Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
There has been considerable growth in research on correctional staff. Thisliterature has shown that correctional staff affects the workplace and thecorrectional workplace affects staff. While many areas of working in institutionalcorrections have been explored, there are many other areas that still need to beinvestigated. This study examined the relationship between organizationalcitizenship behaviors and job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and jobburnout. Organizational citizenship behaviors are efforts by employees above andbeyond what is expected. Using survey data from 160 correctional staff from aMidwestern prison, organizational citizenship behaviors had a significant positiverelationship with job satisfaction and life satisfaction, and a significant negativerelationship with turnover intent and the three areas of job burnout of emotionalexhaustion, depersonalization, and perceived ineffectiveness at work.
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 13 November 2014, At: 10:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Criminal Justice Studies: A CriticalJournal of Crime, Law and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gjup20
The relationship of organizationalcitizenship behavior with jobsatisfaction, turnover intent, lifesatisfaction, and burnout amongcorrectional staffEric G. Lambert aa Department of Criminal Justice, 3281 Faculty AdministrationBuilding , Wayne State University , Detroit, MI, 48202, USAPublished online: 15 Nov 2010.
To cite this article: Eric G. Lambert (2010) The relationship of organizational citizenship behaviorwith job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and burnout among correctional staff,Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 23:4, 361-380, DOI:10.1080/1478601X.2010.516533
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2010.516533
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice StudiesVol. 23, No. 4, December 2010, 361–380
ISSN 1478-601X print/ISSN 1478-6028 online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2010.516533http://www.informaworld.com
RESEARCH ARTICLE
The relationship of organizational citizenship behavior with job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and burnout among
correctional staff
Eric G. Lambert*
Department of Criminal Justice, 3281 Faculty Administration Building, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
Taylor and FrancisGJUP_A_516533.sgm10.1080/1478601X.2010.516533Criminal Justice Studies1478-601X (print)/1478-6028 (online)Research Article2010Taylor & Francis234000000December 2010Dr. [email protected]
There has been considerable growth in research on correctional staff. Thisliterature has shown that correctional staff affects the workplace and thecorrectional workplace affects staff. While many areas of working in institutionalcorrections have been explored, there are many other areas that still need to beinvestigated. This study examined the relationship between organizationalcitizenship behaviors and job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and jobburnout. Organizational citizenship behaviors are efforts by employees above andbeyond what is expected. Using survey data from 160 correctional staff from aMidwestern prison, organizational citizenship behaviors had a significant positiverelationship with job satisfaction and life satisfaction, and a significant negativerelationship with turnover intent and the three areas of job burnout of emotionalexhaustion, depersonalization, and perceived ineffectiveness at work.
Keywords: correctional staff; organizational citizenship behaviors; jobsatisfaction; life satisfaction; turnover intent; job burnout
Substantial amounts of money are spent to fund institutional corrections in the USA.Almost 50 billion dollars are spent annually to house more than 2.3 million adultoffenders in correctional facilities (Riordan, 2008). The operation of correctionalinstitutions is labor intensive. The cost of staff accounts for over 70% of the costs ofoperating a correctional facility (Camp & Lambert, 2005). Correctional staff areresponsible for a myriad of tasks and duties to ensure that a safe, humane, andsecure facility is maintained. Thus, it can be argued that staff are the heart and soulof any correctional facility, and that they are an important force in the success orfailure of a correctional institution. Archambeault and Archambeault (1982)contended that ‘correctional workers represent the single most important resourceavailable to any correctional agency or institution in attempting to accomplish itsmission, goals, and objectives’ (p. XXII). Yet, working in corrections is a uniqueand sometimes trying experience (Brough & Williams, 2007). Unlike most organi-zations, prisons are not involved in the processing or the production of inanimateobjects; nor do they provide services to willing customers. Correctional facilitieshold inmates who for the most part are not willing clients, and at times can behostile and violent. ‘Few other organizations are charged with the central task of
*Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
362 E.G. Lambert
supervising and securing an unwilling and potentially violent population’(Armstrong & Griffin, 2004, p. 577).
Because of the unique demands of working in corrections and the fact that correc-tional staff are critical for the proper functioning of a correctional facility, there hasbeen considerable research in the past several decades on the forces that affect andinfluence staff members.
A growing body of research has examined how the correctional environmentaffects employees. There has been a wealth of research to date that has explored thepotential causes and effects of correctional job stress, job satisfaction, and organiza-tional commitment. While this research has been instrumental in better understandinghow workplace forces affect correctional staff, there are many other areas of thecorrectional workplace that need to be examined. Organizational citizenship behavioris one area that needs to be further explored. This study examined the relationshipbetween organizational citizenship behavior and job satisfaction, turnover intent, lifesatisfaction, and job burnout.
Literature review
At most organizations, there is a wide range of employee engagement. Some employ-ees are minimalists who put forth the bare minimum amount of effort needed andother employees are ‘go-getters’ who make efforts beyond what is expected (Turnip-seed & Rassuli, 2005). Extra work efforts are referred to as organizational citizenshipbehaviors. The concept of organizational citizenship developed from the idea of extra-role behavior proposed by Katz (1964). Bateman and Organ (1983) are generallycredited with introducing the concept of organizational citizenship behaviors. Organi-zational citizenship means that an employee is going the ‘extra mile,’ which in thelong run benefits the organization. Organizational citizenship behaviors are behaviorsby the employee that are not required by the job and are prosocial for other employeesand the organization (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004). It refers to extra efforts fromworkers that are not directly or explicitly required by the job or always (officially)rewarded by the organization (Organ, 1988). This does not mean that organizationalcitizenship behaviors are not recognized or rewarded sometimes in an organization.They are not required as part of the job, and as such, are not always recognized in theevaluation of an employee (Organ, 1997). Additionally, if the extra work behaviorsare recognized, the ‘the rewards are uncertain and the relationship is indirect’ (Brag-ger, Rodriguez-Srednicki, Kutcher, Indovino, & Rosner, 2005, p. 305). Thus, anypossible organizational awards for organizational behaviors are not guaranteed and, ifthey do occur, they will do so at some unknown future date (Organ, 1997).
Organizational citizenship behaviors are discretionary acts by employees(Kohan & Mazmanian, 2003). The two primary parts of organizational citizenshipbehaviors are compliance and altruism (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Williams & Anderson,1991). Compliance refers to an employee following the rules of an organization, usingwork time efficiently, completing tasks and duties in a timely manner, and striving tobe productive (Van Dyne, Graham, & Dienesch, 1994). The opposite of compliancefor workers is to cut corners, to do the least amount of work possible, and not to notifysupervisors when they have finished the assigned work and need additional work(Dalal, 2005; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Altruism refers to when employees volunteer todo work and to help coworkers without being asked (Donavan, Brown, & Mowen,2004; Van Dyne et al., 1994). Altruistic acts are outside of the formal job descriptions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 363
of employees. They do it because they wish to help others and the organization(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
Organizational citizenship behaviors are a benefit to organizations and coworkers.It helps organizations to be both effective and efficient (Kemery, Bedeian, & Zacur,1996; Podsakoff et al., 2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors enhance the expe-riences of coworkers. According to Podsakoff and MacKenzie (1997), organizationalcitizenship behaviors ‘lubricate the social machinery of the organization’ (p. 135). Itcan make the workplace a more pleasant place for coworkers; therefore, organiza-tional citizenship behaviors not only enhance the organizational performance, but thepsychological and social context of work as well (Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman,2005). While it is beneficial, there has been nevertheless little research on organiza-tional citizenship behaviors among correctional staff.
Only two published studies on organizational citizenship behavior and correctionalstaff could be located. In a study of correctional officers at a Kentucky prison,Culliver, Sigler, and McNeely (1991) found that organizational commitment was posi-tively associated with organizational citizenship behaviors (which they labeled asprosocial behavior). They concluded that ‘it is probable that these correctional officersare motivated in their work behavior by what they perceive to be best for the organi-zation’ (Culliver et al., 1991, p. 283). In addition, they observed no significant corre-lation between empathy and the value concern for others and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. This would suggest that organizational citizenship behaviorsare influenced by workplace forces rather than being entirely the result of individualforces, such as personality. In a study of Midwestern correctional staff, Lambert,Hogan, and Griffin (2008) reported that organizational commitment had a significantpositive relationship with organizational citizenship, while job stress had a negativeassociation. Job involvement, on the other hand, had a non-significant associationwith organizational commitment. Moreover, they argued that ‘research focusing onthe correctional environment should continue to explore the relationship betweenprosocial behaviors and other work–environment variables’ (Lambert et al., 2008,p. 65). This study was therefore undertaken to explore the relationship of organiza-tional citizenship with correctional staff job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfac-tion, and job burnout.
Research focus
Job satisfaction
Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2004) argued organizational citizenship behaviors do notoperate in a vacuum but rather operate in the overall work environment. Thus, it islikely that not only do aspects of the work environment, as found in past correctionalstudies, affect engagement in organizational citizenship behaviors, but organizationalcitizenship behaviors themselves can be related to workplace outcomes. The socialexchange theory holds that social interactions at work can influence the attitudes andbehaviors of employees (Dalal, 2005). One possible relationship is between organiza-tional citizenship behaviors and job satisfaction. According to Muchinsky (1987), jobsatisfaction is an emotional, affective response resulting from the extent a personderives pleasure from his or her job (p. 396). Hopkins (1983) defined job satisfactionas ‘the fulfillment or gratification of certain needs that are associated with one’s work’(p. 7). Job satisfaction, therefore, results from an assessment by an employee abouthis/her job in terms of meeting wants, desires, and needs (Cranny, Smith, & Stone,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
364 E.G. Lambert
1992). When a person engages in organizational citizenship, it will likely result inhim/her having a more positive feeling about the job (Williams & Anderson, 1991).Being compliant can result in feelings of accomplishment and being effective at work.In addition, being altruistic, particularly by helping coworkers, can lead to increasedfeelings of goodwill from coworkers. In the end, this can lead to feelings of beingvalued and respected by coworkers. Most correctional staff want positive interactionswith coworkers (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan, 2006). Organizational citizenshipbehaviors may, therefore, meet the intrinsic and extrinsic needs of correctional staff.Thus, organizational citizenship behaviors were hypothesized to be positively relatedto job satisfaction for correctional staff.
Turnover intent
In a related fashion with the social exchange theory, organizational citizenship behav-iors probably signal a desire to remain as an active member of the organization. Peoplewho put forth extra efforts at work probably have a positive view of the organizationand plan to stay. Workers who do not engage in organizational citizenship behaviorsprobably have a low view of the organization and do not have a strong desire to remainover the long run. There is, therefore, a type of reciprocity between the worker and theemploying organization exhibited by organizational citizenship behaviors and a desireto remain with the organization. As such, organizational citizenship behaviors shouldhave an inverse association with turnover intent. There are two types of turnover,involuntary and voluntary (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Price & Mueller, 1986).Involuntary turnover is when an employee is fired by the organization. Usually invol-untary turnover is less controllable, and in many cases, it is not in the best interest ofthe organization (or the employee) that employment continues (McShane & Williams,1993; Mitchell, MacKenzie, Styve, & Gover, 2000; Mowday et al., 1982; Stohr, Self,& Lovrich, 1992). Voluntary turnover (i.e. quitting) is when the worker elects to leavethe job. Voluntary turnover tends to be more harmful to organizations because of thedirect and indirect costs and is often unexpected. In addition, voluntary turnover is amuch more likely type of turnover than is involuntary turnover in many correctionalfacilities. Blakely and Bumphus (2004) reported the majority (60–70%) of correc-tional staff turnover is voluntary. Moreover, Wright (1993) reported, in his study ofcorrectional staff, the best employees quit because they had more job opportunities.Before actual voluntary turnover occurs, turnover intent is formed (Sager, Griffeth, &Hom, 1998). Turnover intent is the cognitive process of thinking of quitting, planningon leaving a job, and the desire to leave the job (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino,1979). Correctional staff who engage in organizational citizenship behaviors have alow intent to leave employment with the correctional agency. Conversely, staffmembers who are low in organizational citizenship behaviors probably have a highlevel of turnover intent. In a sense, organizational citizenship behaviors are the phys-ical manifestation of the cognitive desires to remain with the correctional organiza-tion.
Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction is a cognitive appraisal of the overall degree of satisfaction a personhas with his/her life (Hart, 1999; Quinn & Staines, 1979). Life satisfaction is basi-cally a person’s general assessment with the overall quality of his/her life. Thus, life
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 365
satisfaction is generally viewed as a global assessment by an individual rather than tofocus on specific aspects of life, such as health, relationships, and so forth (Lambert,Hogan, Paoline, & Baker, 2005). It is basically the degree a person is happy and satis-fied with his or her overall life. Life satisfaction is important for both employees andemployers. Donovan and Halpern (2002) argued that ‘when people are happier, theytend to be more open-minded and creative in their thinking. In contrast, people whoare unhappy, stressed or dissatisfied tend to exhibit “tunnel vision” and rigid think-ing’ (p. 32). Furthermore, people who are satisfied with their lives tend to be healthier(Donovan & Halpern, 2002). Correctional institutions require well-balanced andsatisfied employees in order to be effective (Lambert et al., 2005). The spillovertheory holds that work occupies a major part of the lives of adults and what happensat work affects people’s overall quality of life (Demerouti, Bakkar, & Schaufeli,2005; Kantak, Futrell, & Sager, 1992; Steiner & Truxillo, 1989). In other words,when the person feels positive at work, these positive feelings spillover and improvethe overall satisfaction with life for the person. When work is negative, people will beless happy and satisfied with their lives. The spillover theory therefore postulates thatworkplace factors influence the overall quality of life for most employees (Demeroutiet al., 2005; Kantak et al., 1992). As previously indicated, participation in organiza-tional citizenship behaviors can lead to positive responses from coworkers and super-visors, which in the end can lead to the person feeling good about himself/herself.The positive interactions and feelings at work are likely to spillover to other domainsof the person’s life, and in the end, life satisfaction should rise; therefore, amongcorrectional staff organizational citizenship behaviors should be positively related tolife satisfaction.
Job burnout
Maslach and Jackson (1981), pioneers in the study of job burnout, defined burnout as‘a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and cynicism that occurs frequently among indi-viduals who do people work’ (p. 99). Job burnout is a real possibility in institutionalcorrections where staff deal with inmates who can sometimes be demanding, unwilling,and even violent (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Whitehead, 1989). This can take atoll on a staff member. In the end, the staff member can suffer from job burnout. Jobburnout is a syndrome where the worker experiences emotional exhaustion, deperson-alization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1982; Maslach &Jackson, 1981); therefore, job burnout is a multidimensional concept, comprising theareas of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a feeling of being ineffective(Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Emotional exhaustion is the feeling of being emotionallydrained, fatigued, overextended, and used up from the job. Depersonalization refers totreating others impersonally, callously, and as objects. Ineffectiveness is the perceptionof being ineffective in dealing with others at work, including a feeling of not makinga positive impact on others and a feeling of not being competent and successful at work(Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1984; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Whitehead, 1989). Basedon the person–environment fit theory, workplace forces can either increase or decreasethe chances of burnout occurring (Lee & Ashford, 1996; Leiter, 1993). Maslach (2003)argued that ‘chronic strain that results from an incongruence, or misfit, between theworker and the job’ (p. 189). Engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors suggeststhat the person feels comfortable in the organization and is willing to extend effortson its behalf. These extra efforts may help shield the staff member from the workplace
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
366 E.G. Lambert
forces that can lead to strain for the worker, and ultimately burnout. Conversely, thosewho do not engage in organizational citizenship behaviors may feel that they do notbelong and do not wish to belong. This can lead to strain and conflict for the person,which in the long run can result in burnout from the job. Additionally, as previouslyindicated, organizational citizenship may invoke positive responses from supervisorsand coworkers. Social support from coworkers, supervisors, and the administration canhelp shield a person from burnout (Lee & Ashford, 1996; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,2001). Past correctional studies have reported that a lack of supervisory support, a lackof administrative support, and a lack of support from coworkers have all been observedto lead to higher levels of burnout among correctional staff (Drory & Shamir, 1988;Garland, 2004; Neveu, 2007; Savicki, Cooley, & Gjesvold, 2003). Therefore, organi-zational citizenship behaviors should be inversely linked with the three areas of jobburnout among correctional staff.
Hypotheses
To reiterate, the following hypotheses were made:
Hypothesis 1: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a positive relationship withcorrectional staff job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a negative relationship withcorrectional staff turnover intent.
Hypothesis 3: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a positive relationship withcorrectional staff life satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a negative relationship withthe emotional exhaustion area of job burnout among correctional staff.
Hypothesis 5: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a negative relationship withthe depersonalization area of job burnout among correctional staff.
Hypothesis 6: Organizational citizenship behaviors will have a negative relationship withthe perception of being ineffective at work area of job burnout among correctional staff.
Methodology
Respondents
All the available staff at a Midwestern correctional facility (N = 200) were providedwith the survey. Some of the staff were not available at the time of the survey becauseof various forms of leave, such as sick leave, disability leave, and vacation leave. Acover letter explained the survey’s purpose and informed the respondents that partic-ipation was both voluntary and all responses would remain anonymous. To encourageemployee participation, a raffle of several cash awards ranging from $25 to $100 washeld. All staff members were provided a bifurcated raffle ticket and were informed thatthey would be entered into a raffle if they returned half of the raffle ticket. The returnedraffle tickets were separated from the surveys, so there was no possibility of linking arespondent to a particular survey. Staff with winning raffle tickets were awarded cashprizes, and all unclaimed prizes were donated to the employee organization at thefacility. One hundred and sixty (160) usable surveys were returned, for a response rate
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 367
of 80%. Due to the high rate of initial return, there was no follow-up survey. At thetime of the survey, the facility was a maximum security correctional facility that housed460 individuals aged 14–19 who were adjudicated as adults.
Those who responded represented a wide array of positions at the facility. Specif-ically, 62% of the respondents were correctional officers, 9% were custody supervi-sors, 6% worked in the business office, 4% worked in education, 3% were unitmanagement staff (i.e. counselors, case managers, and unit managers), 3% worked inthe medical department, and 13% worked in other areas. About 21% were supervisorsof other staff and 79% were not. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were men and41% were women. The median age of the respondents was 33 years old. The mediantenure at the correctional facility was 17 months, and ranged from 1 to 53 months. Interms of educational experience, 6% of the respondents had a high school degree orGED, 47% had some college but no degree, 24% had an associate’s degree, 16% hada bachelor’s degree, and 7% had a graduate or professional degree. In regards to race/ethnicity, 79% of the respondents were White, 11% were Black, 2% were Hispanic,3% were Native American, and 4% were other. Overall, the respondents appeared tobe demographically similar to the overall staff at the correctional facility; at the timeof the survey, the characteristics of the overall correctional staff were 61% male, 81%white, the average age was 32–34, the average tenure was about 20 months, and abouttwo-thirds of the employees held a custody position. No educational information forthe overall employee population was available.
Variables
Organizational citizenship behavior
Organizational citizenship behavior was measured using eight items (see Appendix 1for these eight indicators). These items have been used in non-criminal justice studies(e.g. Bachrach & Jex, 2000; Konovsky & Organ, 1996; Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Mooreman, & Fetter, 1990; Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983; Williams & Anderson,1991). Most measures of organizational citizenship include the areas of altruism andcompliance (Organ & Ryan, 1995). The composite measure of organizational citizen-ship behavior includes both these areas. The items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of0.80 and were summed together to form an index.
Job satisfaction
A global rather than a facet-oriented measure of job satisfaction was used. Facet-basedmeasures ask workers about their satisfaction with specific areas of their jobs, such aspay, tasks, coworkers, and so forth (Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Global measuresask workers to what degree they like their job in general without asking about specificfacets of the job (Cranny et al., 1992). A global measure of job satisfaction was usedbecause it allows ‘respondents to assess mentally what they feel are relevant dimen-sions in formulating a response to the issue of job satisfaction rather than restrictingthem to think about specific facets of the job’ (Camp, 1994, p. 286). In addition, globalmeasures are the most common form of job satisfaction used in the correctional staffliterature (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002). Job satisfaction was measured using fiveitems (see Appendix 1) from Brayfield and Rothe (1951). The responses to the itemswere summed together to form a job satisfaction index, and this index had aCronbach’s alpha of 0.92.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
368 E.G. Lambert
Turnover intent
There are four cognitive parts of turnover intent: (1) thinking of quitting; (2) planningto stay or leave; (3) searching for alternative employment; and (4) a desire to leavecurrent job (Mobley et al., 1979). Each of these areas was measured using items fromSager et al. (1998) (see Appendix 1 for the items). The five items, which had a Cron-bach’s alpha value of 0.77, were summed together to form the turnover intent index.
Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction was measured using the two life satisfaction items from Quinn andStaines (1979). These two items have been used in numerous life satisfaction studies(Lambert et al., 2005). The two items ask respondents to assess their overall level ofsatisfaction with their lives (see Appendix 1 for the items). The items were summedtogether to form an index measuring life satisfaction, which had a Cronbach’s alphavalue of 0.84.
Job burnout
The three burnout areas of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and perceivedineffectiveness in dealing with others at work were measured. The burnout items arefrom Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker-Gail, and Baker (2009). Three items weresummed to form an index for emotional exhaustion (see Appendix 1), which had aCronbach’s alpha of 0.85. Depersonalization was created by summing together fouritems, which had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.74 (see Appendix 1). Perceptions ofineffectiveness were measured by summing six items (see Appendix 1), which had aCronbach’s alpha value of 0.72.
Control variables
The demographic characteristics of position, supervisory status, gender, age, tenure,educational level, and race were included in the study as control variables. The vari-able for position measured if the respondent worked in a custody position (coded 1)or a non-custody position (coded 0), and was labeled as correctional officer. The vari-able supervisor measured if the respondent was a supervisor of other correctional staff(coded 1) or not (coded 0). A variable measuring gender was labeled as male and wascoded as 1 for men and 0 for women. Age was measured in continuous years. Tenureat the correctional facility was measured in continuous months, and was labeled astenure. Educational level was measured as a variable representing whether a respon-dent had earned a college degree (coded 1) or not (coded 0), and was labeled in thestudy as college degree. Finally, race/ethnicity was measured using a variable repre-senting if the respondent was nonwhite or Hispanic (coded 0) or white/non-Hispanic(coded 1) and was labeled as white.
Findings
Descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Table 1. All variables had vari-ation (i.e. were not constants). In addition, the variables were normally distributed.Factor analysis was conducted for each of the indexes. The results indicated that theitems loaded on the predicted factors, including the burnout items, indicating conver-gent validity.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 369
Tabl
e 1.
Des
crip
tive
stat
isti
cs.
Var
iabl
eD
escr
ipti
onM
inM
axM
edia
nM
ean
SD
Cor
rect
iona
l O
ffic
erH
olds
the
pos
itio
n of
cor
rect
iona
l of
fice
r (0
= n
o, 3
8%)
(1 =
yes
, 62%
)0
11
0.62
0.49
Sup
ervi
sor
Is a
sup
ervi
sor
of o
ther
sta
ff (
0 =
no,
79%
) (1
= y
es, 2
1%)
01
00.
210.
41M
ale
The
gen
der
of t
he r
espo
nden
t (0
= f
emal
e, 4
1%)
(1 =
mal
e, 5
9%)
01
10.
590.
49A
geA
ge i
n ye
ars
1968
3335
.77
10.8
2T
enur
eL
engt
h of
em
ploy
men
t at
the
pri
son
in m
onth
s1
5317
20.6
413
.84
Col
lege
Deg
ree
Has
a c
olle
ge d
egre
e (0
= n
o, 5
3%)
(1 =
yes
, 47%
)0
10
0.47
0.50
Whi
teR
ace
of r
espo
nden
t (0
= n
onw
hite
, 21%
) (1
= w
hite
, 79%
)0
11
0.79
0.40
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Cit
izen
ship
Beh
avio
rA
n in
dex
mea
sure
d by
8 i
tem
s, α
= 0
.80
1240
3131
.00
4.69
Job
Sat
isfa
ctio
nA
n in
dex
mea
sure
d by
5 i
tem
s, α
= 0
.92
525
1918
.34
4.67
Tur
nove
r In
tent
An
inde
x m
easu
red
by 5
ite
ms,
α =
0.7
73
177
8.02
3.76
Lif
e S
atis
fact
ion
An
inde
x m
easu
red
by 2
ite
ms,
α =
0.8
42
34
4.30
1.13
Em
otio
nal
Exh
aust
ion
An
inde
x m
easu
red
by 3
ite
ms,
α =
0.8
53
146
6.00
2.40
Dep
erso
nali
zati
onA
n in
dex
mea
sure
d by
4 i
tem
s, α
= 0
.74
419
99.
422.
93In
effe
ctiv
enes
sA
n in
dex
mea
sure
d by
6 i
tem
s, α
= 0
.72
723
1313
.20
3.10
Not
e: M
in s
tand
s fo
r m
inim
um v
alue
, M
ax s
tand
s fo
r m
axim
um v
alue
, S
D s
tand
s fo
r st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
, an
d α
sta
nds
for
Cro
nbac
h’s
alph
a fo
r in
tern
al r
elia
bili
ty. T
henu
mbe
r of
res
pond
ents
was
160
(N
= 1
60).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
370 E.G. Lambert
The correlations between the variables are presented in Table 2. Among the demo-graphic characteristics, correctional officer, supervisor, and age had statisticallysignificant correlations with organizational citizenship behavior. Correctional officersin general reported fewer contributions of organizational citizenship behaviors thandid non-correctional officer staff. Supervisors reported a higher level of organizationalcitizenship behavior than did non-supervisory staff. As age increased, so did organi-zational citizenship behavior. The other demographic characteristics (i.e. male, tenure,college degree, and white) all had non-significant correlations with organizationalcitizenship behavior. Job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, emotionalexhaustion, depersonalization, and ineffectiveness all had statistically significantcorrelations with organizational citizenship behavior. Job satisfaction and life satisfac-tion both had positive correlations, while turnover intent, emotional exhaustion,depersonalization, and ineffectiveness had negative correlations.
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression equations were estimated with jobsatisfaction, turnover intent, and life satisfaction as the dependent variables and thecontrol variables and organizational citizenship behavior as the independent vari-ables. The results are reported in Table 3. Based on the correlations, the VariationInflation Factor (VIF) scores (not reported), and the tolerance values (not reported),neither collinearity nor multicollinearity were problems. For the job satisfactionequation, tenure and organizational citizenship had statistically significant associa-tions with job satisfaction. Tenure had a negative association, which meant thatincreases in tenure were associated with decreases in satisfaction from the job. Orga-nizational citizenship behavior had a positive association with job satisfaction.Increases in organizational citizenship behavior were associated with increased satis-faction from the job. The R-squared for the regression equation was 0.36, whichmeans that the independent variables accounted for 36% of the variance of thedependent variable of job satisfaction.
For the turnover intent equation, the independent variables accounted for 20% ofthe variance in the turnover intent index. Among the control variables, only age hada significant association. As age increased, the turnover intent index dropped. Orga-nizational citizenship behavior had a significant negative relationship with turnoverintent. In other words, involvement in organizational citizenship behaviors wereassociated with decreased intentions to leave employment with the correctionalorganization.
The independent variables accounted for 21% of the variance in the life satisfac-tion index. Tenure was the only demographic characteristic to have a significant asso-ciation with life satisfaction. As tenure increased, the degree of satisfaction with lifedecreased. Organizational citizenship behavior had a positive relationship with lifesatisfaction.
OLS regression equations were estimated with the three dimensions of job burnoutas the dependent variables and the control variables and organizational citizenshipbehavior as the independent variables. The results are reported in Table 4. Among thecontrol variables, supervisor and tenure had a positive association with the burnoutdimension of emotional exhaustion. Non-supervisors generally reported higher levelsof emotional exhaustion than supervisors. As tenure increased at the correctionalfacility, emotional exhaustion also rose. Organizational citizenship behavior had asignificant negative association with emotional exhaustion. Overall, the independentvariables in the equation explained about 26% of the observed variance in theemotional exhaustion measure.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 371
Tabl
e 2.
Cor
rela
tion
mat
rix.
Var
iabl
es1.
2.3.
4.5.
6.7.
8.9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1. C
O1.
002.
Sup
ervi
sor
−0.4
7**
1.00
3. M
ale
0.28
**0.
121.
004.
Age
−0.5
3**
0.16
**−0
.17*
1.00
5. T
enur
e−0
.20*
*0.
39**
0.01
0.07
1.00
6. C
olle
ge−0
.29*
*0.
19*
−0.1
30.
16*
0.12
1.00
7. W
hite
−0.0
20.
040.
08−0
.05
0.06
0.08
1.00
8. O
CB
−0.2
9**
0.20
*−0
.08
0.18
*0.
010.
13−0
.07
1.00
9. J
ob S
at−0
.30*
*0.
28**
0.07
0.18
*−0
.07
0.15
0.01
0.53
**1.
0010
. Tur
nove
r In
tent
0.21
**−0
.21*
*−0
.02
−0.2
6**
−0.0
10.
01−0
.01
−0.3
5**
−0.6
8**
1.00
11. L
ife
Sat
−0.1
30.
09−0
.08
0.04
−0.1
40.
100.
010.
41**
0.52
**−0
.39*
*1.
0012
. Em
otio
nal
0.09
−0.1
6*−0
.05
−0.0
60.
160.
01−0
.03
−0.4
9**
−0.6
1**
0.51
**−0
.57*
*1.
0013
. Dep
erso
n0.
32**
−0.1
00.
08−0
.32*
*0.
10−0
.04
−0.0
3−0
.54*
*−0
.44*
*0.
48**
−0.3
6**
0.46
**1.
0014
. Ine
ffec
tive
0.18
**−0
.24*
*−0
.12
−0.0
8−0
.02
−0.1
0−0
.01
−0.5
0**
−0.4
3**
0.24
**−0
.31*
*0.
38**
0.44
**
Not
e: S
ee T
able
1 f
or t
he c
odin
g of
the
var
iabl
es. C
O s
tand
s fo
r co
rrec
tion
al o
ffice
r, C
olle
ge s
tand
s fo
r co
lleg
e de
gree
, OC
B s
tand
s fo
r or
gani
zati
onal
cit
izen
ship
beh
avio
r,Jo
b S
at s
tand
s fo
r jo
b sa
tisf
acti
on,
Lif
e S
at s
tand
s fo
r li
fe s
atis
fact
ion,
Em
otio
nal
stan
ds f
or t
he e
mot
iona
l ex
haus
tion
dim
ensi
on o
f jo
b bu
rnou
t, D
eper
son
stan
ds f
or t
hede
pers
onal
izat
ion
dim
ensi
on o
f jo
b bu
rnou
t, an
d In
effe
ctiv
e st
ands
for
the
per
ceiv
ed i
neff
ectiv
enes
s di
men
sion
of
job
burn
out.
N =
160
.*p
≤ 0
.05;
**p
≤ 0
.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
372 E.G. Lambert
The R-squared value for the depersonalization equation was 0.38. Among thedemographic variables, only age had a significant effect. Increases in age were asso-ciated with decreases in treating others at work in an impersonal and callous manner.The organizational citizenship behavior index had a significant negative relationshipwith the emotional exhaustion burnout variable. Thus, increases in organizational citi-zenship behaviors were associated with decreases in reported emotional exhaustionfrom work.
Table 3. Multivariate regression results on the relationship between organizational citizenshipbehavior and job satisfaction, turnover intent, and life satisfaction.
Job satisfaction Turnover intent Life satisfaction
Variables B β B β B β
Correctional Officer −1.26 −0.13 −0.10 −0.03 −0.02 −0.01Supervisor 1.79 0.16 −1.40 −0.15 0.23 0.08Male 1.28 0.14 −0.31 0.04 −0.15 −0.06Age 0.01 0.03 −0.07 −0.21** −0.01 −0.05Tenure −0.06 −0.17* 0.01 0.05 −0.02 −0.18*College Degree 0.19 0.05 0.77 0.10 0.12 0.06White 0.34 0.03 −0.40 −0.04 0.12 0.04OCB 0.46 0.46** −0.25 −0.31** 0.10 0.39**R-squared 0.36** 0.20** 0.21**
Note: See Table 1 for the coding of the variables. OLS regression equations were estimated with jobsatisfaction, turnover intent, and life satisfaction as the dependent variables and the control variables andorganizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as the independent variables. B represents the unstandardizedregression coefficient, β represents the standard regression coefficient. N = 160.*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.
Table 4. Multivariate regression results on the relationship between organizational citizenshipbehavior and job burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, andperceived ineffectiveness.
Emotional exhaustion Depersonalization Ineffectiveness
Variables B β B β B β
Correctional Officer −0.33 −0.07 0.90 0.15 0.21 0.03Supervisor −1.09 −0.19* 0.30 0.04 −0.93 −0.12Male −0.17 −0.04 −0.14 −0.02 −0.93 −0.15*Age −0.01 −0.02 −0.05 −0.18* 0.01 0.02Tenure 0.04 0.22** 0.02 0.12 0.01 0.04College Degree 0.26 0.06 0.48 0.08 −0.20 −0.03White −0.39 −0.07 −0.61 −0.08 −0.12 −0.02OCB −0.22 −0.44** −0.31 −0.50** −0.32 −0.48**R-squared 0.26** 0.38** 0.29**
Note: See Table 1 for the coding of the variables. Ordinary Least Squares regression was used. B representsthe unstandardized regression coefficient, β represents the standard regression coefficient, and OCB standsfor organizational citizenship behavior. N = 160.*p ≤ 0.05; **p ≤ 0.01.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 373
The only control variable to have a significant association with the perception ofbeing ineffective at work was male. Female staff members were more likely to feelthat they were ineffective at work as compared to their male counterparts. The variablefor organizational citizenship behavior had a significant negative effect on the ineffec-tiveness measure. The independent variables in the equation accounted for about 29%of the variance in the ineffectiveness index. Across all six OLS regression equations,organizational citizenship behavior had the largest magnitude of effect based on thestandardized regression coefficient (i.e. the β column in Tables 3 and 4).
Discussion and conclusion
This study explored the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors andjob satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, emotional exhaustion, depersonaliza-tion, and perceptions of being ineffective among correctional staff. All six hypotheseswere supported by the findings. Organizational citizenship behaviors were positivelyassociated with job satisfaction. It appears that correctional staff who engage in orga-nizational citizenship behaviors also report being more satisfied from their jobs. Itcould be that organizational citizenship behaviors lead to positive outcomes at workfor the employee, such as improved relations with supervisors and coworkers, andmeeting these needs allows staff to look more favorably towards their jobs. Likewise,organizational citizenship behaviors appear to be positively related to overall satisfac-tion with life. Engaging in organizational citizenship behaviors may allow correc-tional employees to feel good about themselves and work, and this spills over toenhance their overall quality of life. Organizational citizenship appears to add positiveeffects to correctional staff, at least in terms of job satisfaction and life satisfaction.
Furthermore, organizational citizenship behaviors appear to be linked withproviding a buffer against negative work outcomes. They are inversely linked withboth turnover intent and the three burnout areas. Because organizational citizenshipbehaviors lead to investments within the organization, these investments probablyincrease the chances that a person will wish to remain part of the organization. Inaddition, because organizational citizenship behaviors may result in positiveoutcomes and feelings for the correctional staff member, it probably reduces his/herdesire to leave employment at the correctional facility. Similarly, organizationalcitizenship may help insulate the forces that lead to burnout for correctional staff.Support from coworkers, supervisors, and administrators because of feelings of grati-tude and goodwill of being helped by the person may provide the staff member withsupport mechanisms that allow them to either avoid or deal with the factors linkedwith job burnout. Regardless of the explanations, the results suggest that organiza-tional citizenship is positively linked with beneficial outcomes and negatively associ-ated with detrimental outcomes.
Job satisfaction is generally viewed as a positive outcome for both the employeeand the employing organization. It has been linked with job performance, as well asa more pleasant working experience for the employee and his/her coworkers(Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980; Paoline et al., 2006). Life satisfaction is an importantoutcome. Employees who are happy with their lives tend to be more open-minded,able to interact with others effectively, creative, and healthier (Lambert et al., 2005).Voluntary turnover is costly to correctional institutions. There are both direct andindirect costs of replacing staff who leave an institution (Lambert & Hogan, 2009).According to Maslach (1978), burnout occurs when workers experience ‘the gradual
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
374 E.G. Lambert
loss of caring about the people they work with. Over time, they find that theysimply cannot sustain the kind of personal care and commitment required inthe encounters that are the essence of their job’ (p. 56). Thus, burnout is costly tothe individual staff member, inmates, coworkers, family members and friends, thecorrectional organization, and society (Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Garland, 2004;Garner, Knight, & Simpson, 2007). Thus, there is a need for correctional adminis-trators to be concerned about each of these outcomes. This study indicates that orga-nizational citizenship behaviors may be linked with each of these areas. Moreover,organizational citizenship behaviors are a positive outcome in their own right forcorrectional organizations, especially in light of their heavy dependence on staff fordaily operations. Thus, correctional administrators should focus on increasing theorganizational citizenship behaviors among their staff. It would be a positiveoutcome for all involved. This means that the forces that lead to organizational citi-zenship behaviors in correctional facilities need to be identified and understood.There is thus a need for future research on the variables that cause organizationalcitizenship among correctional staff. To date, there have been only two publishedstudies of organizational citizenship behaviors among correctional staff. There needsto be far greater research focus on organizational citizenship behaviors. As Turnip-seed and Rassuli (2005) pointed out, ‘given that organizational citizenship behaviorsare positive for organizations, managers should attempt to increase their frequencyand intensity’ (p. 232).
As with many studies, the current study had limitations. The data was from staffat a single correctional facility. Studies are needed of staff at other correctional facil-ities to determine whether the results can be replicated. In addition, future research isneeded to explore whether organizational citizenship behaviors and its relationshipswith other work environment variables vary by type of facility (e.g. adult, juvenile,jail, etc.) and by region. In addition, longitudinal research is needed to determine thecausal process. In this study, a cross-sectional survey was undertaken. This means thatthe causal direction of organizational citizenship behaviors with job satisfaction, turn-over intent, life satisfaction, and the areas of job burnout are not known. This is whythe terms association and relationship were used rather than effects or causal relation-ships. It is likely that the relationship with organizational citizenship behaviors and theoutcome variables in this study are more complex than presented. In the current study,the relationship was treated as non-recursive (i.e. one way from organizational citizen-ship to job satisfaction, turnover intent, life satisfaction, and the areas of job burnout).It is possible that over time, the causal relationship is recursive (i.e. the effects go inboth directions). For example, organizational citizenship behaviors may increase jobsatisfaction, but an increase in job satisfaction later results in increased engagement inorganizational citizenship behaviors. It is also possible that job satisfaction firstpositively influences organizational citizenship behaviors, and later organizationalcitizenship behaviors have a positive effect on job satisfaction. Future research isneeded to untangle the causal directions of the relationships observed in the currentstudy. As previously indicated, additional research is needed to explore the anteced-ents of correctional staff organizational citizenship behaviors. Additionally, futurestudies need to explore the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviorsand other outcome areas, such relations with coworkers, work–family conflict, qualityof interactions with inmates, and so forth. Future research may wish to explore thedevelopment and testing of more refined measures than those used in the currentstudy. Only with this additional research will a more complete understanding of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 375
organizational citizenship behaviors and how it operates in correctional institutions begained. Without knowledge generated by future research, both administrators andscholars will be hampered in developing more positive work environments at correc-tional facilities.
In closing, institutional corrections is expensive, with personnel comprising thelargest expenditure. We live in an era of shrinking budgets and greater demand. Withthe economic strain faced by many governments, using financial resources efficientlyshould be a goal of correctional administrators. One method for being more effectiveis to increase organizational citizenship behaviors among correctional staff. Theresults of the current study found a positive relationship between organizational citi-zenship behaviors and job satisfaction and life satisfaction. Similarly, the resultsshowed a negative association between organizational citizenship and turnover intentand the burnout areas of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and ineffectiveness.Job satisfaction, life satisfaction, turnover intent, and job burnout are all critical areasfor correctional organizations. They are also important areas for correctional staff. Inthe end, correctional staff are the driving force within a correctional institution. It isimportant to explore the factors which have significant impacts on them, as well as thecorrectional organization. This was but a single, exploratory study. Future research isneeded to provide a clearer understanding and reiterate the importance of organiza-tional citizenship behaviors within correctional facilities. It is hoped that this currentstudy will spark interest in researching organizational citizenship behaviors in thefield of institutional corrections. Research can light the way for a brighter future.
AcknowledgementsEric Lambert thanks Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper. He also thanks theeditor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. These comments andsuggestions improved the paper.
Notes on contributorEric G. Lambert is a Professor of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. He received hisPhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. Hisresearch interests include organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes,intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees, and the international perceptions,attitudes, and views on criminal justice issues.
ReferencesArchambeault, W., & Archambeault, B. (1982). Correctional supervisory management:
Principles of organization, policy, and law. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.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.
Bachrach, D., & Jex, S. (2000). Organizational citizenship behavior and mood: An experi-mental test of perceived job breadth. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 641–663.
Bateman, T., & Organ, D. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good solider: The relationshipbetween affect and employee citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587–595.
Blakely, C., & Bumphus, V. (2004). Private and public sector prisons – A comparison ofselect characteristics. Federal Probation, 68(1), 49–55.
Blakely, G., Andrews, M., & Moorman, R. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitiv-ity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenshipbehaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 259–273.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
376 E.G. Lambert
Bragger, J., Rodriguez-Srednicki, O., Kutcher, E., Indovino, L., & Rosner, E. (2005). Work–family conflict, work–family culture, and organizational citizenship behavior amongteachers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 303–324.
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 35, 307–311.
Brough, P., & Williams, J. (2007). Managing occupational stress in a high-risk industry:Measuring the job demands of correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34,555–567.
Camp, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction onturnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305.
Camp, S., & Lambert, E. (2005). The influence of organizational incentives on absenteeism:Sick leave use among correctional workers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 144–172.
Carlson, J., & Thomas, G. (2006). Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections offic-ers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(3), 19–34.
Clegg, S., & Dunkerley, D. (1980). Organization, class, and control. London: Routledge andKegan Paul.
Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobsand how it affects their performance. New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavioramong correctional officers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied CriminalJustice, 15, 277–284.
Dalal, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviorand counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255.
Demerouti, E., Bakkar, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Spillover and crossover of exhaustion andlife satisfaction among dual-earner parents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 266–289.
Donavan, D., Brown, T., & Mowen, J. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker customerorientation: Job satisfaction, commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors.Journal of Marketing, 68, 128–146.
Donovan, N., & Halpern, D. (2002). Life satisfaction: The state of knowledge andimplications for government. London: Strategy Unit.
Drory, A., & Shamir, B. (1988). Effects of organizational and life variables on job satisfactionand burnout. Group and Organization Studies, 13, 441–455.
Garland, B. (2004). The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout:An exploratory study. The Prison Journal, 84, 452–471.
Garner, B., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. (2007). Burnout among corrections-based drug treat-ment staff: Impact of individual and organizational factors. International Journal ofOffender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 510–522.
Griffin, M., Hogan, N., Lambert, E., Tucker-Gail, K., & Baker, D. (2009). Job involvement,job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and burnout of correctionalstaff. Criminal Justice and Behavior [Online version]. Retrieved December 14, 2009,from http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0093854809351682v1
Hart, P. (1999). Predicting employee life satisfaction: A coherent model of personality, workand nonwork experiences, and domain satisfactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,564–584.
Hopkins, A. (1983). Work and job satisfaction in the public sectors. Totowa, NJ: Rowmanand Allonheld.
Kantak, D., Futrell, C., & Sager, J. (1992). Job satisfaction and life satisfaction in a salesforce. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 12, 1–7.
Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9,131–133.
Keinan, G., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources,outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 380–398.
Kemery, E., Bedeian, A., & Zacur, S. (1996). Expectancy-based job cognitions and job affectas predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,26, 635–651.
Kohan, A., & Mazmanian, D. (2003). Police work, burnout, and pro-organizational behavior:A consideration of daily work experiences. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 559–583.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 377
Konovsky, M., & Organ, D. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizationalcitizenship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253–266.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizationalcommitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal JusticeReview, 34, 96–118.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of theliterature on the antecedents and consequences of correctional staff job satisfaction. Crim-inal Justice and Behavior, 29, 115–143.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Griffin, M. (2008). Being the good soldier: Organizational citizen-ship behavior and commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior,35, 56–68.
Lambert, E., Hogan, H., Paoline, E., & Baker, D. (2005). The good life: The impact of jobsatisfaction and occupational stressors on correctional staff life satisfaction – An explor-atory study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 1–26.
Lee, R., & Ashford, B. (1996). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the threedimensions of job burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 123–133.
Leiter, M. (1993). Burnout as a development process: Consideration of models. In W.Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments intheory and research (pp. 237–250). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C. (1978). Job burnout: How people cope. Public Welfare, 36, 56–58.Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 12, 189–192.Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113.Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1984). Burnout in organizational settings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.),
Applied social psychology annual 5 (pp. 135–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Reviews of Psychology,
52, 397–422.McShane, M., & Williams, F. (1993). The management of correctional institutions. New
York, NY: Garland.Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D., Styve, G., & Gover, A. (2000). The impact of individual, orga-
nizational, and voluntary turnover among juvenile correctional staff members. JusticeQuarterly, 17, 333–357.
Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis ofthe employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee–organization linkages: The psychol-ogy of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Muchinsky, P. (1987). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organi-zational psychology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.
Neveu, J.-P. (2007). Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnoutamong prison guards. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 21–42.
Organ, D. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good solider syndrome. Lexington,MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. HumanPerformance, 10, 85–97.
Organ, D., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predic-tors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775–802.
Paoline, E., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: Theimpact of ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy views on the job stress andjob satisfaction of jail staff. The Prison Journal, 8, 182–205.
Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior onorganizational performance: A review and suggestions for future research. Human Perfor-mance, 10, 133–151.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Mooreman, R., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leaderbehavior and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107–142.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
378 E.G. Lambert
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Paine, J., & Bachrach, D. (2000). Organizational citizenshipbehaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions forfuture research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.
Price, J., & Mueller, C. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of employment survey. Ann Arbor, MI:Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Riordan, J. (2008). More than one in 100 adults are behind bars, Pew study finds. The PewCharitable Trusts. Retrieved December 2, 2009, from http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=35890
Sager, J., Griffeth, R., & Hom, P. (1998). A comparison of structural models representingturnover cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254–273.
Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout incorrections officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602–619.
Schaufeli, W., & Peeters, M. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: Aliterature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19–48.
Smith, C., Organ, D., & Near, J. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature andantecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653–663.
Smith, P., Kendall, L., & Hulin, C. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work andretirement. Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2004). Exploring organizational citizenship behavior froman organizational perspective: The relationship between organizational learning and orga-nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,77, 281–298.
Steiner, D., & Truxillo, D. (1989). An improved test of the disaggregation hypothesis of joband life satisfaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 33–39.
Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investiga-tion of its causes and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455–478.
Turnipseed, D., & Rassuli, A. (2005). Performance perceptions of organizational citizenshipbehaviors at work: A bi-level study among managers and employees. British Journal ofManagement, 16, 231–244.
Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior:Construct redefinition, operationalization, and validation. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37, 765–802.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Burnout in probation and corrections. New York, NY: Praeger.Williams, L., & Anderson, S. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17,601–617.
Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of CriminalJustice, 21, 131–142.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
Criminal Justice Studies 379
Appendix 1Unless otherwise indicated, the following index items were answered with a 5-point Likert-typeof scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.
Organizational citizenship behavior
(1) I frequently volunteer to do things without being asked.(2) I often take time away from my job to help others with their work without asking for
a reward.(3) Sometimes I will coast during part of the work day when there is little work to do
rather than trying to find new work (reverse coded).(4) If possible, I take extra unauthorized breaks (reverse coded).(5) I put forth a great deal of effort at work.(6) I often try to help fellow employees so they will become more productive.(7) When possible, I take longer lunches or breaks than allowed (reverse coded).(8) I often help others at work who have a heavy workload without being asked to do so.
Job satisfaction
(1) I definitely dislike my job (reverse coded index).(2) I like my job better than the average worker does.(3) Most days I am enthusiastic about my job.(4) I find real enjoyment in my job.(5) I feel fairly well satisfied with my job.
Turnover intent
(1) In the last six months, have you thought about quitting your current job (responseoptions of Yes = 1 and No = 0).
(2) I frequently think about quitting my job at this prison.(3) How likely is it that you will be at this job in a year from now (response options of 5-
point Likert of scale ranging from very likely (coded 1) to very unlikely (coded 5)).(4) How actively have you searched for a job with other employers in the last year
(response options of 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all (coded 1) to veryactively (coded 5)).
(5) Do you desire to voluntarily leave/quit your job? (response options of Yes = 1 and No = 0).
Life satisfaction
(1) Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are with your life (responseoptions of Not Too Happy = 1, Happy = 2, and Very Happy = 3).
(2) In general, how satisfying do you find the ways you’re spending your life these days(response options of Not Too Satisfying = 1, Satisfying = 2, and Very Satisfying = 3).
Emotional exhaustion burnout
(1) Working with others is an emotional strain for me.(2) I feel that I am burned out from my job.(3) I am emotionally drained at the end of the day from my job.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
380 E.G. Lambert
Depersonalization burnout
(1) I feel that I treat some inmates as if they were impersonal objects.(2) I feel that I have become more callous toward my coworkers.(3) I am becoming less sympathetic to others at work.(4) The vast majority of time at work, I treat all inmates and staff with respect (reverse
coded).
Perceptions of ineffectiveness burnout
(1) I feel that my coworkers value my assistance (reverse coded).(2) I feel that I am effective in solving problems at work (reverse coded).(3) I feel that I am a positive influence at this prison (reverse coded).(4) I have the ability to deal effectively with the problems of inmates (reverse coded).(5) I feel that I am positively influencing inmates with my work here (reverse coded).(6) I feel that I can create a relaxed atmosphere with inmates (reverse coded).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
10:
59 1
3 N
ovem
ber
2014
