I Want to Know and I Want to Be Part of It: The Impact of Instrumental Communication and Integration on Private Prison Staff

I Want to Know and I Want to Be Part of It: The Impact of Instrumental Communication and Integration on Private Prison Staff
of 27
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  This article was downloaded by: [University of Central Florida]On: 09 December 2013, At: 08:18Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK Journal of Applied SecurityResearch Publication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information: I Want to Know and I Want toBe Part of It: The Impact ofInstrumental Communicationand Integration on PrivatePrison Staff Eric G. Lambert a  , Nancy L. Hogan b  , Eugene A.Paoline c  & Michael T. Stevenson da  Professor, Department of Criminal Justice , MailStop 119, HH 3000A, University of Toledo , Toledo,Ohio, 43606 b  Professor and Graduate Coordinator, School ofCriminal Justice , Bishop Hall 506, Ferris StateUniversity , Big Rapids, Michigan, 49307 c  Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida,Department of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies ,P.O. Box 161600, Orlando, Florida, 32816-1600 d  Assistant Professor, Department of CriminalJustice , Mail Stop 119, HH 3010, University ofToledo , Toledo, Ohio, 43606Published online: 11 Oct 2008. To cite this article:  Eric G. Lambert , Nancy L. Hogan , Eugene A. Paoline & MichaelT. Stevenson (2008) I Want to Know and I Want to Be Part of It: The Impact ofInstrumental Communication and Integration on Private Prison Staff, Journal ofApplied Security Research, 3:2, 205-229, DOI: 10.1080/19361610802135938  To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLETaylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   C  e  n   t  r  a   l   F   l  o  r   i   d  a   ]  a   t   0   8  :   1   8   0   9   D  e  c  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   3  I Want to Know and I Want to Be Part of It:The Impact of Instrumental Communicationand Integration on Private Prison Staff  Eric G. LambertNancy L. HoganEugene A. PaolineMichael T. Stevenson ABSTRACT. The number of private correctional facilities has increasedrapidly during the past twenty years. While there is a growing body of lit-erature on private correctional facilities, most of the focus has comparedthe efficiency and effectiveness of private versus public correctional institu-tions.Theimpactoftheworkenvironmentonprivateprisonshasbeenrarelystudied. Staff are the most valuable resource for any correctional organiza-tion; hence, it is important to study how the work environment shapes the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment levels of privateprison staff. Two important work environment factors are instrumental com-munication and integration. This study examined the effects of instrumentalEric G. Lambert is Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Mail Stop 119,HH 3000A, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606.Nancy L. Hogan is Professor and Graduate Coordinator, School of CriminalJustice, Bishop Hall 506, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan 49307.Eugene A. Paoline is Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, De-partment of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies, P.O. Box 161600, Orlando, Florida32816-1600.Michael T. Stevenson is Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Justice,Mail Stop 119, HH 3010, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606.The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper. Theauthors also thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments andsuggestions.Journal of Applied Security Research, Vol. 3(2), 2008Available online at C   2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.doi: 10.1080/19361610802135938  205    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   C  e  n   t  r  a   l   F   l  o  r   i   d  a   ]  a   t   0   8  :   1   8   0   9   D  e  c  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   3   206 JOURNAL OF APPLIED SECURITY RESEARCH  communication and integration on the job stress, job satisfaction, and orga-nizational commitment of staff at a Midwestern private correctional facility.Using the survey response of 160 respondents, it was found that both instru-mental communication and integration had significant effects on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. KEYWORDS.  Private correctional staff, instrumental communication,integration, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment Corrections is big business. More than 40 billion dollars are spent eachyear to incarcerate millions of adult offenders in the United States alone(Pastore & Maguire, 2006). Most of the adult offenders are held in gov-ernment owned and operated correctional facilities; however, there is agrowing number of privately owned correctional facilities with which thegovernment has contracts to house offenders.Thereisalonghistoryofprivatebusinessprovidingsomeoftheservicesused in correctional institutions, such as food services, medical care, andcounseling and therapeutic interventions (Thomas & Bolinger, 1996). Itis only recently that entirely owned and operated private correctional fa-cilities have appeared on the scene. The first privately owned correctionalfacility for adults in the United States was in 1984 (Thomas & Bolinger,1996).Sincethen,theuseofprivatecorrectionalfacilitieshasmushroomedin the United States. By 2002, there were 250 private correctional institu-tionsintheUnitedStatesalonewhichcouldhousemorethan100,000adultoffenders (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2003). Additionally, private correc-tional facilities can be found in other nations, such as Australia, Canada,Great Britain, South Africa, and other nations (Lanza-Kaduce, Parker, &Thomas, 1999; Shichor, 1998).With the rise and growth in the use and number of private correc-tional institutions, there has been a corresponding increase in the liter-ature. Camp, Gaes, and Saylor (2001) pointed out that “there has beenno shortage of materials written on the merits or disadvantages of privateprisons with the viewpoints often depending upon the politics of the au-thors. Much of the written material to date has been written to provide justification for or against the use of private prisons” (p. 27). A greatamount of this literature has focused on examining the effectiveness of private correctional organizations as compared to their public counter-parts (Perrone & Pratt, 2003; Pratt & Maahs, 1999). However, there hasbeen very little written about private correctional staff, particularly on    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   C  e  n   t  r  a   l   F   l  o  r   i   d  a   ]  a   t   0   8  :   1   8   0   9   D  e  c  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   3   Lambert et al. 207  how the work environment impacts them (Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, &Clarke, 2005). In 1995, 5,200 individuals worked for private correctionalorganizations. Less than a decade later, more than 25,000 people were em-ployedwithprivatecorrectionalorganizations(BureauofJusticeStatistics,2003).Theseemployeesarethebackboneofprivatecorrectionalorganizations.Staff account for the largest budget expenditures at private correctionalfacilities. Employees are key to the success of private correctional institu-tions. They have a difficult and demanding job as they are responsible for ensuringthatasafe,secure,andhumanecorrectionalenvironmentisestab-lished and maintained for a group of incarcerated individuals (Armstrong& Griffin, 2004). This means private correctional organizations need un-stressed, satisfied, and committed staff. Not only do staff have significanteffects on correctional environments, but correctional environments havesignificant impacts on workers. Thus, there is a need to explore how thework environment helps shape job stress, job satisfaction, and organiza-tional commitment. These are three highly salient job attitudes that influ-ence the intentions and behaviors of correctional employees. In order toreduce job stress, increase job satisfaction, and strengthen organizationalcommitment, private correctional administrators require information onwhat forces shape the stress, job satisfaction, and commitment levels of theirstaff.Theyneedempiricalevidencetoassisttheminmakinginformeddecisions.There has been little research on the possible antecedents of privatecorrectional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and/or organizational com-mitment. Too often private correctional staff are either ignored or as-sumed to be the same as public correctional workers (Lambert, Hogan,Paoline, & Clarke, 2005). It is important to examine the job attitudesof job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment amongstaff at private correctional facilities because they may differ from whathas been found among staff at public correctional facilities (Owen,2006).Organizations have both direct and indirect methods for controllingemployees (Mueller, Boyer, Price, & Iverson, 1994). Direct, coercivemethods have been shown to be ineffective in the long run (Halaby &Weakliem, 1989; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1985, 1990). They can causeemployee resentment and increased stress and dissatisfaction. Addition-ally, administrators cannot always be present to control workers directly.According to Lincoln and Kalleberg (1990), successful organizationsindirectly control employees by increasing their level of job satisfaction    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   C  e  n   t  r  a   l   F   l  o  r   i   d  a   ]  a   t   0   8  :   1   8   0   9   D  e  c  e  m   b  e  r   2   0   1   3
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!