisfaction with their jobs as correctional officers. Kinsell and Shelden also found that guards in a medium 77 security facility cited this factor as the second most important problem they had on the job, in that 21.2% of those contacted mentioned problems such as being taken advantage of and verbal abuse were important to them.107 Jacobs and Grear also found evidence that interpersonal relations with inmates contributed to dissatisfaction and turnover as 18.5% of those surveyed cited inmates as the group with which they had the most trouble with on the job,108 and 22% of those surveyed indicated that inmates were a contributing factor in their decision to leave correctional work.109 The second factor associated with interpersonal relation- ships with inmates which has been suggested contributes to job dissatisfaction has been identified as authority corrup- tion. This differs slightly from adversity in relationships in that adversity refers to authority challenging while authority corruption refers to the phenomenon whereby inmates do not simply challenge an officer's authority and control, but in fact find a means by which they can undermine and indeed in some cases virtually eliminate the authority the officer may initially have over inmates. May suggested that the traditional sterotype of the prison guard portrays the guard as a shotgun and billy club toting overweight man with a well chewed cigar clenched between his teeth who menacingly confronts prisoners.110 This image though really rests on cliches from decades ago 'but it nonetheless has often been offered in movies and even 78 in documentary reports of disturbances, an example being the media coverage of the Attica riot where the media focused heavily on the excessive violence among the police and the correctional officers in the retaking of the prison. This image of the prison guard implies that the guard has virtually unlimited power to control and manipulate prisoners and this authority can range from simple order to obey, physical coercion and ultimately if need be calling upon the state for whatever additional force may be necessary to control inmates ranging from the state police all the way to the national guard or other military forces. However, some time ago Sykes recognized that this image of the omnipotent guard with virtually unlimited power and force at his disposal was a picture which in fact had nothing to do with reality of the authority of the guard or correct- ional officer. Indeed, he suggested that the guards are "far from being omnipotent rulers who have crushed all signs of rebellion against their regime, the custodians are engaged in a continuous stuggle to maintain order - and it is a l."111 struggle in which the custodiansfrequently fai In fact life in prison is really a society in itself where inter- personal relationships do not rest upon authority and compliance but rather, Guards and prisoners become invovled in a complex pattern of social relationships in which authority of the guard is subject to a number of corrupting influences; it is only by under- standing the nature and extent of thie corrup- tion that we can understand the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of imprisonment in rehab- ilitating the adult criminal. d. S} de 79 Sykes goes on to identify three basic ways by which inmates can corrupt the authority of guards. The first is through friendship. Being involved in the day to day activities of the prison society the guard may view certain inmates to be victims of the prison organization in much the same way in which he the guard is victimized. Further, some inmates may be drawn from the same social situation as the guard himself and the guard may feel more closely related to the inmate than to other correctional personnel such as counselors and other professional treatment personnel. As a result the guard's so-called total power is not used since friendship leads to a reluctance by guards to impose their power on inmates with whom they become friends. The second way by which authority can be corrupted is through what Sykes calls reciprocity. As he points out the guard is evaluated by the extent to which he can maintain order and compliance within the cellblock but he must often do so without adequate rewards to present to the inmates for such compliance. Thus he must rely on the provision of other services to insure compliance and favorable review by his superiors. One of the most common ways by which the guard can do so is by ignoring minor offenses. This however again 'weakens his power for inmates then are allowed to violate certain prohibitions in turn for compliance in maintenance of order and the status quo. The last way in which authority is corrupted is through default, Sykes suggests. This occurs whereby guards 80 gradually transfer their own power and authority to those they feel they can trust. For example, cellblock runners often are asked to perform tasks normally assigned to guards, such as conducting counts, delivering the mail and the like. However, again through default the guard loses the absolute authority he is envisioned to possess.113 The problem resulting from authority corruption is that as Sykes suggest, "Authority, like a woman's virtue, once "114 Even if a guard seeks to regain lost is hard to regain. his authority, his efforts may be checked by a threat on the part of inmates to send a "snitch-kite" - an anonymous note to a guard's superiors outlining his past indiscretions.115 That is, once the guard's authority is corrupted be inmates he is subject to blackmail such that he is left with little or no power to exert control over his work environment. The inability to control the work environment obviously can result in feelings of dissatisfaction among correctional officers. Poole and Regoli found evidence that feelings of power- lessness were common among guards particularly where their 116 Lombardo position with respect to inmates had weakened. too found that correctional officer dissatisfaction centered around a set of concerns which he categorized as feelings of powerlessness. In his Auburn study in fact he found that about one-fourth of the responses in his interviews yielded themes of powerlessness and over 60% of the officers . . . 117 referred to powerlessness as a source of dissatisfaction. r—r’ "h 81 IE 1e 021 re 3a 81 It should be noted however that powerlessness was not solely a result of corruption of authority by inmates, it was also in some ways a result of supervisory practices within the administrative structure of the institution, a topic which will be addressed more fully in the next section. But there is evidence that interpersonal relationships with inmates within prisons is a contributing factor to over- all dissatisfaction with the work of correctional officers. Further, a number of interpersonal relationship factors are facets on the job with which the officers find certain degrees of dissatisfaction. Inmate relationships are often based on adversity and hostility on the part of the inmates. Further, even when adversity does not openly exist inmates may challenge an officer's authority through ritual insub- ordination by means of parody or other behaviors. In additflnh through interpersonal relationships with inmates a guard's authority may be corrupted through friendship, reciprocity or default. Loss of this authority then can lead to feelings of powerlessness and an inability to control one's own work environment. Loss of this power and the resultant feelings also can be viewed as a source of dis- satisfaction among correctional officers. Supervision - The final set of factors which have been suggested as contributing to dissatisfaction among officers can be grouped together under the heading of supervision. That is, immediate supervisory actions and the relationship between the guard and his supervisor can lead to dissatis- 82 faction on the job. In particular, the literature suggests that dissatisfaction may result from supervisors who treat correctional officers simply as objects, supervisors may be thought of as not backing their officers, supervisors may treat officers suspiciously in the same manner as inmates or they may create situations in which officers are personally degraded on the job. As noted earlier correctional institutions are often plagued with high absenteeism and turnover. These two factors have serious consequences for the relationship between guards and their supervisors. Supervisors of correctional officers must first be concerned with adequate staffing of the various positions which guards must occupy during any given shift. However, as Jacobs and Retsky point out, where such high absenteeism and turnover exist in such facilities as Stateville the chief guard must assume the position of putting bodies into the needed work slots and this constant pressure to fill gaps in the work force can result in the supervisory staff viewing subordinates as mere objects.118 In addition to perceptions of being treated as objects a number of authors have found that officers feel that super— visors do not give adequate support or backing to the guards ‘when it is necessary. For example, Jacobs investigation into 'what prison guards think found that a substantial number of those interviewed felt that they did not get sufficient back- ing as evidenced by a finding that twenty percent of those 83 in the study disagreed with the statement that supervisors 119 "usually support the officer." Jacobs also found that 32.1 percent of these officers cited relationships with supervisors as a major disadvantage of their work. 120 Lombardo also found supporting evidence that officers view relationships with supervisors as sources of dissatis- faction on the job. Officers in his study tended to be critical of a perceived lack of support in the handling of inmate disciplinary matters and further suggested that super— visors not only fail to assist officers in performing their 121 duties but actually work against such efforts. In addition he found that officersexpressed dissatisfaction with the amount of responsibility that supervisors gave to them and also felt that they had little opportunity for effective 122 input into supervisory decisions. There also appeared to be a significant degree of dissatisfaction with superiors in his sample in that 30 percent of those interviewed suggested that a major bother in their employment was supervision.123 Carroll found that incidents occur daily which tend to strengthen this feeling of not being backed and indeed that supervisors often betrayed line officers, or as he described on such incident, On one occassion I witnessed an officer break up a fight between two inmates. He waded in among some 25 spectators and separated the two combatants. He informed each that they were to be reported for fighting and ordered them to return to their cells. Later in the day he learned that the captain had returned them to normal status, and that no Disciplinary Board was recommended. 84 In addition to perceptions of a lack of support on the part of supervisors or comments of not being backed on the job, there is additional evidence that guards perceive the directives and supervision of their immediate bosses as often being contradictory and ambiguous. This is in some ways related to the ambiguity of rules in correctional institutions which was discussed earlier. But Poole and Regoli found that where guards perceive supervision in this way they tended to express sentiments of normlessness, powerlessness and iso- 125 lation. They also found in an earlier study that such a supervisory orientation contributed to role stress126 which again was pointed out as a source of dissatisfaction for officers. Not only do guards perceive inadequacies in supervision but they also apparently view themselves as being treated in much the same manner as inmates within the institution. Poole and Regoli as well as Fogel all cite evidence of this type of treatment which serves to personally degrade officers. Fogel's observation illustrates this type of treatment by supervisors; Higher echelon guards assume that contra- band smuggling is being conducted by lower echelon guards. Since the former hold power over the latter, they treat them as guards themselves are taught to treat convicts. Guards are "shaken down" or "inspected" on assignment to see that they are working and, as in the case of inmates, receive "tickets" for infractions. Jacobs and Retsky point out that in addition to these super- visory practices inmates may also mduawritten reports on 85 guards and in fact guards themselves are encouraged to write "tickets" on each other.128 In addition to Lombardo's finding that almost a third of the Auburn guards expressed dissatisfaction with relationships with their superior officers, Kinsell and Shelden found about 30 percent of those studied in a medium security institution found supervisors more sympathetic to inmate problems than to officer problems.129 Finally, Jacobs and Grear found that 54 percent of the former guards (73 percent of the non-whites) who left correctional officer employment within the first three months cited that their greatest difficulty was with 130 So again, in a limited number their supervisory officers. of institutions relationships with supervisors appear to be a significant source of dissatisfaction among officers in that they perceive that supervisors do not back them, limit their responsibility and input, give them ambiguous directives, and degrade them by treating them in the same manner as inmates are to be treated by guards. In conclusion, the literature on correctional officers has suggested a wide variety of facets associated with the job of guarding prisoners which officers appear to feel dissatisfaction about. The first set of factors fell within the topic of salary as this was shown to be a prominent area of officer dissatisfaction in at least one major institution and within a national survey of correctional workers. The second area was categorized as policy and administration. Under this are authors who have suggested that promotional 86 practices are significant sources of dissatisfaction and the lack of career ladders creates a feeling that the job of correctional officer is a dead end. Rules for officer behavior were also said to be incon- sistent, vague or nonexistent which further led to dissatis- faction and frustration among guards since they find it hard to know what's rewarded. Further, administrative policies which have suggested that guards should maintain dual roles of custody and rehabilitation have led to role conflict or stress among officers which has also been suggested as a source of dissatisfaction among guards. Working conditions are another element of correctional officer work which have been thought to contribute to dis- satisfaction. Guards have been described as being greatly concerned about the danger associated with their jobs, they may have to work in ghettolike environments and may be required to perform repetitive and boring tasks within that environment. In addition, correctional officers experience difficulty in their interpersonal relationships with inmates in that they are confronted daily with overt adversity as well as ritual insubordination. Further, even where their authority is not directly challenged they often fall victim to authority corruption by prisoners such that they are left in a position of having no control over their work environment. And finally, supervisory procedures and activities also contribute to feelings of dissatisfaction. Supervisors have 87 been described as not supporting discipline of prisoners by officers and indeed working against the officers perceived interests. Supervisory relationships are also confounded by the types of vague and contradictory directives issued. And too, officers are often treated in the same manner as inmates are treated in that they are searched and undergo the same disciplinary procedures as the inmates themselves undergo. Thus, it is apparent that while writers and researchers in the field of corrections, while not explicitly stating it, have nonetheless focused on the determinants of dissatis- faction in roughly the same manner as outlined in Herzberg's two-factor theory. That is, the same general areas of dis- satisfaction are cited in the corrections literature as would be predicted under the two-factor model. However, the two—factor model also assumes that employees can also be satisfied on the job because of other factors associated with employment such as achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement. It is useful at this point to examine the extent to which authors have adopted this model as it applies to correctional work in terms of satisfaction as well. 4. Suggested Determinants of Correctional Officer Satis— faction Based on the theoretical perspectives of Herzberg we 88 would expect that the literature on correctional officer attitudes and opinions would cite sources of satisfaction as roughly falling within the areas of achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility and advancement. While the information concerning the attitudes and opinions of correctional officers is generally sparse, there has been little investigation into the feelings of job satis- faction among these types of employees. In fact, in the review of the literature there were really only three studies which focused on this issue in any way. Jacobs in his study of "What Prison Guards Think" found in his interviews with 929 Illinois guards that most seemed to indicate some degree of job satisfaction. The evidence offered for this conclusion was that 40 percent of those interviewed described themselves as being very happy in their job and 50 percent described themselves as somewhat happy in their job.131 Jacobs went on to conclude that a major element of this feeling of happiness on the job was the work itself as evidenced by the fact that 59 percent of those interviewed cited "interesting work" as one of the main advantages of the job.132 Kinsell and Shelden also found some evidence that the work itself led to feelings of satisfaction when they found in their study of guards in a medium security facility that 69.8 percent chose the word "challenging" as the best phrase 133 representing their job. Thus, at least in these two studies there is some evidence of work itself having a 89 possible impact on feelings of satisfaction although the link is somewhat vague. In terms of achievement as a possible source of satis- faction Kinsell and Shelden also found some additional evi- dence of this possibility. In their study 61 percent cited the phrase "it gives me an opportunity to help someone" as 134 In other words, it would the best description of the job. appear that this group of respondents identified the ability to help as an achievement associated with their employment and thus a possible source of satisfaction. There is also limited evidence that responsibility con- tributes to job satisfaction as again pointed out by Kinsell and Shelden. They found that 57.1 percent indicated that "135 But again, the their job held "great responsibility. extent to which they liwugnzthis actually contributed to job satisfaction was not established. However, recognition was not discovered to be a source of satisfaction by Lombardo in his Auburn study. He found that only 16 percent of the guards he studied indicated that they were satisfied with the amount of recognition they 136 received on the job. In fact, he went on to conclude that "most officers believe that their work lacks opportunity for recognition, which is often a source of discontent."137 Advancement as well did not seem to be linked to feel- ings of satisfaction on the job as Lombardo found that only four of the fifty guards he spoke with cited advancement as the best thing about their job - none mentioned it as the 90 "most satisfying aspect of the job."138 Thus, while little evidence is available for support of Herzberg's theory in terms of correctional officer job satis- faction there does appear in the literature reference to achievement, work itself and responsibility as sources of satisfaction on the job. However, recognition and advance- ment do not appear to be touched upon as determinants of this attitude. Several additional factors associated with job satis- faction among officers were identified which under Herzberg's model would be more likely sources of dissatisfaction instead. Those additional factos are salary and job security. Jacobs found that 59 percent of this sample cited job security and 39.8 percent cited money as one of the three main advantages 139 Lombardo found similar of being a correctional officer. results in Auburn as well when he found that 60 percent cited pay as the best thing about the job and 60 percent also cited 30b security as the b€St thing about their job.ll'0 5. Conclusions In conclusion, while the evidence is limited it does appear that there is some basis in the corrections literature for viewing the sources of job satisfaction and job satis- faction under the same theoretical perspective as suggested by Herzberg under his two-factor model. There is evidence that job dissatisfaction may be 9l influenced by facet dissatisfaction with salary, organiza- tional policy and administration, working conditions, inter- personal relations and supervisory procedures and practices. On the other hand, there is also some evidence, although far more limited, that job satisfaction may be a result of facet satisfaction with achievement, work itself and responsi- bility. However, there were also some additional possibil- ities raised that salary and job security may be more impor- tant as satisfiers than as dissatisfiers. However, as has been repeatedly stated, such conclusions are speculative because of the slim empirical support offered in the corrections literature. In fact, the review of the literature has really only focused on a handful of studies which while not only being limited may also be challenged on methodological grounds, particularly in terms of the manner in which attitude measurement took place. For example, most of the studies cited focused their measurement of attitudes and feelings of job dissatisfaction on open-ended questionnaires or interviews. However, in examining the types of questions asked it is apparent that the subjects' responses could have been unintentionally biased toward the categories of determinants previously discussed. For example, Lombardo in his interviews about the possibility of administration and policy being a source of dissatisfaction asked the following question; How about the administration's policies toward officers. Do they bother you? 92 Such a question obviously raises the possibility of suggest- ing to the respondents that they may be bothered by policies when in fact this bother may be inconsequential in the normal conduct of the job. In general, the types of studies which have been done have suffered from other methodological problems as well. Most have been participant observation studies where conclu- sions have been based on researcher perceptions of attitudes or on conversations with officers. The other types of studies have looked at dissatisfaction among those already out of correctional work or address the issue based on pre- conceived notions of the determinants of dissatisfaction. Without methodologically critiquing each of the studies cited it is still apparent even if all are methodologically sound that a number of important issues have not been resolved in previous research and fluted a number of important areas of concern within dissatisfaction and satisfaction have not been addressed. Most notably the works on dissatisfaction and satis- faction have not systematiaclly examined feelings of officers within the definitional context outlined earlier in this chapter. For example, dissatisfaction and satisfaction as feelings are necessarily situational in nautre. That is, these feelings may be instituted within certain situations and these feelings may endure or dissipate. Further, such feelings could vary greatly in duration and intensity. How- ever, the studies cited treat dissatisfaction and 93 satisfaction in a vague global way implying that these feel- ings remain constant over a period of time and that indi- vidual situations are of little importance. Furthermore, the link between dissatisfaction and satis- faction and how a correctional officer performs his or her job has not been examined in the literature. Neither have outcomes such as personal health or other personal factors, and feelings toward other workers, supervisors or career commitment. And finally, these studies in general have not looked at the extent to which these feelings may vary across subgroups in the correctional officer population, although Jacobs recognized this problem some time ago when he suggested; In general it will be important to know whether the guards' attitudes, values and behavior are better explained by such background characteristics as age, race, and social class or by such occupationally specific variables as time on the job, work assignment, and rank. Thus, it may be that older officers tend to be less satisfied with their job and that more serious outcomes may result from this dissatisfaction since they may still yearn for the "good old days." Then too, dissatisfaction may vary by race in that black officers may not react to adversity and pressure by inmates in the same manner as white officers since the 'majority of inmates within large institutions are black. Females as correctional officers are as in other areas of employment entering into line positions for the first time and again their reactions to the job may be quite different 94 from the reactions expressed only by males in the studies already cited. Education as well may differentiate between varying levels of dissatisfaction and satisfaction in that the more educated officers may have the background to cope with the reality shock or the adversity and corruption of authority. Conversely, those with less education may be more inclined to accept the boredom and repetition associated with some officer job assignments. Veterans of the armed forces may also react differently in that they are used to the military organizational struc- ture, promotion problems as well as some of the administra- tive policies which for others may be sources of dissatis- faction. In addition, tenure on the job may affect these feelings in that adaptation to employment make take place during longer tenure such that those on the job a long time may not be as dissatisfied with certain circumstances as younger, less experienced officers. On the other hand, more senior officers may again yearn for the old days and be more dissatisfied. Finally, having relatives working in the correctional field could mitigate some of the extreme feelings of dissatis- faction and the location where officers live could also have an impact. That is, those from large cities may be more familiar with the behavior of urban inmates while those from a rural area may view adversity and danger from a quite different perspective. Of course all of these additional subgroup factors are 95 only speculative in the sense of having any impact in that they have not been systematically included in previous research. However, it would still seem important to investi- gate these additional possible sources of dissatisfaction and satisfaction and the outcomes that these feelings may have among different types of correctional officers. In summary then, this research will seek to more fully investigate the determinants of correctional officer satis- faction and dissatisfaction. It will look at these attitudes separately within a situational framework and will also seek to examine the intensity of overall satisfaction and dis— satisfaction as well as the duration of these feelings. In addition, the relative importance of the various facets which may contribute to overall dissatisfaction and satisfaction will be examined. Also, to further fill the gaps in knowledge about officer attitudes and behaviors, further examinations will be made of the outcomes of these attitudes on personal behav- iors, other attitudes and relationships. Finally, this research will also begin to satisfy Jacobs' call for more research into the variability in feelings and attitudes across subgroups based on age, race, sex, education, military experience, tenure, family member employment in corrections and community of residence. The next chapter will more fully examine the specific research questions associated with filling these voids in what is known about the correctional officer as well as 96 outline in some detail the actual manner in which the study was conducted and how the data were collected and analyzed. 97 Footnotes 1Walter R. Nord, "Job Satisfaction Reconsidered," American Psychologist, (December, 1977), reprinted in Don Mankin et. al., Classics of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Oak Park, IL; Moore Publishing), 1980, p. 344. 2Edwin A. Locke, ”What is Job Satisfaction?" Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, (4, 1969). P. 309. 3John P. Wanous and Edward E. Lawler, "Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology, (56, 1972), p. 95. aBonnie Carroll, Job Satisfaction: A Review of the Literature, (Ithaca, NY; Cornell University), 1973, p. 2. 5John M. Ivancevich and James H. Donnelly, "Job Satis- faction Research: A Manageable Guide for Practitioners," Personnel Journal, (March, 1969), p. 173. 6Carroll, op. cit., p. 2. 7Edward E. Lawler, Motivation in Work Organizations, (Moterey, CA; Brooks/Cole Publishing), 1973, p. 62. 8Raymond A. Katzell, "Personal Values, Job Satisfaction, and Job Behavior," In Henry Borow, Man in a World at Work, (Boston; Houghton Mifflin Company), 1964, p. 342. 9Michael Beer, "Organizational Size and Job Satisfact- ion," Academy of Management Journal, (March, 1964), p. 34. 10Locke, op. cit., p. 314. 11Edwin A. Locke, "Job Satisfaction and Job Perform- ance: A Theoretical Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (5, 1970), p. 485. 12Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation, (New York; John Wiley and Sons), 1964, p. 101. 13Charles L. Hulin and Patricia Cain Smith, "A Linear Model of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied ngchology, (June, 1965), p. 210. 1['Richard M. Steers and Lyman W. Porter, MOtivation and Work Behavior, (New York; McGraw Hill), 1975, p. 235. 15 Wanous and Lawler, op. cit., p. 95-97. 98 l6P.C. Smith, L.M. Kendall and C.L. Hulin, The Measure- ment of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement, (Chicago; Rand McNallY). 1969, p. 69. 17 18Robert Dubin and Joseph E. Champoux, "Central Life Interests and Job Satisfaction,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (18, 1977), P. 366. Ibid. 19Wanous and Lawler, op. cit., p. 102. 20Lawler, op. cit., p. 63. ZlIbid., p. 65. 22 Robert H. Schaffer, "Job Satisfaction as Related to Need Satisfaction in Work," Psychological Monographs, (67, 1963), p. 19. 23 2L'Nancy C. Morse, Satisfactions in the White Collar Job, (Ann Arbor, MI; University of Michigan), 1953, p. 4. 25 Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., p. 28. 26Ibid. 27L . awler, op. c1t., p. 66. 281bid., 291bid., p. 67. 30 31 32 Katzell, op. cit., p. 344. Locke (1969), op. cit., p. 323. Ipid., p. 316. 33Locke (1970), o . cit., p. 485. 3['Lyman W. Porter, "A Study of Perceived Need Satis- factions in Bottom and Middle Management Jobs," Journal of ,Applied Psychology, (February, 1961), p. 4. 35Lawler, op. cit., p. 69. 36J. Stacy Adams, "Toward an Understanding of Inequity," Journal of Applied Psychology, (67, 1963), p. 422. 37Ibid., p. 424. 99 38 39A. Zalesnik, C.R. Chirstensen and E.J. Roethlisberger, The Motivation, Productivity and Satisfaction of Workers: A Prediction Study, (Boston; Harvard University), 1958, p. 298. Ibid. 4011318., p. 291. 41 42Lyman W. Porter and Edward E. Lawler, Managerial Attitudes and Performance, (Homewood, IL; Richard E. Irwin, Inc.), 1968, p. 31. 43F. Herzberg, B. Mausner, R. Peterson and D. Capwell, Job Attitudes: Review of Research and Opinion, (Pittsburgh; Psychological Services), 1957. 44Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, (New York; World Publishing), 1966, p. 75-76. 45F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B. Snyderman, The Moti- vation to Work, (New York; John Wiley and Sons), 1959, p. 30- 36. Ibid., p. 320. 46Ibid. 471bid., p. 80-81. 48 49Frederick Herzberg, "One More Time: How Do You Moti- vate Employees?" Harvard Business Review, (January-February, 1968), reprinted in D. Mankin et. al., Classics of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Oak Park, IL; Moore PubliSh- ing), 1980, p. 263. Also see for additional citations for replications in addition to Herzberg's own work his discussion in Work and the Nature of Man, p. 92-167. Additional examples are also provided by R. Bloom and J Barry, Determinants of Work Attitudes Among Negroes," Journal of Applied Psychology, (51, 1967). P. 287-292 and G.R, Allen, "Sources of Job Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction,” Banking, (December, 1967), p. 64. 50 51Marvin D. Dunnette, John P. Campbell and Milton D. 'Hakel, "Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Job Dissatisfaction in Six Organizational Groups,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (2, 1967). P. 147-148. 52 Ibid., p. 70-74. Ibid. Ibid., p. 148. 100 53Gresham M. Sykes, The Society of Captives, (Princeton; Princeton University Press), 1958, p. 59. 5Z'Walter A. Lunden, "Staff Turnover and Salaries in Correctional Institutions," American Journal of Corrections, (January-February, 1967), p. 18. 55Walter A. Lunden, "Staff Turnover and Tenure in the British Prison Service," American Journal of Corrections, (January-February, 1969), p. 30. 56Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, Perspectives on Correctional Manpower and Training, (Lebanon, PA; Sowers Printing), 1970, p. 121. 57 58James B. Jacobs and Mary P. Grear, "Dropouts and Rejcts: An Analysis of the Prison Guard's Revolving Door," Criminal Justice Review, (12, 1977); reprinted in Ben M. Crouch, The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1980, p. 286. 59James B. Jacobs and Harold Retcky, ”Prison Guard," Urban Life, (April, 1975). P. 11. 60 61James B. Jacobs, "What Prison Guards Think: A Profile of the Illinois Force," Crime and Delinquency. (April, 1978), p. 191. 62 Ibid. Ibid., p. 10 Ibid. 63Jacobs and Grear, op. cit., p. 287-288. 6('Leo Carroll, Hacks, Blacks and Cons: Race Relations in a Maximum Security Prison, (Lexington, MA; Lexington Books), 1974, p. 52. 65 66David Fogel, . . We Are The Livinngroof . . . , (Cincinnati; Anderson Publishing), 1977, p. 101. 67Lucien X. Lombardo, Guards Imprisoned: Correctional Officers at Work, (New York; Elsevier North Holland), 1981, p.1125. 68 Ibid. Jacobs and Retsky, o . cit., p. 19. 69Fogel, op. cit., p. 73. 101 7OIbid., p. 103. 71Eric D. Poole and Robert M. Regoli, "Role Stress, Custody Orientation and Disciplinary Actions," Criminology, (August, 1980), p. 216. 72 Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 7. 73Ibid., p. 8-9. 74 75Ben M. Crouch, "The Guard in a Changing Prison World," in Ben M. Crouch, The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1981, p. 10. 76 Leo Carroll, op. cit., p. 59. Lombardo, op. cit., p. 137. 77Richard F. Farmer, "Cynicism: A Factor in Corrections Work," Journal of Criminal Justice, (5, 1977), p. 244. 78Ibid. 79 Eric D. Poole and Robert M. Regoli, "Alienation in Prison," Criminology, (August, 1981), p. 268. 80Carroll M. Brodsky, "Long Term Work Stress in Teachers and Prison Guards," Journal of Occupational Medicine, (Feb- ruary, 1977). P. 79. 81 Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 22. 82Ibid. 83 . Jacobs, op. c1t., p. 190. 841bid., p. 189-190. 85Lombardo, op. cit., p. 115. 861bid. 87 Lynn W. Kinsell and Randall Shelden, "A Survey of Corrections Officers at a Medium Security Prison," Corrections Today, (January-February, 1980), p. 41. 88Ibid., p. 42. 89 90Joseph Roucek, "Sociology of the Prison Guard," Sociology and Social Research, (20, 1935), p. 151. Jacobs and Grear, op. cit., p. 286. 102 91Ben M. Crouch and Jame W. Marquart, "On Becoming a Prison Guard," in Ben M. Crouch, The Keepers, (Springfield, IL; Charles C. Thomas), 1981, p. 73. 92 93 94 Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 18. Fogel, op. cit., p. 106. Ibid., p. 107. 95Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 13. 96Ibid., p. 14. 97Ibid., p. 18. 98 Robert J. Wicks, Guard! Society's Professional Prisoner, (Houston; Gulf Publishing), 1980, p. 60. 99Lombardo, op. cit., p. 133. 100ibid. 101 Bruno M. Cormier, The Watcher and the Watched, (Plattsbug, NY; Tundra Books), I975, p. 12. 102 103Erving Goffman, Asylums, (Garden City, NJ; Anchor Books), 1961, p. 315. 104 105 106 107 108 Lombardo, op. cit., p. 118. Ipid., p. 316. 1239-: p. 317. Lombardo, o . cit., p. 114. Kinsell and Shelden, o . cit., p. 41. Jacobs and Grear, op. cit., p. 108. 1°9gpig;, p. 286. 110Edgar May, "Prison Guards in America," Corrections Magazine, (December, 1976). P. 4. 111Sykes, op. cit., p. 42. 112Gresham Sykes, "The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation," Social Forces, (March, 1956), p. 258. 103 113Ibid., p. 259-267. Also see Lloyd w. McCorkle, "Guard-Inmate Relationships," in N. Johnson, The Sociology of Punishment and Corrections, (New York; John Wiley and Sons), 1970, p. l08-110. 114 115 Sykes (1956), op. cit., p. 261. McCorkle, op. cit., p. 110. 116Poole and Regoli (1981), op. cit., p. 268. 117Lombardo, op. cit., p. 120. 118Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 10. 119Jacobs, op. cit., p. 190. lzolbid. 121 Lombardo, op. cit., p. 121-122. 122Ibid., p. 122-123. 123 124 Ibid., p. 130. Leo Carroll, 0 . cit., p. 55. 125Poole and Regoli (1981), op. cit., p. 268. 126Poole and Regoli (1980), op. cit., o. 217. 127 128 Fogel, op. cit., p. 96. Jacobs and Retsky, op. cit., p. 12. 129 130 131 Kinsell and Shelden, op. cit., p. 42. Jacobs and Grear, op. cit., p. 277. Jacobs, op. cit., p. 187. l3?lpid., p. 188. 133Kinsell and Shelden, o . cit., p. 42. 134lhig. 135Ibid. 136 Lombardo, op. cit., p. 144. 137Ibid., p. 153. 104 138Ibid., p. 151. 139 140 141 142 Jacobs, op. cit., p. 188. Lombardo, op. cit., p. 144. Ibid., p. 181. Jacobs, 0 . cit., p. 196. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 1. Introduction As has been repeatedly mentioned in the previous chapters concerning the problem of correctional officer dissatis- faction and satisfaction and the reivew of the literature, very little has been discovered about the feelings of cor- rectional officers with respect to the work that they do. Thus, research on correctional officer job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction is still within the realm of explor- ation and description rather than prediction. Therefore, it is rather difficult to develop from the limited information available testable hypotheses about cor- rectional officers' satisfaction and dissatisfaction. That is, the traditional social science definition of hypotheses as "specific expectations about the nature of things, derived from theory,"1 or predicted relationships between two or more variables2 presents problems. This is important in a study such as this which seeks to fill knowledge gaps since in such an area very little is currently known. Thus, instead of traditional hypotheses, this study ‘will address a number of more general questions which were derived from the previously discussed review of the liter- ature. These questions will be outlined next in this chapter, then the manner of data collection will be described, 105 106 followed by the manner in which these data were analyzed, and finally this chapter will conclude with a discussion of the possible errorsassociated with this particular metholology and the implications such errors may have on the findings of this study. 2. Research Questions As noted in the discussion of the review of the liter- ature, writers in the field of corrections have suggested that the sources of job satifaction and dissatisfaction fall within the same general areas as suggested by Herzberg. Therefore, the following research questions concerning facet satisfaction and dissatisfaction were developed from this perspective. In addition, since little previous research has looked at intensity, duration or outcomes of satisfaction and dissatisfaction additional research questions were developed to address these issues. Finally, again since little research has looked at subgroup variability in attitudes, questions were also developed to assess this variability. The research questions coming from the previous review of the literature are as follows; A. Facets of Dissatisfaction and Satisfaction. 1. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify salary as a facet of job dissatis- faction or job satisfaction? 2. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify policies and administration as facets of job dissatisfaction or job satisfaction? 107 3. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify working conditions as facets of job dissatisfaction or job satisfaction? 4. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify interpersonal relations as facets of job dissatisfaction or job satisfaction? 5. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify supervision as a facets of job dis- satisfaction or job satisfaction? 6. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify achievement as a facet of job dis- satisfaction or job satisfaction? 7. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify recognition as aifacet of job dis- satisfaction or job satisfaction? 8. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify work itself as a facet of job dis- satisfaction of job satisfaction? 9. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify responsibility as a facet of job dis- satisfaction or job satisfaction? 10. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify advancement as a facet of job dis— satisfaction or job satisfaction? 11. To what extent do Correctional Officers identify other additional facets of job dis- satisfaction or job satisfaction? B. Overall Job Dissatisfaction and Job Satisfaction 1. Intensity a. How intense are feelings of overall job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction among Correctional Officers? b. What facets are suggested by Correctional Officers as being the most important contributions to overall job dissatisfaction and job satisfaction? c. To what extent are the facets of job dis- satisfaction associated with overall intensity of dissatisfaction among Cor— rectional Officers? 2. 3. 108 d. To what extentare the facets of job satis- faction associated with overall intensity of satisfaction among Correctional Officers? Duration a. How long do feelings of overall job dis- satisfaction and job satisfaction last among Correctional Officers? b. What facets suggested by Correctional Officers are associated with overall job dissatisfaction and job satisfacttion duration? Outcomes a. How do feelings of overall job dissatis- faction and satisfaction among Correctional Officers affect job performance perceptions? b. How do feelingsof overall job dissatis- faction and satisfaction affect Correctional Officers on a personal level? c. How do feelings of overafl.job dissatis- faction and satisfaction affect Correctional Officers feelings toward the higher admin- istration, supervisors, fellow workers and the prisoners or inmates? d. How do feelings of overalljob dissatis- faction and satisfaction affect Correctional Officer feelings toward their commitment to a career as a Correctional Officer? C. Variability Among Subgroups 1. To what extent do suggested facets of job dis- satisfaction and job satisfaction vary by age, race, sex, education, previous military experience, time on the job, family member employment experience and location of resi- dence? To what extent does intensity of overalljob dissatisfaction and job satisfaction vary by age, race, sex, education, previous military experience, time on the job, family member employment experience and location of resi- dence? To what extent does duration of overall job 109 dissatisfaction and job satisfaction vary by age, race, sec, education, previous military experience, time on the job, family member employment experience and location of resi- dence? 4. To what extent do outcomes of overall job dis- satisfaction and job satisfaction vary by age, race, sex, education, previous military experience, time on the job, family member employment experience and location of resi- dence? 3. Study Sample Subjects for this study were drawn from currently employed "Corrections Officers" at the State Prison of South- ern Michigan, more commonly referred to as Jackson Prison. The facility from which subjects were drawn has been called the largest walled prison in the world, although what is exactly meant by such a designation is unclear, i.e. the longest wall, the most acreage or the most prisoners? None- theless, the State Prison of Southern Michigan (SPSM), which opended originally in 1839, had an average daily population in 1980 of 5425 inmates, or as they are locally referred to, 3 "residents." In addition, a reception and classification portion of the facility housed an additional 416 residents in 1980.4 Overall the total population exceeded capacity in 1980 by almost 1,000 inmates making working conditions even ‘more difficult than would be the case under normal capacity. This facility is the largest single institution for housing convicted felons within the state of Michigan 110 although there are an additional fifteen other facilities which also house prisoners and are under the control and supervision of the state. Jackson Prison is administratively divided into several facilities which are all under the control of a single warden. In this prison the residents are classified and housed differently based on differing security risk levels. The Central Complex is the major max- imum security housing area while the North Complex houses residents of medium security classification and the South Complex holds those who are considered to be on trustee status. The basic line correctional officers, designated "Cor- rections Officers" in Michigan, at SPSM numbered 559 indiv- iduals as of September 12, 1981.5 However, it should be realized that this is not the actual number of officers employed full time since at any given time a number of these line employees are on medical or other leave. Nonetheless, the ratio of line staff to the total number of residents is approximately 1 to 100. Also it should be noted that when it is realized that these officers are spread across four dif- ferent shifts that this ratio is actually higher. Line officers in this facility are employed only in a limited number of positions throughout the institution. The primary employment position, as might be expected, is that of block officer.- However, in addition officers are also employed in gun turrets throughout the facility, on the roof as perimeter and security guards, at various gates for 111 control of movement as well as within the dining ares, the yards and in some of the shops and farming areas. Thus, these employees work in a number of positions and are exposed to varying security classifications of prisoners depending on the job location. It should also be noted that seniority through the process formal bidding as well as informal recog- nition tend to dominate job assignment. Initially an attempt was made to secure a total random sample of all the corrections officers employed within the study site. The initial sample consisted of fifty-five officers, or about ten percent of the employees at this facility. While it would have been more desirable to actually contact this initial fifty-five member sample on the job in order to explain the purpose of this study and to introduce myself, concerns were voiced by the administration of the ‘facility. In particular, one of the deputies suggested that he did not want me to talk to the officers on the job under any conditions. The primary rationale for not letting me into the facility was that it could jeopard- ize security, particularly when officers in the gun turrets or on the roof were contacted. The second strategy suggested then was to contact the officers at roll call. However, it was apparent that this would also not be feasible since a number of officers went directly to their posts before roll call and futhermore, since the sample was random, officers were spread across so many days and shifts that such a strategy would have been 112 rather difficult. Abandonment of this strategy, however, was based on the chaotic nature of the roll calls and the fact that a number of the officers wouldn't be there anyway. So, a final approach to contacting the initial sample was devised whereby letters of introductionand explanation were forwarded by the SPSM personnel department to each of the officers in the sample (see appendix for sample letter). Then several weeks later another letter was sent toithe officers after learning their days off and shift assignment. This letter indicated that I would wait for them after work in one of the employee lounges to introduce myself and to talk to those who had been selected in the sample. For two weeks this waiting for the officers after work was carried out with the result that I was contacted by only one officer. Thus, this approach was also abandoned. Later investigation found that many of those for whom I had waited were involved in car pools, were simply anxious to get home after work, had to work overtime or had some other legitimate excuse for not meeting me. Following the abandonment of this scheme another letter was sent to the original sample of fifty-five (again see appendix for sample letter) offering them the Option of merely filling out a postage paid post card with their name and telephone number so that they might be contacted person- ally at home instead. In addition, it was also felt that a nmnetary incentive might be helpful in luring more of the sample to participate; thus they were also offered five 113 dollars for their participation. As a result of this offer and the option of sending a post card, ten responses by officers were made out of the fifty-five that were solicited. It was apparent that the majority of the sample were either not interested in participating in the study or were somehow suspicious of the author's intentions. Later comments by some of the officers who were interviewed also suggested that a questionnaire survey administered five months earlier by another researcher had turned officers off with respect to research, particularly since some felt that such an interest was really tied to the disturbances and some also indicated that they had been insulted by the tone and wording of the previous research attempt. Thus, it was apparent then after this initial low response rate that a larger random sample would have to be drawn. So an additional one hundred officers were randomly selected. Letters similar to those sent to the original sample offering the monetary incentive and the post card option were sent to these additional officers (see appendix for letter). Again however, the response rate was quite low. Out of the one hundred additional officers who were contacted two had left employment at the facility and only nine more officers agreed to participate. It was obvious then after this second low response that attempts at total randomness in terms of subject selection would not be feasible despite the obvious implications that would have on the generalizability of the findings. Since 114 the sampling procedure had deteriorated into a volunteer sample, it was then decided to ask for volunteers among the entire population of corrections officers working at the facility. So again letters were prepared and forwarded to the remaining employees utilizing the monetary incentive and the post card response format. As a result an additional thirty-six officers responded for a total sample size of fifty-five. Failure to contact a number of these volunteers because of such problems as shift changes, not being at home, vacations and other reasons reduced the actual sample of officers to forty-six or slightly less than ten percent of the total number of corrections officers employed at SPSM. In addition to those who volunteered and could not be con- tacted, two other interviews could not be utilized since the subjects did not respond to the structured format. That is, two subjects would not answer the interview questions but instead used the interview as a means to merely express their complaints about their jobs. 4. Data Collection Collection of data from the resulting subjects focused primarily on an interview format. More specifically, since as was discussed in the previous chapter the researchers in corrections have implicitly addressed the issue of satis— faction and dissatisfaction from the same basic theoretical framework as outlined by Herzberg, it was decided that the 115 methodology for this study should be similar to that of Herz- berg. Thus, the basic data collection strategy consisted of an interview of subjects which revolved around the "critical incident" approach. This approach is far from a new technique of data col- lection. Indeed it was suggested by Flanagan in 1954 as a 6 It has since been method of developing job requirements. repeatedly utilized as the basis for data collection in the development of behavior anchored scales in job analysis in industry.7 However, Flanagan suggested that this technique might also be a useful method in determining employee atti- tudes.8 It has been thought that this method is particularly useful in employee attitudinal research since it relies on factual descriptions of events which lead to specific atti- tudes. That is, critical incidents are objective descrip— tions of actual events rather than descriptions of opinions, perceptions or judgements. The basic advantage of this approach than is that it develops objective factual descrip- tions of events which lead to certain job related attitudes rather than subjective interpretations of such events, which of course can be filled with a wide variety intended and unintended biases. Herzberg later in fact utilized a modi- fied version of Flanagan's approach in his research on dis- satisfaction and satisfaction among various types of workers. The critical incident approach as developed by Herzberg consists of having subjects describe specific incidents which happened to them on the job which led to overall feelings of 116 job dissatisfaction or job satisfaction. Or as Herzberg summarized this approach, We decided to ask people to tell us stories about times when they felt exceptionally good or bad about their jobs. We decided from these stories we could discover the kinds of situations that lead to negative or positive attitudes toward the job and the effects of these attitudes.9 The analysis of the actual reported critical incidents was accomplished through content analysis in order to identify facets of the job and environment which led to these per- ceived feelings.10 Results of Herzberg's study and various replications have alread been cited but it should be men- tioned that these findings were gained through this critical incident technique. In addition to the analysis of the critical incidents, questions followed the incidents to assess effects and intensity of the feelings of satisfaction or dissatisfaction.11 The data collection in this study utilized the critical incident approach as well, although the semi-structured format offered by Herzberg was modified to some degree. His format was modified in order to answer the previously out- lined research questions in this study. That is, the format was designed to develop critical incident descriptions, intensity levels, duration and outcomes for this particular employment group. This research effort was not designed to be a replication of Herzberg's previous work. That is, while Herzberg attempted to prove his two-factor theory through the 117 critical incident format, this research was not necessarily an attempt at further verification although the collection techniques were similar. As can be seen in Appendix E the interviews were designed to be rather structured in the sense that specific situations were to be described by the respond- ents and specific followup questions were offered in order to keep the interviews from deteriorating into mere "gripe" sessions. The instrument finally utilized resulted from an initial pre-test with three corrections officers from another Michigan institution. The pre-test found that there were no: significant problems in understanding the purpose of the interview and the basic format. However, some of the wording in the first draft needed to be modified in order to clarify some of the instructions. The changes can be seen in comparing the draft format with the final format in Appendix F. This final format was utilized with the entire sample of forty-six corrections officers. The introductory commentsfor the interview were designed to give the subjects basic background about the nature of the questions which were to follow and to offer them an opportun- ity to ask questions prior to the beginning of the interview. The subjects generally understood the purpose of the inter- view and questions which were asked usually revolved around issues concerning what was going to happen to the results following the completion of the study. Part I of the interview focused on the feeling of job dissatisfaction and began with asking the respondent to 118 describe a specific situation which occurred within the last year which led them to feel the most dissatisfied with their job. The one year time limit was imposed to make sure that the incidents had occurred relatively recently and thus were fresh in the mindsof the subjects so that the descriptions would not be too distorted as a result of the passage of time. The subjects had little difficulty in citing specific incidents and readily provided detailed descriptions of such situations. Following the descriptions several followup questions in Part I were asked. To insure that the incidents had occurred relatively recently the subjects were asked when the situa- tion had occurred. To measure the duration of the feelings of dissatisfaction the question of how long the feelings lasted was asked. Then to try to identify the relative importance of specific facets within the situation the sub- jects were asked to indicate the most important factor which they thought contributed to their feelings. And finally, a seven point scale ranging from neutral (1) to extreme dis- satisfaction (7) was presented to the subject in order to measure the intensity of the feeling. The seven point scale was admittedly arbitrary. Herzberg in his initial study had developed a twenty-one point scale to measure intensity.12 However, as will be noted later, subjects in this study could choose to participate and be interviewed over the telephone. It was felt that a seven point scale would be easier to communicate in a telephone interview than a longer scale. 119 A shorter scale might also have been used, but it was felt that variability might be reduced by further shortening the scale. Part II was designed to elaborate on the possible out- comes of the situations described in Part I. So, outcome questions were designed to see if actual job performance changed as a result of the incident, if they had been affected in any way personally, if feelings changed toward supervisors, the higher administration, fellow workers or the residents and finally if their commitment to a career as a corrections officer in any way changed(for example, increased desire to leave the job). Part III looked at the alternative feelings of job satis- faction. This section was structured in the same manner as Part I except that the subject was asked to describe a specific incident where he or she felt particularly good or satisfied on the job. The same followup questions were offered in terms of when the incident occurred, duration of feelings, importance of facets and intensity of feelings. In part IV the same outcomes were investigated as were in Part II. Finally, as was suggested in the previous chapter and in the research questions section, data concerning sub-groups were felt to be important in order to see if variations among groups could be identified in terms of intensity, duration, outcomes and so on. Thus, the final questions were designed to develop sub-group characteristics based on age, race, sex, 120 education, armed forces experience, time on the job, family member employment in corrections, residence and length of employment at this facility. After completion of the structured portion of the inter- view the subjects were then given the opportunity to add any additional comments or to ask questions about the interview. This occassionally led to citing additional incidents of dissatisfaction but more often led to describing opinions about what was needed to improve the job of the individual officer or what could be done to solve the problems of dis- cipline and management of the facility. Since the primary focus of this study was to assess objective factual descrip- tions of events leading to feelings of dissatisfaction or satisfaction, the additional subjective opinion oriented comments were not included in the data analysis nor are they discussed in the findings. After the subjects made their additional comments they were then offered a copy of the later results (which all accepted) and were again offered the monetary reward for participation. Eleven of the officers decided to accept the money. While the majority of the sample did not accept the reward, apparently such an incentive was helpful in gaining responses from some officers. However, later comparison of the critical incidents described by those who accepted the incentive and those that did not revealed little difference in the types of incidents described. Interviews with the subjects were conduCted in a variety 121 of settings. After receipt of the post card from the subject indicating that they would cooperate, phone calls were made to each of the subjects in order to answer any initial ques- tions and to set up times and locations for personal inter- views. Often the subjects preferred to be interviewed in their own homes. In addition, some of the interviews were conducted over coffee in local restaurants while some others took place within the employee lounge. In addition, where mutually acceptable locations and times could not be agreed upon, interviews were conducted by telephone. While ini- tially it was felt that face-to-face contact in a neutral location would be the best approach to insure openness in responses, it became apparent after only a few interviews that location was of little importance. Subjective appraisal by the author of the subjects responses did not reveal any more or less Openness occurred at any of the interview locations nor was there any indication that the use of the telephone interview was any more or less effective. About seventy—five percent of the interviews were eventually con- ducted by telephone. The majority of the interviews lasted anywhere from forty-five minutes to a little over an hour. Only a handful were under that duration and those were by several officers who simply could not under any circumstances think of a single situation on the job where they had experienced feel- ings of satisfaction, despite repeated prodding. The subject responses will be more fully described in the findings 122 chapter, but it appeared that their limited responses were not a result of being uncooperative but rather since they had such boring and repetitive jobs in the facility they could not realistically separate any one work day from another in terms of feeling better on the job. 5. Data Analysis As previously noted in the description of the data col- lection process, the primary data sources within the inter- views were the various critical incidents. In order to derive quantitative data from the incident descriptions con- tent analysis was performed on these descriptions. In order to identify which facets of employment were within the various critical incident descriptions a listing of all the various factors within each of the incidents was developed for the entire sample. For example, if in an incident concerning dissatisfaction a subject described a situation where he became involved in a confrontation with a resident a category was created as "resident confrontation." Each of these various factors were then combined into the same types of categories as were suggested under Herzberg's theoretical perspective. Those which did not appear to fit into one of these areas were given separate listings. But primarily these listed factors were combined into possible facet areas of salary, administration and policies, working conditions, interpersonal relations, supervision, achievement, 123 recognition, work itself, responsibility, advancement and other facets. In order to determine which category was appropriate for any given factor within a critical incident description def- initions similar to Herzberg's provided guidelines. These definitions are as follows; Salary - not specifically defined by Herzberg but obviously referring to wages or salaries for work being mentioned in the incidents. Administration or policies - either references to agency ineffectiveness, inefficiency, waste, duplication of efforts, and power struggles or references to policies having a detrimental or positive effect on the subject or co-workers. Working conditions - references to conditions on the job which led to inconvenience, inability to do the job and amount of work to be performed. Interpersonal relations - references to good or poor working or personal relationships with subordinates (in this case residents) or co- workers. Supervision - references to competence or lack of competence, criticism or favoritism by immediate supervisors or indications of good or poor interpersonal relations. Achievement - references to successful job completion, seeing results of work, not seeing results of work, solving problems or unsuccessful problem solving. Recognition - references to having work praised and rewards or not having work praised and being criticized or punished, either from supervisors, the administration, peers or residents. Work itself - references to work being boring, repetitive, varied, creative, easy or difficult. Responsibility - references to being able to do the job without supervision, being given respon- sibility or lacking responsibility. 124 Advancement - references to receiving expected promotion or advancement, not receiving promotion or being demoted. Other - references to other job related factors not fitting within the above outlined definitions. A more detailed listing of the categories and the types of responses within the various incidents can be found in the data codebook in Appendix G. To insure that individual bias was minimized in this content analysis, descriptions of the incidents were given to an academic colleague who was asked to independently judge where factors in the incidents should be placed in terms of the above defined categories. Results from this independent rating resulted in a seventy-four percent agreement (r=.67) with the author's content analysis judgements. Disagreements were discussed by the raters and conflicts were resolved in terms of agreement on the most appropriate categorization. While such discussion was potentially dangerous in the sense that one person could have dominated the conclusions, in fact these discussions generally revolved around clarification of definitions rather than judgements as to who was more correct with respect to category choice. In coding the factors which officerscited.as being the most important element in the critical incidents the same category definitions were used. Thus for example, if orders by a supervisor was cited as the major factor in the incident of dissatisfaction then this would be categorized as super- vision being the major source of dissatisfaction. 125 Length of the feelings of satisfaction and dissatis- faction were categorized in terms of the approximate number of days or months that these feelings lasted. Intensity of feelings remained on the seven point scale as presented in the interview format discussion. The specific outcomes cited after discussion of each of the critical incidents were also listed on cards and then categorized according to the following format; Performance - no change, negative change, positive change in perceived performance. Personal - no change, negative change, positive change in feelings. Supervisors - no change, negative change, positive change in feelings. Administration - no change, negative change, positive change in feelings. Fellow Workers - no change, negative change, positive change in feelings. Residents - no change, negative change, positive change in feelings. Career - no change, negative change, positive change in commitment. Background information categorization was relatively straightforward and can be more fully examined in the code- book in Appendix G as well. Following the categorization of facets, duration, intensity,outcomes and background information, these data were placed into a computer data file from which the descrip- tive and correlational findings were derived. The author personally entered the data, cleaned the file and performed 126 all of the analysis so as to minimize data entry or analysis errors . Data were then analyzed in the following manner in order to answer the research questions developed earlier in this chapter; Facets of Dissatisfaction and Satisfaction - Frequency and percentage distributions of facets within critical incidents. Overall Dissatisfaction and Satisfaction la. 1b. 1c. 2a. 2b. 3. Intensity level - Frequency and percentage distributions of intensity scale. Facet Importance - Percentage ranking of relative importance of facets. Facet association with instensity - Crosstabulation of facets with intensity levels. Duration time - frequency and percentage distributions of duration. Facet association with duration - crosstabulation of facets with duration. Frequency and percentage distributions of outcomes. Variability Among Subgroups l. Crosstabulation of facets with age, sex, education, previous military experience, time on the job, family member employ- ment and location of residence. Crosstabulation of intensity level with age, sex, race, education, previous military experience, family member employment and location of residence. Crosstabulation of duration with age, sex, race, education, previous military experience, family member employment and location of residence. Crosstabulation of outcomes with age, sex, race, education, previous military experience, family member employment and location of residence. 127 6. Possible Errorsand Their Consequences The basic assumption associated with the measurement of job satisfaction and job dissatisfaction among officers is that these two feelings or attitudes are on distinctly different dimensions as proposed by Herzberg. That is, it has been assumed that a person can be simultaneously satis- fied and dissatisfied with his or her employment. As was noted earlier there is some disagreement about whether or not this assumption is appropriate. That is, others who have studied attitudes toward work have assumed that satisfaction and dissatisfaction are along the same attitudinal continuum. Thus, if the assumption of a single attitude is correct the basic assumption for measurement of job attitudes in this study would be in error. So, trying to measure satisfaction and dissatisfaction separately as was done in this study would be a mistake. The implication of making such an error would be that I incorrectly measured the outcome variable under investigation. However, as was again eariler pointed out, the basic two-factor theory has been substantiated through replication of Herzberg's approach previously and thus it seems reason- able to accept this assumption of two factors although this replication was primarily done by Herzberg himself and his students. In spite of the numerous replications Dunnette, Campbell and Hakel have vigorously challenged the methodology and 128 techniques utilized in these replications. In particular, these authors argue that an approach such as the one being undertaken in this study is methodologically flawed. Their conclusion rests on basically three observations. In essence these observations are that interview data and anecdotal descriptions are highly subjective accounts of job events, that there are no safeguards in such a methodology to pre- vent defensive or socially desirable responsesand the two- factor approach appears to suggest causality when in fact causality can only be inferred from the results of exper- imental studies.13 Herzberg has replied to these challenges by noting that subjective responses, while possible in verbal interviews, certainly can not be eliminated through the use of non-verbal methods.14 That is, he would argue that questionnaires or other techniques still leave open the possibility that responses will be subjective and reflect subject perceptions of what is socially desirable to portray. In fact, he goes on to suggest that it is probably more difficult for a subject to conjure up an "appropriate" incident than to respond to an item on a non-verbal instrument in an appro- 15 Furthermore, he adds that the critical priate manner. incident technique if anything, is structured toward the avoidance of responses which will make the subject look good. For example, he notes that it would seem that if a person wanted to look good to the researcher he would suggest that dissatisfaction was a result of his lacking responsibility, 129 advancment opportunities and not being recognized.16 Yet, across the various replications non-individual factors such as administration, policies and so on are consistently described as contributing to dissatisfaction. So it would seem that from Herzberg's argument at least the technique is not as prone to socially desirable or subjective response as Dunnette suggests. However, should it occur that subjects have responded in such a subjective and appropriate manner as was suggested then obviously the data collectedmight lack internal validity and thus measurement of facets within the critical incidents could be distorted toward appropriate responses rather than valid ones. As an aside however, subjective perceptions by the author found no indication in the interviews that the incidents cited by the officers reflected in any way sub- jective nor intentionally biased responses. Furthermore, it would seem that if anything, descriptions of events were more valid than interviews which address only personal opin— ions and attitudes since subject bias could more likely enter into the latter. For example, in the actual interviews con- ducted the opinion comments following the formal interview clearly showed the individual biases of the subjects towards things like media coverage of the riot and so on, while the incidents tended to be devoid of blatant examples of bias. The final challengeby Dunnette concerning the causality implied by this approach must be agreed with in the sense that true causality can not be proven with certainty without 130 resorting to experimentation. However, as in a great deal of social science research this type of argument, while inter- esting, is nonetheless irrelevant since actual experimental designs can not be rigorously implemented. An obvious example would be to try to experiment with salary levels among correctional officers to find out how it causes dis- satisfaction - certainly this would be a design that would be difficult at best to implement. The implications of non- causality however do require a recognition that the descrip- tions and correlations offered may be spurious or a result of some other unidentified influence. Thus, when assessing the determinants of these attitudes I really am speaking in cor- relational rather than causal terms. Thus, causality in the strictest sense should not be inferred from these findings. Validity of the measurement of the feelings of dis- satisfaction and satisfaction was discussed previously, but again, if the measurement of these attitudes were incorrect, then the findings are also in error. Another issue which could affect the consistency of the findings is the reliabil- ity of the measurement, that is the extent to which the meas- urement can be assumed to be consistent over time. As men- tioned previously, in order to insure that the content analysis of the critical incidents was a reliable procedure multiple raters were utilized with a resulting seventy-four percent agreement for the facets identified in the analysis. Thus, for this portion of the collection at least, there is some evidence of relative consistency. However, the 131 remainder of the structured interview data collection was not subjected to reliability checks and could yield incon- sistent responses which would mean that data collectedduring the study could be different from those collected at another time. Another error may be in construct validity with respect to the outcome measurements. While this can not be empiri- cally evaluated there is always the possibility that when asking subjects to describe changes in their feelings which resulted from these incidents that such descriptions did not accurately reflect to what extent behavioral outcomes repre- sented the construct of mental changes in feelings. The final possible error, and potentially the most serious, is that the results obtained may be biased because of problems which occurred with the sampling strategy employed. As was noted earlier, subjects in this study, because of a variety of reasons beyond the author's control, could not be selected randomly. Instead subjects partici- pated in the study basically as volunteers. For a sample to be as representative as possible of a population it is desir- able to have as large a sample as possible and to select subjects in a random manner. Only through randomness it has been argued can sampling error be minimized such that find- ings resulting from the sample can be reasonably generalized to the population. Random selection also reduces the possi- bility that subjects who participate are systematically different from the population as a whole. Without this 132 randomness it is difficult to estimate sampling error and to determine whether or not findings can be generalized either to the SPSM officers or the total population of cor- rectional officers. But in addition to the descriptive and correlational statistics associated with the analysis inferential statis- tics were also utilized because sampling was necessary in this study. It should be noted however, that the use of these types of inferential statistics is based on the assump— tion that the sample was randomly selected which as stated previously could not be accomplished. However, statistical significance should be viewed with extreme caution since it is not apparent to what extent findings may actually be generalized to this worker population let alone the total population of correctional officers nationally. However, in order to see to what extent the sample appeared to be similar to the overall population of officers at the study site a number of summary descriptive character- istics of the total group of officers and those who volun- teered to participate were compared. These two groups of descriptive statistics are presented in Figure 3. Despite any similarities it still should be stressed that without random selection inferences to larger populations are merely speculative at best and grossly inappropriate as worst. In addition to the characteristic comparisons an addi- tional comparison was made between those who were initially ‘randomly selected to participate in the study and those who 133 Characteristic Population* Sample Average Education 13 years 13.6 years Average Age 28 years 37 years (Md=32) Race 12.9% Non—white 9.0% Non-white 87.1% White 91.0% White Sex 13.7% Female 15.9% Female 86.3% Male 84.1% Male *Population summary statistics provided by SPSM Personnel Department. Figure 3. Comparison of Sample and Population Characteristics later volunteered. This comparison was based on the types of critical incidents described as well as the intensity and duration of feelings of dissatisfaction and satisfaction to determine if the randomly selected group differed signifi- cantly from the volunteer group. It was found that the types of incidents described were in fact quite similar. For example, in the satisfaction incidents almost identical pro- portions in each group cited achievement facets. Mean levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction intensity were also quite similar as were descriptions of attitude duration. Thus, it would seem that despite reliance on volunteers, responses were not significantly different than those of the randomly selected group of officers. In summary then, the basic sources of error may be in the assumption concerning measurement of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as separate attitudes or feelings, the method of data collection may be flawed because of subjectivity, :hnternal validity may be suspect because of these two 134 previous possibilities and sampling problems could yield the findings distorted because of sampling error. However, despite these possible errors evidence of their existence is limited and since so little has been done empirically with respect to correctional officers such a research attempt can nonetheless be justified since it is exploratory in nature. 7. Summary In summary, this chapter has offered a description of the basic research questions which were investigated in this study, the method of data collection including subject selection and interviewing technique, the manner through which the data were quntified and analyzed and finally the possible errors and implications of those errors. The next chapter will present the findings which resulted from this strategy along with a discussion of them with particular emphasis on those findings which seem to show significance or which offer interesting potential for further study. 135 Footnotes 1Earl R. Babbie, The Practice of Social ReSearch, (Belmont, CA; Wadsworth Publishing), l979, p. 111. Dickenson McGraw and George Watson, Political and Social Inquiry, (New York; John Wiley and Sons), 1976, p. 154. 3American Correctional Association, Juvenile and Adult Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies and Paroling Authorities, (College Park, MD; American Correctional Association), 1981, p. 138. l; Ibid. 5Michigan Department of Corrections, Personnel Roster, September 12, 1981. 6John C. Flanagan, "The Critical Incident Technique," Psychological Bulletin, (July, 1954), p. 327-358. 7For representative examples see S.L. Johnson and W.W. Ronan, "An Exploratory Study of Bias in Job Performance Evaluation," Public Personnel Management, (Sept.-Oct., 1979). p. 315-323; Gary P. Latham, Charles H, Fay and Lise M. Saari, "The Development of Behavioral Observation Scales for Appraising the Performance of Foremen," Personnel Ppychol- pgy, (32, 1979), p. 299-311: Gary P. Latham and Kenneth N. Wexley, "Behavioral Observation Scales for Performance Appraisal Purposes," Personnel Psychology, (30, 1977). P. 255-268; Geula Lowenberg, “Individual Consistencies in Determining Behavior Based Dimensions of Teaching Effective- ness," Journal of Applied Psychology. (64;5. 1979), p. 492- 501; GordOn E. OTBrien and Daniel Plooij, ”Comparison of Programmed and Prose Culture Training upon Attitudes and Knowledge," Journal of Applied Psychology, (62:4, 1977), p. 499-505. 8Flanagan, op. cit., p 353. 9F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and D. Snyderman, The Motiva- tion to Work, (New York; John Wiley and Sons), 1959, p. 17. 10 ll Ibid., p. 40-43. Ibid., p. 141-142. 12Ibid., p. 142. 136 13Marvin D. Dunnette, John P. Campbell and Milton D. Hakel, "Factors Contributing to Job Satisfaction and Job Dis- satisfaction in Six Occupational Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, (2, 1967). P. 143-144. 14 Frederick Herzberg, Work and the Nature of Man, (New York; World Publishing), 1966, p. 131. 15 Ibid. 16Ibid., p. 132. CHAPTER V RESULTS 1. Introduction This chapter will present the findings obtained from the content analysis of the critical incidents of job satisfac- tion and job dissatisfaction which were described by the corrections officers at the State Prison of Southern Michigan. First the background characteristics of the sample will be described. Secondly the descriptive characteristics of the dissatisfaction incidents will be discussed followed by the results concerning intensity and duration of dissatisfaction plus the outcomes of dissatisfaction. Then the variability among subgroups in terms of dissatisfaction facets, intensity, duration and outcomes will be presented. Next the character- istics of satisfaction within the critical incidents will be presented along with the results of intensity and duration of satisfaction as well as the outcomes which were suggested as resulting from satisfaction. Finally, the subgroup vari- ability in terms of satisfaction facets, intensity, duration and outcomes will be discussed. Again it should be noted that the sample of officers which participated in this study was quite small because of reasons already outline. Thus, the results again should be viewed within an exploratory context. This is particularly important in terms of external validity. Since the sample 137 138 was so small, measures of statistical inference were quite limited. However, despite the problems of inference and the impact of the small sample sizeon statistical calculations, answers to all the research questions are provided to hope- fully stimulate further investigation into the issues of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among correctional officers. 2. Characteristics of the Sample Age - In the original data collection instrument age of the respondents was categorized in years. Responses to this question indicated that the ages of the respondents ranged from 24 to 65 with median and modal ages being about 32 years of age. The mean age of the sample was slightly higher, being 37, but this is obviously because the distribution was positively skewed with a number of older officers participat- ing which tended to inflate the mean age. The distribution of age was collapsed into other cate- gories which can be seen in Table 1. It is apparent from these collapsed categories that the age of officers is relatively evenly distributed in groupings of 24 to 30, 31 to 40 and over 40 years of age. The majority of officers how- ever were under the age of 34. This sample appears to be slightly older than the population of officers at SPSM in that the average age within the total population was 28 years. Race - Again in Table 1 it can be seen that the vast Age Race Sex Education Armed Forces Length of Employment Relative in Corrections Relatives Job Community SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Z. 34. 34. 31. 24 - 30 31 - 40 Over 40 White Black Other Male Female High School Some College College Grad No Enlisted Officer Less than 2 3 - 5 6 - 10 Over 10 years Yes No Officer Other Rural 139 Table l. E 15 15 14 40 2 2 37 7 ll 26 7 16 28 0 ll 17 8 6 9 35 6 3 10 Less than 2000 5 2000-10000 10000-100000 Over 100000 ll 17 l WO‘OJ-‘N WV U1U| \lNO‘U‘I OO‘P \ONO \DH UlU'IKO midi-4 Y'- 37 s - 10.6 Md - 32.8 R - 41 Mo - 32 95% C.I.- (33.8-40.3) X - 13.6 s - 1.3 Md - 13.6 R - 4 Mo - 14 95% C.I. - (13.2-14) Y - 5 s - 4.1 Md - 4 R - 23 Mo - 4 95% C.I. - (3.7-6.2) 140 majority of the officers in the sample were white (90.9%). This is not very unusual since as was noted earlier in the methodology chapter the large majority of the total number of officers working at SPSM are white (87.1%). The proportion of officers in the sample which were of non-white races also approximated the proportion within the population. In the sample 9.1% of the respondents referred to themselves as being from non-white races. Of the non- whites half were black and the other half were american indian or of mixed racial background. While it is apparent that non-whites are only a small minority within the correctional officer ranks the sample nonetheless reflects the same approximate proportion as exists in the population. Sex - Females are also a small minority within the study sample, accounting for only 15.9% of the total number of officers interviewed. But again this is fairly representa- tive of the population of officers currently employed at SPSM in that of the total number of officers employed only 13.7% are female. As an aside it should be noted that utilizing females as guards, or corrections officers, is a fairly recent phenome- non. Traditionally they have been excluded from the guard ranks based on the justification that such a job is too dangerous. As will be mentioned in later findings, this recent influx of females into a traditionally male dominated 141 occupation has had some serious impact on certain individuals in terms of their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with their job. Education - An unexpected characteristic of this study sample was that the majority of the respondents had completed at least two years of college. The average number of years of schooling however amounted to slightly over 13 years. In addition, all of the officers in the sample had at least a high school education and almost 16% had graduated from a four year college. As can again be seen in Table 1 when collapsing educa— tion into high school, some college and college graduate the majority of the sample fell into the middle category of having at least some college education. It would appear then that the sample has had some post- secondary education. In addition, this sample appears to compare favorably to the overall population of officers who were also reported to have an average educational achievement of about 13 years. Armed Forces - The majority of the sample indicated that they were veterans of the armed forces, all of them having served as enlisted personnel. As is presented in Table 1 about 36% of the sample had no military experience. No information about the military backgrounds of the total population of officers was available so it is not known 142 to what extent the sample data compare to the total number of officers at this facility. It is nonetheless apparent that the majority of those in this sample had been exposed to a military system of management, promotion and discipline. This too, as will be discussed later, could have important consequences in terms of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within the corrections organization which at least on the surface appears to be para-military in design. Length of Employment in Corrections - There was a wide range in tenure on the job for members of the study sample. Six individuals interviewed had a year or less on the job while at the other end of the scale two officers interviewed had been employed for over twenty years. Generally however, those in the sample were relatively new to the field with the majority having been employed in corrections for four years or less. The distribution of tenure on the job appears to also be positively skewed however. For example, the mean number of years on the job was five while the mode and median were a full year less. This is really not surprising though when one observes that the sample is also skewed in terms of age. Whether or not this sample compares favorably to the total population is once again unknown as a result of a lack of information on this variable. 143 Relatives in Corrections - Again in Table 1 it can be observed that the majority of those interviewed did not have any relatives currently employed in the field of corrections (79.5%). This proportion was again unexpected in that it is contrary to the popular image of the officer from SPSM as being employed based on family member contacts within the system. Perhaps 20% having relatives working in corrections is a large proportion in comparison to other occupational groups however. Of those who did have relatives employed in corrections their employment was also primarily at the level of officer or sergeant. Only three of those who had relatives employed by the correctional system cited other types of employment. Community of Residence - Another popular image of officers working in prisons located in remote locations is that they are primarily residents of rural areas. In fact, some administrators have offered the stereotype to the author of the correctional officer as one whose primary occupation is agriculture with corrections only being a supplemental job for financial security. If this sample is representative of the employees at SPSM however, this stereotype is false. While about a third of the sample live in communities which may be characterized as rural in nature, over 40% live either within the city of Jackson or in Lansing, both being moderate sized cities in terms of population. However, it is still possible that 144 those living in the cities could have come from rural back- grounds or lived elsewhere prior to this study. Years Employment at SPSM - All but one of the respond- ents worked at this facility ever since becoming employed as a corrections officer. The one other officer was only employed elsewhere for a short period of time within the Michigan system. Therefore, total length of employment was utilized as a measure of job tenure in lieu of tenure at SPSM since they are virtually identical. 3. Research Questions - Dissatisfaction A. Facets of Dissatisfaction; Question Al (Salary) - Contrary to past research no one in this sample cited salary as a source of dissatisfaction within any of the incidents. Therefore, apparently salary levels are at least adequate from the officers' point of view. This was partially confirmed when discussing possible changes in career with the respondents and a number of them suggested that they continued to remain employed as an officer because of the salary and security offered by the job, particularly during these difficult economic times in this state. Question A2 (Policies and Administration) - Policies 145 and administration was one of the two major sources of dis- satisfaction cited by the respondents in their critical incidents. Overall, as can be seen in Table 2, 70.5% of the officers interviewed made reference to administrative activi- ties or policies at least once within their dissatisfaction incidents. The primary facet cited within this area focused around actions by hearing officers. Hearing officers are those personnel who adjudicate disciplinary actions against resi- dents which are initiated by officers. For example, if an officer observes a resident violating a rule or regulation he writes a disciplinary report (in the jargon, a "ticket") and the resident has an administrative hearing to determine guilt or innocence. Out of all of the respondents 20.4% indicated that letting a resident off at the hearing or not believing the officer contributed to their feelings of dissatisfaction. Respondents which made reference to this facet of employment typically described an incident where they felt that they were appropriately enforcing the rules and regulations and the hearing officers found the residents not guilty based on what the officers perceived to be "mere technicalities." An example of such an incident was where a "ticket" was thrown out because the officer had supposedly written down the wrong cell number on the report. The second most common reference within incidents to policies and administration centered around concerns with a lack of administrative action. Out of all the respondents ‘146 Aeo.ev N -- xNo.oc o eoeoo ANw.ov m 1:: + ANo.NV H ucoamocm>p< ANo.ov o + aNo.NV H huwawnflmcoemom ANo.eV N .. ++++++++++++ ANo.Hmv NH mamouH xuoz ANo.ov o +++++++++++++ ANN.omv ma coauwcwoomm ANo.ov o +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANH.HNV em udofim>ow£o< ANN.mqV 0H uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu “No.ov o cowmfl>poesm ANm.oev Hm ............................... +++++++++++++++++++++ ANm.mmV Hm mcowumaom HmGOmHoeHoucH ANm.oqv ma uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ++ ANm.mv N mCOHuHoaoo wcHxHoz ANm.onV Hm uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu ++ ANm.mv N coaumuumwcflap< paw mofloflaom Aoeuzv Coauoomoaomomae Ammuzv coauommoaumm ZOHHu