Senior Seminar W4 discussion

"Clearly, administrators do impact an organization’s culture through formal administrative mechanisms. However, the informal structure of an organization also impacts powerfully on its culture. First, staff may develop methods thatdiffer from the formally prescribed methods to solve the problems assigned to them. The informal methods of achieving the agency’s objectives may be viewed by staff as a better way to operate. The frontline police or corrections officer, acting as a street-level bureaucrat (Lipsky, 2002), creates his or her ownunwritten policies and procedures in response to the immediate problems he orshe faces in the task environment. Corrections officers may ignore illicit activi-ties on the part of inmate leaders who, in return, will help maintain order in their cell blocks, and police officers develop methods to circumvent rules of evidence to solve and favorably prosecute a criminal case. The informal meth-ods adopted may also fit the staff’s own skills, personal needs, value preferences,and the need for behavioral expression. While new staff members are indoctrinated into the formal culture through mechanisms provided by the organization, the new staff members are also subjected to informal socialization and role giving by veteran staff. Newly trained staff are commonly told to“forget everything they learned at the academy”because the real training takes place in the field. Rites of passage await the rookie or the“new fish” employee.They serve to both test and sanction the newcomer to begin the informal socialization process.Hence, an organization’s culture results from pressures from the formal structure to solve organizational problems in ways prescribed by administrators and well-established patterns of problem solving developed by staff that differfrom the formal prescriptions and meet the staff’s personal needs. For organizations with a long history, such as the agencies of the criminal justice sys-tem, the cultural pattern found in both the informal and formal structures isdeeply entrenched. The pattern of problem solving and assumptions about the world in which the organization is immersed are not easily altered without perceived dramatic changes such as a prison riot or a public investigation into cor-ruption charges. A deeply entrenched organizational culture and its powerful socialization process will cause behavior in organizations to remain remarkably stable despite the frequent turnover of personnel.Role behavior is the visible outcome of cultural constraints. Katz and Kahn(1978) define role behavior“as the recurring actions of an individual that are appropriately related to the repetitive activities of others so as to yield a predictable outcome.”In addition, they view role behavior as a function of social setting rather than people’s individual personalities in organizations. Role theorists, therefore, suggest that workers engage in both formal and informal learning processes to become aware of and committed to behavioral norms that are seen as appropriate for their jobs.

"Some researchers have argued that the personality traits of individual police officers differ from those of the general public prior to their entering the police field (Rokeach, Miller, and Snyder, 1971). Police work has been said to attract recruits who are more authoritarian, more cynical, and more oriented toward excitement than the public at large. This explanation of police behavior is, however, currently out of favor. A number of studies have failed to find significant differences in the attitudes of police officer recruits and the general public, and the original research has been criticized for methodological shortcomings (see Bennett, 1984). Researchers continue to utilize the socialization model that focuses on the nature of police work itself and the process by which novices are recruited from the general public and become experienced officers. Morecurrent research suggests that ethnic and gender backgrounds may make a difference in the decision to make arrests. White officers were more likely to make arrests under similar circumstances (Brown and Frank, 2006), whereas African Americans and women correctional officers were less control-oriented than their white male counterparts (Gordon, 2005).

THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS

A study of judges illustrates the process of socialization within the federal judi-ciary. Through in-depth interviews with federal judges, Carp and Wheeler(1972) were able to describe the process by which a lawyer becomes an experienced trial judge. Legal training itself is a lengthy and intense socialization experience. Still, the authors found that novice judges were ill prepared for the problems they faced. The problems encountered by new judges fell into three categories: legal, administrative, and psychological. The first of these problems arose because of the limited legal experience of the judges. Most had comefrom firms dealing primarily with civil suits, and the most common problem ofthese judges was ignorance of criminal law. The second complaint was heavy caseloads and difficulty in preventing backlogs. Finally, the judges complained of the psychological stresses of loneliness, maintaining judicial bearing on and off the bench, and local pressures in decision-making.The research described a variety of formal and informal mechanisms for addressing these problems. The most conspicuous source of formal socialization is the new judges seminars sponsored by the federal judicial center in Washington,DC. Although the purpose of these seminars is formal education through speakers and workshops, the judges noted that their primary benefit was informal discussions with other judges. Although less obvious, the most potent source of socialization for new judges was practicing judges in the same court, as well as court staff. Carp and Wheeler highlight the distinctive local nature of judicial socialization and its resulting perpetuation of local and regional differences in the judiciary. Senior judges perpetuated local procedures and attitudes by providing their junior colleagues with legal information, administrative advice, and personal reassurances. Likewise, local attorneys with particular specialties often influence novice judges with limited knowledge in these areas. "One judge described the net result of the socialization process as membership in a fraternal organization characterized by mutual respect and a feeling of brotherhood. (There were no female judges in the study.) Similarly, Neubauer(1996) describes the“courtroom workgroup” that forms around the judge as the dominant figure and is influenced by the remaining key actors, such as the district attorney, bailiff, defense attorneys, and so forth. While the judge is the dominant figure in the workgroup, all members impose the workgroup culture on new members.

STAGES OF SOCIALIZATION

The case of judicial socialization calls our attention to several factors important in the transmission of organizational roles. In particular, socialization is a process. A model of socialization, therefore, must deal not only with the substantive dimension of the roles but also with change over time and the nature of the influences producing change. The literature on socialization generally divides the process of change into three distinct stages: anticipatory, formal, and informal. The socialization process begins before an individual enters an occupation. In this stage of anticipatory socialization, those considering a particular field look forward to the demands and expectations of their future job. They begin to adopt attitudes and values they believe are consistent with the occupation, and they come to view themselves as members of a group. During this stage, individuals are influenced by two main reference groups. First, those tangential to the occupation, such as friends and family, may transmit their views of the job. For example, a lawyer seeking to join the judiciary may be influenced by family members views of the job’s status. Second, members of the occupation may directly transmit information about the job. Lawyers working with judges gain insight into what is perceived as appropriate or inappropriate behavior for a member of the judiciary. Along with these sources of influence, both the amount of time in the anticipatory stage and the accuracy of information received affect the adoption of organizational roles. Most organizations are cognizant of anticipatory socialization and attempt to recruit individuals who“fit”into their systems by setting standards and qualifications for new recruits. For example, many law enforcement agencies prefer or require a two- or four-year college degree and will give preference to individuals who have served successfully in the military. It is assumed that the higher education creates a pool of applicants who have had the discipline to complete a degree and have the basic intellectual skill to carry out their prescribed duties. A term in the military is assumed to have produced disciplined individuals and conditioned them to“fit” into the paramilitary structure of large correctional or law enforcement agencies. Also, agencies typically do extensive background checks on applicants and often subject them to rigorous interviews and psychological screening to ensure the candidates for positions are physically, morally, and psychologically fit for a law enforcement or correctional career. Moreover, the interviews and background checks attempt to identify individuals who have a "normative commitment to the profession (Jones, 2006). The major qualification for practicing law or becoming a prosecutor or judge is a law degree and the ability to pass a state bar exam. This effort presumes a basic knowledge of law and sufficient intellectual skills to practice.When a person joins a particular occupation, the second stage, formal socialization, usually occurs. This is generally a period of formalized training. Training that is designed, implemented, and delivered well can have a strong effect on the socialization process (Salas et. al., 2012). For law enforcement and, to some extent, correctional officers, new recruits are subjected to preservice training academies. The academies attempt to provide recruits with basic job-related skills as well as a degree of indoctrination about their expected behaviors. For judges,the formalized training period is shorter and less powerful than that for many other occupations within criminal justice. The new judges seminars are the primary means of formal socialization. In police work and corrections, the training academy immerses recruits into an occupational role. Aside from providing important information about doing a job, the formal training process serves a variety of other functions through exposure to experienced veterans. This reference group provides normative prescriptions for the attitudes and behaviors ofthe recruits. In doing so, it also creates feelings of belonging and acceptance.The new judges seminars are valued not only for imparting technical knowledge but also for fostering relationships that provide membership in a group. Here, the origins of the judicial fraternity can be found.The third and ongoing stage isinformal socialization.In this stage, the relevant reference groups are peers, managers, and even clients to whom a worker is exposed on a daily basis. Here, the routine of the job shapes the role of the criminal justice worker. Leaders who are insensitive to their organization’s culture will have little success in impacting the informal socialization process (Stohret. al., 2012).It is important to consider that most informal socialization takes place through small groups. New members learn the rules and expectations and learn to conform in order to be accepted into the group. Conversely, a new member will also have some degree of influence over group norms (Moreland andLevine, 1982). For criminal justice work groups, new members are receivedwith caution. Individuals outside the system are rarely welcomed to the group.The formal side of an organization can provide new staff with skills through training and impose some level of socialization on them. However, informal socialization is essentially a process that molds individuals to the organizational culture. The culture of a criminal justice agency may not establish beliefs andrules for member behavior that are congruent with the organization’s prescribed beliefs and behavioral rules. For example, police officers, whose peer group may place a high value on aggressiveness, are more likely to base their decision to arrest on extralegal factors, whereas officers working in low aggressive peer groups will rely primarily on legal factors (McCluskey, Terrill, and Paoline,2005). Also, it has been common within police culture to stigmatize communitypolice officers as social service workers rather than real cops (Garcia, 2005). Exacerbating the perceived role differences are the different informal socialization "processes for traditional and community police officers. For traditional police officers, their expectations and roles are sent from within their groups, which are tightly bound and with which they have attempted to seal themselves off from the public. Community police officers, however, receive a significant part of their expectations and role from the public with which they constantly inter-act. The informal socialization process is a force that is much more powerful thanthe formal socialization process. Informal association is a product of the day-to-day interactions of organizational members, clients, and even offenders inthe context of organizational constraints. For judges, daily associations withtheir staff and with lawyers influence the uniquely local nature of their roles.For some police and corrections officers, the positive attitudes gained at the acad-emy may give way in the informal stage to cynicism, alienation, and even corruption.

A MODEL OF INFLUENCES

Although the stages of socialization illustrate the process of change, a specific model is needed to explain the manner in which socializing influences affectthe individual. A theoretical model of the process of taking organizational roles has been detailed by Katz and Kahn (1978). The models of influences include a social-psychological model of role taking, which relies on four key concepts, as shown in Figure 9.1. Role expectations are the standards by which the behavior ofan organizational member is judged. Supervisors, peers, clients, and even the general public may hold different and even conflicting expectations. Thesentroleis the communication of those expectations to the member. The received role is the person’s perception and understanding of the sent role. Finally,role behavioris the person’s response to the complex information received. According to this model, then, the behavior of an organizational member is the result of expectations communicated by significant others and filtered through his or her own psychological processes. The role-taking model thus calls our attention to key variables that may help explain role behavior.The model also indicates that a person’s behavior affects expectations through a feedback process—that is, conformity or lack of conformity to role expectations may influence the sent role over time. In her study of parole, Studt (1978) describes escalation episodes, in which parolees dramatically altered the role of parole officers. Ordinarily, parole officers viewed their roleas one of helping within a context of casual surveillance. This role was sustained by the lack of information about a parolee’s misbehavior. When officers did receive information about even minor transgressions, however, they escalated their surveillance role."

"PROBLEMS IN THE SOCIALIZATION PROCESS

evidence for the power of the role-taking model can be found all around us in the patterned behavior of organizational members. Still, there is abundant evidence that the process of role-taking is not as straightforward as the model may imply. In criminal justice, the most often discussed problem is that of role conflict. In the model, role conflicts the occurrence of two or more role expectations in such a way that compliance with one makes compliance with another difficult or impossible. Conflicting expectations may come from two or more role senders or may emanate from a single role sender. These problems are endemic in all street-level bureaucracies and particularly in criminal justice. Lipsky (1980), for example, argues that one of the defining characteristics of all street-level bureaucracies is competing goals. This competition is expressed in the conflicting expectations of frontline workers. Police officers are charged with controlling crime as well as meeting due process constraints. Probation and parole officers must provide surveillance of their caseload to prevent crimes and assure compliance with rules, but they must also provide a supportive atmosphere and services to assist in adjustments to the community. In addition to conflicts over substantive goals, all human service workers are sent conflicting messages about the process of their work. Although the importance of providing custodial or helping services is stressed, these services are to be provided to large caseloads of clients. Probation and parole officers may supervise an average ofseventy clients. Demands on time thus accentuate conflicts in the role. Perhaps the literature on institutional corrections best illustrates the problem of role conflict. In his study of a Rhode Island maximum-security prison, Carroll(1974:52) described the basis for role conflict: Prior to 1956, the officers were“guards” and their role was precisely defined. The sole functions of the guard were to maintain security and internal order... Today, the official title of the custodial staff is“correctional officer,”a title that both incorporates and symbolizes the conflicting and ambiguous definitions of their current role"