Criminal Justice

10.1177/1043986205285084Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeHogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors

The Impact of Occupational Stressors on Correctional Staff Organizational Commitment A Preliminary Study

Nancy L. Hogan Ferris State University, Michigan

Eric G. Lambert Morris Jenkins Suzanne Wambold University of Toledo, Ohio

Correctional staff are the driving force of any correctional facility. Identification of the forces that shape job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff is necessary for correctional institutions to succeed in their missions. There is a growing body of literature focused on the antecedents of job satisfaction; however, very little liter- ature has focused on the antecedents of organizational commitment. The effects of the occupational stressors of role ambiguity, role conflict, perceived dangerousness of the job, and two forms of work-family conflict (i.e., work on family conflict and family on work conflict) on organizational commitment were examined. Based on ordinary least squares regression results, role ambiguity, role conflict, and work on family conflict had statistically significant effects. Dangerousness and family on work conflict had nonsignificant effects.

Keywords: occupational stressors; organizational commitment; role ambiguity; role conflict; perceived dangerousness; work-family conflict

In 1991, Poole and Pogrebin wrote, “We should be asking what the organization means to the worker instead of what the worker means to the organization” (p. 170).

Their call for more research on how the work environment affects correctional staff has been tied to a significant increase in the amount of research on correctional staff. Although providing critical, salient information, this research has been limited in its scope, largely focusing on correctional staff job stress and job satisfaction. Both have

44

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Volume 22 Number 1 February 2006 44-62

© 2006 Sage Publications 10.1177/1043986205285084

http://ccj.sagepub.com hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors’ Note: Nancy Hogan and Eric Lambert contributed equally to this article. The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

a significant effect on employees, as reviewed in Lambert, Hogan, and Barton (2002b) for correctional job satisfaction and Armstrong and Griffin (2004) for correctional job stress. High levels of job stress have been linked to serious negative outcomes, such as premature death, health problems, illness, mental health problems, social problems, and decreased job performance (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987; Woodruff, 1993). High levels of job satisfaction have been associated with positive outcomes, such as greater support for social rehabilitation of inmates (Kerce, Magnusson, & Rudolph, 1994), whereas low levels of job satisfaction are related to burnout, absenteeism, turn- over intent, and actual turnover (Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert et al., 2002b; White- head & Lindquist, 1986). Although both correctional staff job stress and job satisfac- tion warrant the empirical attention they have received to date, they are not the only correctional worker attitudes that need to be explored. Organizational commitment is a salient employee attitude that has received little attention in the correctional literature.

Organizational commitment is critical for the success of any organization. As Lin- coln and Kalleberg (1990) contend, “The committed employee’s involvement in the organization takes on moral overtones, and his [or her] stake extends beyond the satis- faction of merely personal interest in employment, income, and intrinsically reward- ing work” (p. 22). Organizational commitment has been linked to positive correctional staff behaviors, such as higher levels of job performance (Culliver, Sigler, & McNeely, 1991), and inversely linked to negative correctional staff worker behaviors, such as turnover (Camp, 1994; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992). Without dedicated, committed staff, a correctional organization will ultimately fail. Thus, it is crucial to identify ante- cedents of correctional staff organizational commitment. Yet, little research has been done in this area. This is especially true when looking at the effect of occupational stressors on the commitment of correctional staff.

Occupational stressors are more than job stress. Job stress is generally defined as an employee’s feelings of job-related hardness, tension, anxiety, frustration, worry, emo- tional exhaustion, and distress (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). Thus, job stress is usually seen as the outcomes of stressors. Occupational stressors are the workplace stimuli that cause employees to experience job stress. As Cullen et al. (1985) pointed out, stressors are “conditions that place excessive/unusual demands on a person and are capable of engendering psychological discomfort (that is, stress, physiological pathology, and/or social disability)” (p. 507). It is unclear what, if any, effect occupational stressors have on the organizational commitment of correctional workers. Therefore, this explor- atory study examined the effect of the occupational stressors of role ambiguity, role conflict, perceived dangerousness, and work-family conflict on the organizational commitment of correctional staff. Whereas research has shown that occupational stressors are often negatively related to correctional staff job satisfaction, it is unclear whether occupational stressors have an effect on correctional staff organizational commitment.

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 45

Literature Review

The review of the literature begins with a discussion of organizational commitment and the findings of past studies on correctional staff organizational commitment. Due to the lack of research on the effect of occupational stressors on correctional staff orga- nizational commitment, the research on the effects of occupational stressors on job satisfaction were reviewed so as to gain a foundation of how occupational stressors might affect organizational commitment of correctional employees.

Organizational Commitment and Correctional Staff Research Findings

Organizational commitment is generally defined as having loyalty to the employ- ing organization, identifying with the employing organization and its core values (i.e., pride in the organization and internalization of the goals of the organization), and having a cognitive desire for meaningful involvement in the employing organization (Cook & Wall, 1980; Lambert, Barton, & Hogan, 1999; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). Organizational commitment is a global concept. It is much more than just a bond to the job or a work group. It is a commitment to the whole employing organization.

There is a small but growing body of research that has examined the antecedents of correctional staff organizational commitment. Among correctional staff at a federal facility in New York City, it was found that trust in management was positively associ- ated with commitment to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (i.e., agency commitment; Kane, Saylor, & Nacci, n.d.). Using data aggregated at the facility level, Wright, Saylor, Gilman, and Camp (1997) observed that participation in decision making had a positive effect on institutional commitment, whereas job autonomy had no effect on institutional commitment among federal correctional staff. After studying manage- ment of staff in five jails, it was found that those jails that had higher levels of partici- patory management also had higher levels of organizational identification (Stohr, Lovrich, Monke, & Zupan, 1994).

There has been a handful of articles on organizational commitment based on a sur- vey of midwestern correctional staff. It has been observed that procedural justice, but not distributive justice, had a significant positive relationship with organizational commitment (Lambert, 2003). It was found that feedback, organizational fairness, and promotional opportunities were positively associated with organizational commit- ment (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a). Instrumental communication and integra- tion were important in helping to shape the level of commitment among the aforemen- tioned Midwestern correctional workers (Lambert, Barton, Hogan, & Clarke, 2002). In a study of the effect of job characteristics on correctional staff, it was found that quality supervision and job stress were related to organizational commitment (Lam- bert, 2004). Job stress was found to be inversely associated with the commitment in an analysis of all staff who responded to the survey.1 The above studies, all based on a sur- vey of midwestern correctional staff, generally used an analysis of all the correctional workers, regardless of their position. Many other correctional staff studies limit their

46 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

analysis to correctional officers, the largest group of employees at any correctional facility and the group that generally deals with inmates on a regular basis (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004). In a subanalysis, Lambert (2004) found that job stress had a negative effect on organizational commitment for both correctional officers and noncorrec- tional officers, suggesting that job stress has a negative effect on commitment regard- less of the position of a correctional employee.

Finally, among Canadian correctional staff, work/job stress was found to be nega- tively correlated with organizational commitment (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1992). The finding that job stress is negatively associated with commitment suggests that occupational stressors may be negatively related to correctional staff organiza- tional commitment. This premise, however, has not been directly tested. More research on the antecedents of correctional staff organizational commitment is needed, particularly on the effect of occupational stressors. There were no published studies found that examined the effect of role ambiguity, role conflict, dangerousness, or work-family conflict on correctional staff organizational commitment. Some guid- ance on how occupational stressors may affect the commitment of correctional staff can be gleaned from the correctional staff job satisfaction literature.

Effect of Role Conflict, Role Ambiguity, Dangerousness, and Work-Family Conflict on Correctional Staff Job Satisfaction

Although little research has been done on the antecedents of organizational com- mitment, a considerable amount of research exists on the antecedents of correctional staff job satisfaction, especially the effect of occupational stressors. The stressors of role conflict and role ambiguity have received considerable attention, particularly in terms of correctional staff job satisfaction. Role conflict is defined as occurring when behaviors for a given job or position are inconsistent with one another (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Role ambiguity is defined as uncertainty or a lack of information in carrying out the duties and responsibilities of a given position or job (Rizzo et al., 1970). Among southern correctional officers, it was found that role conflict negatively affected job satisfaction (Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). In addition, role strain (i.e., role ambiguity and role contradictions) has been found to influence the job satisfaction of public Arizona correctional staff (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993) and correctional staff at six state prisons in Missouri (Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980). On the other hand, Griffin (2001) reported that role ambiguity had a nonsignificant effect on the satisfaction of southwestern detention officers. Overall, the bulk of the empirical evidence suggests that role conflict and role ambiguity reduce the job satisfaction of correctional staff. Therefore, it was predicted that both would have a negative effect on organizational commitment.

Another stressor, limited to few occupations outside the field of criminal justice, is dangerousness of the job. Working in corrections is viewed by many in society as a dangerous job because of threats by inmates and actual inmate violence. Research has found that perceived dangerousness of the job is associated with job dissatisfaction for many correctional staff (Cullen et al., 1985; Lombardo, 1981; Moon & Maxwell,

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 47

2004). On the other hand, it should be noted that not all studies have found a relation- ship (Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al., 1996), which suggests that it may not be a negative event for all correctional workers. Because the empirical evidence on the effect of dangerousness on job satisfaction is contradictory, it is unclear whether per- ceived dangerousness of the job would have a negative relationship with correctional staff organizational commitment.

There has been little research on the effect of work-family conflict on correctional staff, even though working in corrections is ripe for the occurrence of work-family conflict. Work-family conflict has two major dimensions: work life interfering with home life (i.e., work on family conflict) and family/home life interfering with work (i.e., family on work conflict; Netemeyer, Boles, & McMurrian, 1996). Work on fam- ily conflict originates from several sources, such as time-based conflicts, strain-based conflicts, harm-based conflicts, and behavior-based conflicts (Netemeyer et al., 1996). Family on work conflict arises when problems and conflicts at home spill over to the workplace. Triplett, Mullings, and Scarborough (1999) looked at behavior- based work on family conflict and found that it is an important contributor to work- related stress for southwestern female correctional officers. Lambert, Hogan, and Barton (2003) found among Midwestern correctional workers that a time-based form of work-family conflict had significant negative effects on job satisfaction; however, family on work conflict did not have a significant effect. Lambert, Hogan, and Barton (2004) also found that work-family conflict varied by different groups of employees, with correctional officers being the most likely to report higher levels of work on fam- ily conflict. None of the studies examined how work-family conflict affected correc- tional staff organizational commitment. Because the results of the few previous stud- ies suggest that work-family conflict has negative effects on correctional staff, it was predicted that work-family conflict would have a negative effect on correctional staff organizational commitment.

This Study

Because there has been little research on the antecedents of the organizational com- mitment of correctional employees, this exploratory study was undertaken. Specifi- cally, the effects of the occupational stressors of role conflict, role ambiguity, danger- ousness of the job, and work-family conflict on organizational commitment were examined using data from a survey of staff at a midwestern correctional facility. Besides looking at the effects of the aforementioned stressors on all correctional staff (i.e., supervisors, correctional officers, case counselors, business staff, medical per- sonnel, etc.), the effects of the stressors on commitment among nonsupervisory cor- rectional officers and nonsupervisory noncorrectional officers were examined. The effects of stressors were examined among nonsupervisory correctional officers for three reasons. First, much of the research conducted to date on correctional staff has focused only on correctional officers. Second, nonsupervisory correctional officers are the largest single group of correctional workers in correctional agencies. There- fore, it is important to identify factors that help shape perceptions and attitudes of cor-

48 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

rectional officers. Third, past research suggests that correctional officers and non- correctional staff are affected differently by the work environment.

In a study of public Arizona correctional staff, Hepburn and Knepper (1993) found that “human service” (i.e., treatment) staff reported less role strain, had greater per- ceptions of extrinsic and intrinsic job benefits, and had higher levels of job satisfaction than correctional officers. Moreover, they found that different factors helped shape the job satisfaction of correctional officers as compared with human service officers. Among Canadian correctional staff, it was found that correctional officers had, on average, lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment as compared with other groups of correctional employees (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1996). These findings suggest that correctional officers are working in a job that is quite different from someone in other correctional positions (e.g., treatment, industry, the business office, etc.) and this leads to different work outcomes.

Conversely, in a study of all the employees of a southwestern state correctional sys- tem, Armstrong and Griffin (2004) found that both correctional officers and treatment staff reported about the same level of job stress. In addition, they found that role strain, organizational support, coworker support, intrinsic job rewards, and environmental safety had significant effects on job stress for both correctional officers and treatment staff. As previously indicated in a study of midwestern correctional staff, it was observed that job stress had a negative effect on organizational commitment for both correctional officers and noncorrectional officers (Lambert, 2004). These two studies suggest that correctional staff are similar in their work-related attitudes and views, at least in terms of job stress.

Because the literature is unclear whether there could be differences between those who are correctional officers and those who are noncorrectional staff in terms of the effect of occupational stressors on organizational commitment, three analyses were conducted. One for all correctional staff, one for nonsupervisory correctional officers, and one for nonsupervisory noncorrectional workers (i.e., staff who work in an area other than custody, such as industry, business office, medical department, case management, etc.).

Method

In the fall of 2000, a survey was administered to the staff at a midwestern state cor- rectional institution. The facility was a high security institution that housed approxi- mately 1,300 adult male inmates. At full compliment, there were 450 employees. Due to sick leave, temporary reassignment, annual vacation leave, turnover, transfer, and so on, it was estimated that there were about 400 to 420 employees available at the time of the survey. In a cover letter, the importance of the survey was explained, along with the fact that participation was strictly voluntary and all responses would be anon- ymous. A cash raffle, with several cash awards ranging from $50 to $100, was used to increase participation. In addition, one follow-up survey was conducted. A total of 272 useable surveys were returned representing a response rate of 65% to 68%,

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 49

depending on the actual size of the base population (i.e., 400-420). Respondents rep- resented all areas of the correctional facility, such as correctional officers, case manag- ers, medical staff, industry staff, food service workers, and so on.2

Seventy-six percent of the respondents were men, and 24% were women. This is very similar to the overall prison staff population in which 77% were male. The median age was 44 and ranged from 20 to 61 years of age. The mean age was 42.55, with a standard deviation of 8.32. Half (50%) worked in custody (i.e., were correc- tional officers), 6% worked in unit management (i.e., were counselors, case managers, and unit managers), 5% worked in the business office, 4% worked in the education and vocational department, 3% worked in the correctional-based industry, 3% worked in the medical department, 3% worked in the administrative office, and 26% worked in other areas. Of the total prison staff, 53% were correctional officers. The median ten- ure at the facility was 9 years and ranged from 0 to 26 years. The mean tenure was 9.64 years, with a standard deviation of 6.82. In terms of highest educational level, 9% had a high school diploma or GED, 50% had some college but no degree, 20% had an asso- ciate’s degree, 16% had a bachelor’s degree, 4% had a master’s degree, and 1% had a professional or terminal degree. About 82% were White, 8% were Black, 2% were Hispanic, 3% were Native American, and 5% were another race. This is similar to the breakdown for the entire complement of staff, which was 86% White. Finally, 24% were supervisors of other correctional staff.

Measures

Organizational commitment. Organizational commitment was the dependent vari- able for this study. In the organizational literature, the most common method of mea- suring organizational commitment is the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) from Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982). This index is designed to assess the degree of commitment that an individual has to the employing organization as a whole and is generally viewed as an accurate measure for the attitudinal dimension of organi- zational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). Nine items from the OCQ were selected and reworded to reflect a correctional setting (e.g., “I really care about the fate of this prison,” “I feel little loyalty to this prison”—reverse coded, and “I find that my values and the prison’s values are very similar”). The items were answered using a 5- point Likert-type scale of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), uncertain (3), agree (4), and strongly agree (5). The nine items were summed together to form an index of organizational commitment that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .88.

Role ambiguity. Role ambiguity was measured using four items (e.g., “I clearly know what my work responsibilities are”—reverse coded, and “I am unclear to whom I report to and/or who reports to me”). The items were from Ivancevich and Matteson (1980), Rizzo et al. (1970), and Triplett, Mullings, and Scarborough (1996). The items were answered using a 5-point Likert-type scale response ranging from strongly dis- agree to strongly agree. The items were summed together to form an index that had a Cronbach’s alpha of .62. It is important to remember that an alpha value is not an all-

50 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

or-none proposition but rather a matter of degrees of acceptability. Cronbach’s alpha ranges from zero to one, and the closer to one, the stronger the items are related to one another. Alpha values of .60 or higher are viewed as acceptable (Gronlund, 1981).

Role conflict. Role conflict was measured using five items (e.g., “I receive conflict- ing requests at work from two or more people” and “When a problem comes up here, people seldom agree on how it should be handled”). The items were from Cullen et al. (1985), Ivancevich and Matteson (1980), and Triplett et al. (1996). The items were also answered by a 5-point Likert-type scale response ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The five items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .72 and were summed together to form a role conflict index.

Perceived dangerousness of the job. Perceived dangerousness of the job was mea- sured using four questions (e.g., “I work in a dangerous job” and “In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt”). The items were adapted from Cullen et al. (1985). The items were also answered with a 5-point Likert-type scale response rang- ing from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The four questions were summed together to form an index of perceived dangerousness of the job, and this index had a Cronbach’s alpha of .82.

Work-family conflict. As indicated previously, work-family conflict is bidirec- tional. That is, there are two dimensions of work family conflict: work on family conflict and family on work conflict. Eleven questions were used to measure both dimensions of work-family conflict. The questions were adapted from studies of work-family conflict outside the field of corrections (e.g., Bacharach, Bamberger, & Conley, 1991; Bohen & Viveros-Long, 1981; Higgins & Duxbury, 1992) and were reworded to reflect that the respondent was working in a correctional facility. Work on family conflict was measured using nine questions (e.g., “My job keeps me away from my family too much,” “Work makes me too tired or irritable to fully enjoy my family and/or social life,” and “I frequently argue with my spouse/family members about my job”). The nine items reflected the time conflict, strain, and harm to family and home life that sometimes results from working at a correctional institution. The items, which had a Cronbach’s alpha of .79, were summed together to form an index of work on family conflict. Family on work conflict was measured by two questions (i.e., “My family life interferes with work” and “My social life interferes with my job”). The two questions were summed together to form an index of family on work conflict, and the index had a Cronbach’s alpha of .77.

Control variables. Personal characteristics are frequently used as control variables. In this study, the seven personal characteristics of gender, age, position, tenure, educa- tion, race, and supervisory status were selected as control variables. Gender was mea- sured as a dichotomous variable with women coded as 0 and men coded as 1. Age was measured in continuous years. Position was measured as a dichotomous variable rep- resenting whether the respondent was a correctional officer (coded 1) or not (coded 0).

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 51

Tenure was measured in continuous years. Education was measured as a dichotomous variable representing whether the respondent had a college degree (coded 1) or did not (coded as 0). Forty-one percent of the respondents had earned some type of college degree (i.e., associate’s, bachelor’s, master’s, or professional) and 59% had not. Race was measured as a dichotomous variable representing whether the respondent was non-White (coded 0) or White (coded 1). About 19% of the respondents were non- White, and 81% were White. Finally, supervisory status was measured using a dichot- omous variable representing whether the respondent supervised other staff (coded 1) or did not (coded 0).

Results

Descriptive statistics for the measures used in this study are presented in Table 1. There appeared to be significant variation in the measures. The typical respondent was a nonsupervisory, middle-aged, White male who did not have a college degree. There was a good range of variances in the indices. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha for each of the indices was above .60.

Pearson’s r correlation coefficients were calculated and are presented in Table 2. Position had a statistically significant negative correlation with organizational commit-

52 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables

Measure Description

Gender 0 = female, 1 = male 24% were women and 76% were men Position 0 = CO, 1 = non-CO 50% were COs and 50% were non-COs Education 0 = no college degree, 59% did not have a college degree and

1 = college degree 41% had some type of college degree Race 0 = non-White, 1 = White 19% were non-White and 81% were White Supervisor Supervisor other staff 76% were not supervisors and

0 = no, 1 = yes 24% were supervisors of other staff

Min Max Median Mean SD

Age Continuous years 20 61 44 42.55 8.32 Tenure Years at the prison 0 26 9.00 9.63 6.81 Role ambiguity 4 item index, α = .62 4 18 8.00 8.67 2.41 Role conflict 5 item index, α = .72 5 23 14.00 14.25 3.25 Dangerousness 4 item index, α = .82 4 20 14.00 13.58 3.54 Work on family conflict 9 item index, α = .79 10 37 21.00 21.74 5.41 Family on work conflict 2 item index, α = .77 2 10 4.00 3.66 1.37 Organizational 9 item index, α = .88 9 45 31.00 29.75 6.64

commitment

Note: CO = correctional officer; Min = minimum value; Max = maximum value; SD = standard deviation; α = Cronbach’s alpha.

53

Ta bl

e 2

P ea

rs on

’s C

or re

la ti

on M

at ri

x

V ar

ia bl

e 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11

12 13

1. G

en de

r 1.

00 2.

A ge

.0 9

1. 00

3. P

os iti

on .2

3* *

–. 19

** 1.

00 4.

T en

ur e

.2 3*

* .4

0* *

.0 6

1. 00

5. E

du ca

tio n

–. 10

.0 0

–. 20

** –.

25 **

1. 00

6. R

ac e

–. 01

.0 6

.0 7

.0 4

–. 06

1. 00

7. S

up er

vi so

r .0

6 .1

7* *

–. 33

** .1

4* .1

4* –.

02 1.

00 8.

R ol

e am

bi gu

ity .1

2* .0

8 .0

7 .1

7* *

–. 05

–. 14

* –.

09 1.

00 9.

R ol

e co

nf lic

t .1

0 .1

0 .1

1 .1

4* –.

07 –.

15 *

–. 08

.5 5*

* 1.

00 10

. D an

ge ro

us ne

ss .2

4* *

–. 10

.3 6*

* .0

4 –.

17 **

–. 13

* –.

10 .1

4* .2

8* *

1. 00

11 . W

or k

on fa

m ily

.1 1

–. 11

.3 3*

* –.

04 –.

10 –.

08 –.

06 .4

0* *

.3 6*

* .3

4* *

1. 00

co nf

lic t

12 . F

am ily

o n

w or

k .0

2 –.

01 .0

5 .0

4 .0

2 .0

7 .0

0 .1

2* .0

4 .0

0 .3

7* *

1. 00

co nf

lic t

13 . O

rg an

iz at

io na

l –.

09 –.

06 –.

17 **

–. 16

** .1

1 .1

0 .2

6* *

–. 54

** –.

57 **

–. 26

** –.

41 **

–. 05

1. 00

co m

m itm

en t

N ot

e: Se

e Ta

bl e

1 fo

r a

de sc

ri pt

io n

of th

e va

ri ab

le s.

*p ≤

.0 5.

* *p

≤ .0

1.

ment. In general, correctional officers reported lower commitment than noncustody staff. Tenure also had a significant inverse correlation. As tenure increased, organiza- tional commitment declined. Supervisory status was positively correlated with com- mitment. Supervisors on average reported higher levels of organizational commit- ment as compared with employees who were not supervisors of other staff. The other four personal characteristics (i.e., gender, age, education, and race) had nonsignificant correlations with organizational commitment. Role ambiguity and role conflict had significant negative correlations with organizational commitment. As each rose, com- mitment dropped. Perceived dangerousness of the job had an inverse correlation. Work on family conflict had a significant negative correlation with commitment. As work on family conflict increased, organizational commitment decreased. Family on work conflict, however, had a nonsignificant correlation with organizational commitment.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was computed with the organizational commitment as the dependent variable. The personal characteristics (i.e., control vari- ables), role ambiguity, role conflict, dangerousness, work on family conflict, and fam- ily on work conflict indices were entered as independent variables. OLS regression allows for the effects of an independent variable to be estimated while controlling for the shared effects with the other independent variables. Based on the correlation matrix in Table 2, the Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) statistics (not reported), and the tolerance statistics (not reported), there appeared to be no collinearity or multi- collinearity problems. The OLS regression results are presented in Table 3.

54 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 3 Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results for the Effect of Occupational

Stressors on Correctional Staff Organizational Commitment

Variable B SE β

Gender –.16 .76 –.01 Age –.02 .04 –.03 Position .50 .75 .04 Tenure –.10 .05 –.10 Education –.09 .66 –.01 Race –.46 .82 –.03 Supervisor 3.29 .77 .22** Role ambiguity –.64 .16 –.24** Role conflict –.62 .12 –.31** Dangerousness –.10 .10 –.06 Work on family conflict –.29 .07 –.24** Family on work conflict .34 .24 .07

R2 F = 18.37 .47**

Note: B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized regression coeffi- cient. See Table 1 for a description of the variables. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Based on the R2 statistics, the personal variables and the occupational stressors explained about 47% of the variance in the organizational commitment measure. The occupational stressors accounted for a far greater proportion of the variance than the personal characteristics. When only the seven personal measures were entered into an OLS regression model with organizational commitment as the dependent variable, R2

was .13. Of the seven personal characteristics, only supervisory status had a statistically sig-

nificant positive relationship with organizational commitment. The other six control variables (i.e., gender, age, position, tenure, education, and race) had nonsignificant effects. Both role ambiguity and role conflict had negative effects on correctional staff organizational commitment. Likewise, work on family conflict had a negative effect. As the three occupational stressors increased, organizational commitment decreased. Family on work conflict did not have a significant effect, nor did perceived dangerous- ness of the job.

In examining the standardized coefficients (i.e., the β in Table 3), it is possible to compare the magnitude of effects between the independent variables on the dependent variable because standardized coefficients are metric free (i.e., represent standardized units; Loehlin, 1992; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Of the four significant variables, role conflict had the greatest effect, followed closely by role ambiguity and work on family conflict, which had the same size of effects. Finally, supervisory status had the least effect.

Separate OLS regression models were estimated for nonsupervisory correctional officers and nonsupervisory noncorrectional officers (i.e., noncustody correctional employees) and the results are reported in Table 4. About the same amount of variance was explained in both equations. For correctional officers, about 44% of the variance for organizational commitment was accounted for by the control variables and the occupational stressor measures. For noncustody employees, about 52% of the vari- ance for organizational commitment was accounted for by the control variables and the occupational stressor measures. For both groups of employees, role ambiguity, role conflict, and work on family conflict had significant effects. The unstandardized regression coefficients are similar for both groups for these variables, suggesting that these variables have similar sized effects for both correctional officers and non- correctional officers. Likewise, for both groups, role conflict had the greatest magni- tude of effect. In addition, gender, age, education, race, dangerousness, and family on work conflict all had nonsignificant effects on organizational commitment for both groups. The only difference between the two groups was that tenure had a significant negative relationship with commitment for correctional officers but had a non- significant relationship for noncustody workers.

Discussion and Conclusion

Overall, occupational stressors are important in helping shape correctional staff organizational commitment, regardless of whether they are correctional officers or

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 55

not. Similar findings were found in the analyses of all staff, nonsupervisory correc- tional officers, and nonsupervisory noncustody employees. Role ambiguity and role conflict are not only important in shaping job satisfaction as shown by previous research, but also organizational commitment as illustrated by this study. It appears that correctional workers, including correctional officers, want clearly defined roles, directions, expectations, and guidance for their jobs. It makes sense that role ambigu- ity and role conflict are inversely associated with organizational commitment. Role ambiguity and role conflict generally result because of lack of direction and clarity by management, and management represents the organization. It is hard for a person to bond to an organization when he or she is adrift in a difficult job because he or she does not receive clear directions or receives conflicting orders from supervisors. It is doubt- ful that many individuals would enjoy working for an organization that fails to provide direction and support for employees. In the end, if role ambiguity and role conflict are left unchecked, lower organizational commitment will result, and low organizational commitment is linked with many negative outcomes for the organization. Thus, both correctional employees and employers can suffer in the long run from the harmful effects of role conflict and role ambiguity.

Addressing both role stressors requires an organizational approach to solving the problem. It means that management must listen to employees and learn what factors cause them to suffer from role conflict and role ambiguity. Once the reasons for role

56 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

Table 4 Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results for the Effect of Occupational Stressors on the Organizational Commitment of Correctional Officers and

Noncorrectional Officers

Nonsupervisory Nonsupervisory Correctional Officers Noncorrectional Officers

Variable B β B β

Gender –.03 –.002 –1.31 –.11 Age .06 .08 –.03 –.04 Tenure –.21 –.20* –.06 –.07 Education .82 .06 –.12 –.01 Race –.60 –.03 –.16 .01 Role ambiguity –.54 –.19* –.52 –.22* Role conflict –.71 –.35** –.69 –.37** Dangerousness –.19 –.08 –.04 –.03 Work on family conflict –.30 –.24** –.34 –.25** Family on work conflict .38 .09 1.17 .20

R2 F = 8.63 .44** 7.24 .52**

Note: B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SE = standard error; β = standardized regression coeffi- cient. See Table 1 for a description of the variables. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

conflict and role ambiguity are identified and understood, it is necessary to institute changes that reduce both stressors. Ways for this to occur include training, greater input into decision making, particularly at the job level, and formalization. Training should be aimed at both supervisors and employees. Supervisors need to be trained to understand role conflict and role ambiguity and how to avoid inflicting them on the staff they supervise. In addition, staff should be trained in coping skills and how to institute changes that would resolve both occupational stressors. Greater input into decision making, especially at the job level, would allow the opportunity for employ- ees to propose solutions to the problems they face each day in their jobs, including role ambiguity and role conflict. In addition, greater participation may not only help reduce both stressors but also probably lead to increased organizational commitment. There generally is greater commitment to things that people help build. As Covey (1989) pointed out, “Without involvement, there is no commitment” (p. 143). Finally, formalization will help alleviate both role ambiguity and role conflict. Formalization is “the use of well-defined rules and regulations to govern the behavior of individuals so that actions within the organization become standardized” (Taggart & Mays, 1987, p. 186). Standardized guidelines, policies, and procedures readily available to employees should help reduce both stressors, which ultimately should lead to increased commitment to the organization. Although formalization will decrease the amount of decision making by individual employees, especially at the job level (i.e., job autonomy), it does not mean there will be no input by workers. For effective and fair formalization to be put into place, employees need to be allowed input into the formalization process and be allowed ongoing input so the rules and regulations can be changed and enhanced over time.

Perceived dangerousness did not have a significant effect on correctional staff organizational commitment, including in the analyses for nonsupervisory correctional officers and nonsupervisory noncorrectional officers. Although there are many possi- ble explanations for this finding, two primary ones are ventured here. The first is that the finding in this study was a fluke. It is possible that a different relationship might be observed in further studies. The second explanation is that there is no relationship between dangerousness and organizational commitment for correctional staff, even for correctional officers. Staff at the correctional facility probably realize that working in a high security prison can be a dangerous job. This does not mean that this reduces their organizational commitment. They do not blame the organization for dangerous- ness; dangerousness is just part of the job. It is possible that employees are instilled with a sense of pride for working in corrections. They are providing security and safety for society, and this may lead to an increased commitment. Finally, the premise that there is no relationship between dangerousness and organizational commitment is indirectly supported by findings from job satisfaction studies. As previously indi- cated, not all studies have found that dangerousness and job satisfaction are linked (Grossi & Berg, 1991; Grossi et al., 1996).

The results provide support that the relatively unrecognized occupational stressor of work on family conflict is important in shaping the organizational commitment of correctional staff, including correctional officers. When conflict at work affects home

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 57

life, the worker appears to blame the organization, and organizational commitment declines. It is difficult to bond with an organization that is causing pain and discom- fort. Correctional organizations need to be aware of work on family conflict and insti- tute changes to address this occupational stressor. This can be done through employee-oriented programs and training. Employee-oriented programs should be in place to help staff effectively deal with work on family conflict. In addition, supervi- sors should be trained to look for indications of work family conflict and help employ- ees either to avoid them or to deal with them. Supervisors should be willing to discuss work-family problems and be able to direct the employee to service providers who can help, including those outside the correctional facility. Finally, correctional administra- tors should attempt to determine the major causes of work on family conflict for their employees. This means listening to workers and obtaining their input on the matter.

On the other hand, the measure for family on work conflict did not have a signifi- cant effect on correctional staff organizational commitment. It is possible that there is a relationship between family on work conflict and organizational commitment, but it was not observed in this study because a general measure of family and social life interfering with work of the measure was used. A more detailed measure covering more specific areas of family affecting work could result in family on work conflict having a significant negative effect on correctional staff organizational commitment. A second explanation is that family on work conflict is not important in organizational commitment among correctional workers. This does not mean that family on work conflict has no effect on a correctional staff member’s life. It is likely that family on work conflict has negative effects in several salient life areas for many correctional employees, such as life, social, family, and marital satisfaction, and in the long run may decrease overall quality of life, ultimately affecting the productivity and perfor- mance of the correctional employee (Lambert et al., 2003).

Only one of the seven personal characteristics had a significant effect in the analy- sis involving all survey respondents. Supervisors in general had higher levels of orga- nizational commitment than nonsupervisory staff. Supervisors probably have higher levels of organizational commitment because they are part of management and, as such, have greater input into the administration of the organization. As Bruce and Blackburn (1992) argued, “People accept what they help to create” (p. 167). It is inter- esting to note that the significant correlations for most of the personal variables disap- peared when the occupational stressors were introduced. This suggests that various groups of correctional staff view, respond, and handle the stressors in different ways. In addition, tenure had a significant negative effect on organizational commitment for nonsupervisory correctional officers but not for noncustody staff. This suggests that the more time a person spends as a correctional officer, his or her bonding with the organization decreases. This is probably the result of disillusionment and burnout. As time goes on, those who remain as correctional officers probably realize that their chances for promotion or for another position may be decreasing. In addition, because the position of correctional officer is a demanding one, over time these offi- cers may experience burnout (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), which could lead to lower commitment.

58 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

This, of course, was a single, exploratory study. Far more research is required before the antecedents of correctional staff organizational commitment are known and understood. The findings from this study need to be replicated using staff from other correctional facilities. Furthermore, more detailed measures of family on work con- flict need to be developed and tested before it can be firmly decided what, if any, effect this dimension of work-family conflict has on correctional staff organizational com- mitment. There are many dimensions of the correctional work environment. How each affects correctional staff has yet to be explored. As such, further research needs to explore other possible causes of organizational commitment. In addition, it is recom- mended that there be increased concentration on the issue of work-family conflict among correctional workers. It appears that working in corrections is rife with oppor- tunities for work-family conflict. Yet, there has been little research on the subject, therefore little is known about work-family conflict including what causes it, how it affects staff, and how to best deal with it. Finally, there is a need to evaluate interven- tions designed to reduce one or more occupational stressors. Basically, there is a need for far greater research on how the work environment affects correctional staff and how the work place can be improved. This information is critical for correctional administrators who are interested in improving the quality of life at their facilities. This knowledge will benefit all involved, from correctional employees, the inmates they work with, correctional administrators, the friends and families of staff, and society in general.

In closing, one of the reasons that the literature has focused on occupational stress- ors is that correctional work is often described as more stressful than most other occu- pations. Past correctional research has shown that occupational stressors are often linked with job satisfaction. The results of this study indicate that they also have an effect on organizational commitment. Specifically, role ambiguity, role conflict, and work on family conflict all reduce employee commitment. In an era of decreased bud- gets, personnel shortages, and increased demands on a growing inmate population, it is critical to have committed employees. Committed workers are the backbone of any successful correctional organization. This means that organizational commitment and what shapes it cannot be ignored. It is hoped that this study will generate more discus- sion in correctional organizations about the issue of occupational stressors and organi- zational commitment and will also spark more research on both occupational stressors and organizational commitment.

Notes

1. The data for the Lambert (2004) study are from the same survey with the same control variables (i.e., gender, age, tenure, education, race, position, and supervisory status) as are used in this study. The Lambert study examined the effect of job stress on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Job stress is the global feelings of anxiety, tension, frustration, worry, emotional exhaustion, and distress, and occupational stressors are workplace stimuli that can cause a person to experience stress. This study focuses on the effect of the occupational stressors of role conflict, role ambiguity, dangerousness, and work-family conflict on correctional staff organizational commitment. Thus, this study differs from Lambert (2004).

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 59

2. The survey had 221 questions, which covered a wide array of work environment dimensions and issues. The data from this survey have been used in different articles that have looked at the issue of work- family conflict, job characteristics, organizational justice, and organizational structure (a list and full cita- tions is available upon request). Therefore, there may be some familiarity in the Methods section in the dis- cussion of the data source. Nonetheless, none of the aforementioned articles examined the effect of occupa- tional stressors on correctional staff organizational commitment.

References

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

Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., & Conley, S. (1991). Work-home conflict among nurses and engineers: Medi- ating the impact of role stress on burnout and satisfaction at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 39-53.

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

Bruce, W., & Blackburn, J. (1992). Balancing job satisfaction and performance: A guide for the human resource professional. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

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

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment, and personal need non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.

Covey, S. (1989). The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Jus- tice Quarterly, 2, 505-533.

Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavior among correc- tional officers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15, 277-284.

Griffin, M. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organi- zational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219-232.

Gronlund, N. (1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York: Macmillan. Grossi, E., & Berg, B. (1991). Stress and job satisfaction among correctional officers: An unexpected find-

ing. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 73-81. Grossi, E., Keil, T., & Vito, G. (1996). Surviving “the joint”: Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress.

Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103-120. Hepburn, J., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role conflict in correctional institutions. Criminology, 17, 445-459. Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect of job satis-

faction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-335. Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (1992). Work-family conflict: A comparison of dual-career and traditional-

career men. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 389-411. Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott,

Foresman. Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organi-

zational profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25. Kane, T., Saylor, W., & Nacci, P. (n.d.). Management strategies, morale, and staff turnover (NCJ Document

No. 089613). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons. Kerce, E., Magnusson, P., & Rudolph, A. (1994). The attitudes of Navy corrections staff members: What they

think about confinees and their jobs. San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center. Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of organizational justice on

correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.

60 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

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

Lambert, E., Barton, S., & Hogan, N. (1999). The missing link between job satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 95- 116.

Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact of instrumental communication and integration on correctional staff. The Justice Professional, 15, 181-193.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002a). Building commitment among correctional staff: The issue of feedback, promotional opportunities, and organizational fairness. Corrections Compendium, 27(3), 1-5, 24-28.

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

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2003). The impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff job satisfaction. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 35-51.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2004). The nature of work-family conflict among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Review, 29, 145-172.

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

Loehlin, J. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lombardo, L. (1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. New York: Elsevier. Mathieu, J., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and conse-

quences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. Matteson, M., & Ivancevich, J. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human resource and management

strategies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moon, B., & Maxwell, S. R. (2004). The sources and consequences of corrections officers’ stress: A South

Korean example. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 359-370. Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commit-

ment, absenteeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press. Mowday, R., Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 14, 224-247. Netemeyer, R., Boles, J., & McMurrian, R. (1996). Development and validation of work-family conflict and

family-work conflict scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 400-410. Poole, E., & Pogrebin, M. (1991). Changing jail organization and management: Toward improved employee

utilization. In J. Thompson & G. Mayo (Eds.), American jails: Public policy issues (pp. 163-179). Chi- cago: Nelson-Hall.

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

Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1992). Staff commitment in the Correctional Service of Canada (NCJ Document No. 148402). Ottawa: Canada Correctional Service.

Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1996). Do different groups vary on attitudes and work adjust- ments in corrections? Federal Probation, 60(3), 45-53.

Schumacker, R., & Lomax, R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., Monke, B., & Zupan, L. (1994). Staff management in correctional institutions: Com- paring DiIulio’s “control model” and “employee investment model” outcomes in five jails. Justice Quar- terly, 11, 471-497.

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

Taggart, W., & Mays, G. (1987). Organizational centralization in court administration: An empirical assess- ment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 180-198.

Hogan et al. / Impact of Occupational Stressors 61

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

Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1999). Examining the effect of work-home conflict on work- related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 371-384.

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

Whitehead, J., & Lindquist, C. (1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 23-42.

Woodruff, L. (1993). Occupational stress for correctional personnel. American Jails, 7, 15-20. Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among

prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 524-546.

Nancy Lynne Hogan is a professor and the graduate program coordinator in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University. She received her Ph.D. in Justice Studies from Arizona State University in 1996 and has published several articles dealing with health issues of inmates and correctional staff satisfaction. She is currently researching the effectiveness of cognitive correctional interventions. Her other research interests are private prisons, ethics, and correctional treatment interventions.

Eric G. Lambert is an associate professor in the department of criminal justice at the University of Toledo. He received his Ph.D. from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. His research interests include criminal justice organizational issues; job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees; the evaluation of correctional interven- tions; attitudes toward the death penalty; and the ethical behavior of criminal justice employees and students.

Morris Jenkins is an assistant professor of criminal justice in the College of Health and Human Services at the University of Toledo. He received a J.D. from Stetson University College of Law and a Ph.D. from Northeastern University. His research interests include restorative justice, jury nullification, and gangs.

Suzanne Wambold is an associate professor and chair of the department of health professions at the Univer- sity of Toledo. She is also the director of cardiovascular program. She earned her doctorate degree from the University of Toledo. Her research interests are cardiovascular issues, aging, and the causes and conse- quences of stress on employees.

62 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice