job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of...

http://cjb.sagepub.com/Behavior

Criminal Justice and

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0093854809351682

2010 37: 239 originally published online 1 December 2009Criminal Justice and BehaviorMarie L. Griffin, Nancy L. Hogan, Eric G. Lambert, Kasey A. Tucker-Gail and David N. Baker

the Burnout of Correctional StaffJob Involvement, Job Stress, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

can be found at:Criminal Justice and BehaviorAdditional services and information for

http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 1, 2009 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jan 4, 2010Version of Record >>

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 31, 2013cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 31, 2013cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://cjb.sagepub.com/


http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239



http://www.ia4cfp.org

http://www.ia4cfp.org

http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239.refs.html

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239.refs.html

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239.full.pdf

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/37/2/239.full.pdf

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/12/01/0093854809351682.full.pdf

http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/12/01/0093854809351682.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





239

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 2, February 2010 239-255DOI: 10.1177/0093854809351682© 2010 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank Janet Lambert for proofreading and editing the paper. Additionally, the authors thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Marie L. Griffin, Nancy Lynn Hogan, and Eric G. Lambert contributed equally to the article, and the order of the author-ship for them is alphabetical. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Marie L. Griffin, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 4701 West Thunderbird Road, Phoenix, AZ 85287-0403; e-mail: [email protected].

JOB INVOLVEMENT, JOB STRESS, JOB SATISFACTION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND THE BURNOUT OF CORRECTIONAL STAFF MARIE L. GRIFFINArizona State University

NANCY L. HOGANFerris State University

ERIC G. LAMBERTWayne State University

KASEY A. TUCKER-GAILDAVID N. BAKERUniversity of Toledo

In an era in which rising costs, shrinking budgets, and personnel shortages are common, it is increasingly important to provide a positive work situation to ensure worker stability. Research indicates that job burnout is a negative response that is harmful to the employee and to the organization. Depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and feeling a lack of accomplishment at work are all dimensions of job burnout. This study examined the association of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment with burnout among correctional staff. The findings highlight the significance of these vari-ables in relation to burnout. Specifically, job satisfaction had an inverse relationship with emotional exhaustion, depersonal-ization, and a sense of reduced accomplishment at work, whereas job stress had a significant positive relationship with depersonalization and emotional exhaustion. Job involvement also had a positive association with emotional exhaustion, whereas commitment to the organization had no relationship with any of the three dimensions of burnout.

Keywords: correctional staff; job burnout; job involvement; job stress; job satisfaction; organizational commitment

Job burnout, a state of fatigue and/or frustration, is a real possibility in the field of cor-rections (Hurst & Hurst, 1997). As noted by Armstrong and Griffin (2004), “few other

organizations are charged with the central task of supervising and securing an unwilling and potentially violent population” (p. 577). The limited study of burnout in corrections has indicated that this is a serious issue that needs more attention (see Belcastro, Gold, & Grant, 1982; Hurst & Hurst, 1997; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986). If left unaddressed, burnout can be harmful and costly to the employee, the clients, cowork-ers, the organization, and society (Garland, 2002; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Toch & Grant, 1982). It can lead to decreased work performance, withdrawal from interactions with others

at Universitats-Landesbibliothek on December 31, 2013cjb.sagepub.comDownloaded from



240 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

at work, increased absenteeism, substance abuse, turnover intent, and actual turnover (Belcastro et al., 1982; Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Garland, 2002; Neveu, 2007; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000). Burnout also can lead to decreased quality of service provided to others and lower job performance in general (Garner, Knight, & Simpson, 2007; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Garland (2002) argued that “unless the burnout victim receives help and recovers, mustering the energy to function at an ordinary level will become a continual struggle” (p. 116).

This study expands the literature by examining the relationship of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment with correctional staff burnout. By better understanding the influence of such factors on burnout within this unique work envi-ronment, correctional administrators and officers alike may be better able to limit or modify a variety of negative behavioral outcomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

BURNOUT

Maslach and Jackson (1981), who are viewed as pioneers in the study of job burnout, defined burnout as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion and cynicism that occurs fre-quently among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind” (p. 99). They argued that job burnout is the extensive strain and psychological exhaustion faced by the employee. Specifically, burnout is a multidimensional concept wherein a worker experiences emo-tional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment (Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Emotional exhaustion refers to the feeling of being emotionally drained, fatigued, overextended, and used up from the job. Depersonalization refers to treating others impersonally, callously, and as objects. Employees become detached and cynical. Reduced sense of personal accom-plishment is a feeling of being ineffective in dealing with others at work, including a feel-ing of not making a positive impact and not being effective in dealing with others. Simply put, it is the feeling of not being competent and successful at work (Maslach & Jackson, 1981, 1984; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Whitehead, 1989). According to Maslach (1978), burnout occurs when workers experience “the gradual loss of caring about the people they work with. Over time, they find that they simply cannot sustain the kind of personal care and commitment required in the encounters that are the essence of their job” (p. 56). Maslach and Jackson (1981) and Cherniss (1980) postulated that organizational factors were major contributors to job burnout.

BURNOUT IN CORRECTIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

There is a small, but growing, body of published studies that have explored burnout among correctional employees. Generally, this research has examined the possible anteced-ents of burnout, including personal characteristics, such as gender, age, educational level, tenure, and position. Age has been found to have an inverse relationship with the three dimensions of burnout (Carlson, Anson, & Thomas, 2003; Garner et al., 2007; Morgan, Van Haveren, & Pearson, 2002; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Studies on gender have had




Griffin et al. / BURNOUT OF CORRECTIONAL STAFF 241

mixed results, with men reporting higher levels of depersonalization and a reduced sense of accomplishment (Carlson et al., 2003; Morgan et al., 2002; Pelletier, Couto, & Lamonde, 1996), whereas others reported no difference in the level of burnout between men and women (Hurst & Hurst, 1997). Educational level was inversely related to burnout (Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007) and reduced sense of accomplishment (Morgan et al., 2002). Tenure also has mixed results, with some suggesting a negative relationship with burnout (Morgan et al., 2002), whereas others report a positive relationship between tenure and burnout (Belcastro et al., 1982). In addition, the more contact with inmates reported by officers, the greater the level of a sense of accomplishment at work (Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). The type of job position in a correctional organization has been associated with burnout as well. Studies have shown that individuals in custody positions (Gerstein, Topp, & Correll, 1987) as well as treatment positions (Carlson & Thomas, 2006) reported higher levels of burnout. Race had no influence on the reported level of burnout among correctional officers (Morgan et al., 2002).

Although it is important to consider individual-level variables and their relationship to correctional staff burnout, the vast majority of research to date on the correctional work-place suggests strongly that organizational influences, and not individual-level variables, exert the greatest impact on employee work experiences (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Dollard & Winefield, 1998; Drory & Shamir, 1988;Griffin, 2001; Garner et al., 2007; Gerstein et al., 1987; Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2004). However, not all the pos-sible correlates to correctional staff burnout have been examined. Building on the previous correctional research on burnout, in the present study, we explored the associations of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment to uncover their relationships with the three dimensions of burnout.

JOB INVOLVEMENT

Job involvement is the degree to which a person views the importance of a job in his or her life (i.e., central life interest; Kanungo, 1979, 1982a, 1982b; Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). It is the psychological identification a person has with his or her job (DeCarufel & Schaan, 1990; Kanungo, 1979, 1982a, 1982b; Lawler & Hall, 1970). “An individual with a high degree of job involvement would place the job at the center of his/her life’s interests. The well-known phrase ‘I live, eat, and breathe my job’ would describe someone whose job involvement is very high” (DeCarufel & Schaan, 1990, p. 86). “Persons with low job involvement would place something other than their jobs (e.g., family, hob-bies) at the center of their lives” (DeCarufel & Schaan, 1990, p. 86).

Freudenberger (1980) argued that job burnout occurred more frequently among those highly dedicated to a cause, a way of life, or a field of work; when their dedication failed to result in the level of desired rewards or outcomes they had anticipated, burnout occurred. Cherniss (1980) also theorized that individuals who accepted a job because they thought they had a “calling” for that type of work were at a higher risk of succumbing to burnout than those who had accepted a position because it was simply a job. Those with high job involvement may place a greater importance on succeeding at work and may become disil-lusioned over time when they fail to realize the goals of their calling. With this in mind, this study hypothesized that job involvement would have a significant positive effect on job burnout among correctional employees.





JOB STRESS

According to Matteson and Ivancevich (1987), although multiple definitions of stress are found throughout the literature, “virtually all of them can be placed into one of two catego-ries: stress can be defined as either a stimulus or a response” (pp. 9-10). Stress can act as a stimulus that has a negative effect, and these stimuli are known as stressors. Role conflict (receiving conflicting directions or roles), role ambiguity (receiving unclear directions), role overload (being asked to do too many tasks or not being provided sufficient resources for those tasks), and dangerousness (feeling the job is dangerous) are examples of stressors experienced by correctional staff (Griffin, 1999; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 2005). Job stress also has been described as the response by an individual to such stressors. In the correctional literature, job stress is generally defined as a worker’s feelings of job-related tension, anxiety, frustration, worry, emotional exhaustion, and distress (Cullen et al., 1985; Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). It is this conceptu-alization of stress—stress as a response—that is employed in this analysis.

It is also important to keep in mind that although some studies have described job stress as the same as burnout, this is incorrect. Burnout is conceptually different from stress (Carlson et al., 2003; Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Pines & Keinan, 2005). Burnout is generally seen as the end result of prolonged exposure to job stress (Cherniss, 1980; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986; Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1984). It takes much longer to occur than job stress and is the consequence of long-term exposure to negative work experiences (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Not surprisingly, it has long been theorized that job stress is one of the major causes of burnout (Belcastro et al., 1982; Garland, 2004; Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Shamir & Drory, 1982; Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). Job stress leads to negative consequences, such as mental and physical health problems (Matteson & Ivancevich, 1987). There is empirical evidence to support the contention that job stress has a positive association with burnout among correctional staff (Garner et al., 2007; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lombardo, 1981; Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). As such, for this study, it was hypothesized that job stress would have a significant positive relationship with job burnout among correctional employees.

JOB SATISFACTION

Job satisfaction is an affective response by an individual concerning his or her job that results from a comparison of actual outcomes with those that are expected, wanted, and needed (Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr, 1981; Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992). It is a sub-jective, individual-level feeling reflecting the extent to which a person’s needs are being met by a particular job. As Spector (1996) pointed out, job satisfaction is simply “the extent to which people like their jobs” (p. 214).

Job satisfaction has been theorized to be negatively linked to burnout (Cherniss, 1980; Gerstein et al., 1987; Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). In the long run, a feeling that the job is not meeting a person’s needs and wants may lead to a state of dis-sonance from which the person will want to escape (Cherniss, 1980; Whitehead, 1989). Theoretically, employees who have low levels of job satisfaction may wish to withdraw from the job. Past research has found that job satisfaction is a salient predictor of correctional





staff turnover intent and voluntary turnover (Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert, 2006; Mitchell, MacKenzie, Styve, & Gover, 2000; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992). If they cannot physically leave the job (i.e., quit), correctional staff members may experience job burnout as a method of coping with a job they dislike. Past studies have found job satisfaction to be negatively related to burnout among correctional staff (Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986). As such, it was hypothesized that job satisfaction would have a significant negative relationship with job burnout among cor-rectional workers.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

Organizational commitment refers to the bond formed between the worker and the employing organization. Although commitment has been defined by the differing types of bonds and the process by which they are formed, this study focused on affective organiza-tional commitment. Affective commitment is generally defined as loyalty to the organization, identification with the organization (i.e., pride in the organization and internalization of the goals of the organization), and desire for involvement in the organization (i.e., the willing-ness to make a personal effort for the sake of the organization) (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1979; Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1982).1

Less clear is the influence of organizational commitment on job burnout among correc-tional staff, as no published studies could be located that examined the relationship. Organizational commitment may insulate those who form a strong bond with the organiza-tion from experiencing burnout, or it may create burnout among those employees who are highly committed to the organization and who put forth greater effort. When these employ-ees fail to see the outcomes for which they had hoped, they become disillusioned. This study provides a preliminary assessment of the relationship between organizational commitment and level of burnout.

METHOD

All 220 staff members at a private, midwestern, maximum security prison were selected for the study.2 Because of vacations, sick leave, and other reasons, 200 staff members were provided the survey and the cover letter explaining the purpose of the study, that participa-tion was voluntary, and that all responses would be anonymous. The private prison at the time of the survey housed approximately 450 young males who had been sentenced as adult offenders. To improve the response rate, several cash awards ranging from $50 to $150 were provided to randomly selected respondents. Completion of the survey was not a requirement for the raffle. To participate in the raffle, the person needed only to return the provided raffle ticket. The raffle ticket was removed from the return envelope and separated from the sur-vey. At a later date, the survey was reviewed and entered into a database. This was done to ensure that there was no possibility of linking a particular person to a returned survey.

A total of 160 completed surveys were returned. This represented a response rate of either 73% (i.e., all 220 staff members at the facility) or 80% (i.e., only the 200 staff mem-bers actually provided a survey packet). Except upper administration, the respondents represented all the work areas at the prison (e.g., correctional officers, case managers,





medical staff, industry staff, food service workers, business office, etc.). Specifically, 62% were correctional officers, 3% were unit management staff (i.e., counselors, case managers, and unit managers), 4% worked in education, 3% worked in the medical department (including mental health professionals), 6% worked in the business office, 9% were cus-tody supervisors, and 13% worked in other areas. Forty-one percent of the respondents were women. The median age was 33 and ranged from 19 to 49 years of age. The median tenure at the facility was 17 months and ranged from 1 to 53 months. Because the prison had been in operation for less than 5 years at the time of survey, the tenure of the employ-ees was low. In terms of educational level, 6% had a high school degree or general equiva-lency diploma, 47% had some college but no degree, 24% had an associate’s degree, 16% had a bachelor’s degree, and 7% had a graduate or professional degree. With regard to race-ethnicity, 79% were White, 11% were Black, 2% were Hispanic, 3% were Native American, and 4% marked Other. At the time of the survey, 61% of the total prison staff were men, 81% White, and the median age was 33; therefore, the respondents appeared to be repre-sentative of the employees at the prison (see Tables 1 and 2 for complete descriptives and coding of all variables).

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Burnout. All three burnout components covered by the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach & Jackson, 1981) were measured in this study. Specifically, the three burn-out areas of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, and feeling a reduced sense of accomplishment in dealing with others at work were measured. Indicators from the MBI have been used in other studies of correctional staff and are frequently used measures for correctional staff burnout (Belcastro et al., 1982; Carlson et al., 2003; Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Dignam, Barrera, & West, 1986; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986; Morgan et al., 2002; Neveu, 2007; Pelletier et al., 1996; Savicki, Cooley, & Gjesvold, 2003; Whitehead &

TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics for Variables (N = 160)

Independent Variable % N M SD

Gender Female=0 41 67 Male=1 59 94

Race Non-White=0 21 34 White=0 79 126

Age(inyears) 35.77 10.82Education

Nocollegedegree=0 53 85 Collegedegree=1 47 75

Tenure(inmonths) 20.64 13.84SupervisoryStatus

Notasupervisor=0 79 126 Supervisorofstaff=1 21 34

Position Noncustody=0 38 61 Custody=1 62 99





Lindquist, 1986). Because of space limitations on the survey, we created items similar to but not the same as the MBI. In addition, fewer indicators were used than on the MBI to measure the three areas of burnout. The depersonalization index was created by summing four indicators and had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .74. The emotional exhaustion index was created by summing three indicators and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. The index of reduced sense of personal accomplishment was created by summing six indicators and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .72. All the burnout indicators were answered by a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The specific indica-tors used are presented in the appendix. Finally, because we used modified indicators, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS. The results produced three distinct factors, and the fit measures were acceptable (goodness-of-fit index = .95, adjusted good-ness-of-fit index = .93, normed fit index = .91, and the root mean square error of approxi-mation = .08).

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were the independent variables of interest. Job involvement was measured using three indicators from Kanungo (1982a, 1982b) and Lawler and Hall (1970). The indicators tapped into the importance the job had in a person’s life (i.e., the degree of psychological identification). An index was formed by summing the indicators; this index had a Cronbach’s alpha of .81. Five indicators from Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995) were summed to create an index, which had a Cronbach’s alpha of .82. A global measure of job satisfaction was used rather than a facet measure. A global measure focuses on the overall level of satisfac-tion with a particular job, whereas a facet measure focuses on satisfaction with specific aspects of the job, such as pay, coworkers, and so forth (Cranny et al., 1992). The job sat-isfaction index was formed by summing five indicators adapted from Brayfield and Rothe (1951), and the index had a Cronbach’s alpha of .92. The affective form of organizational commitment was measured by summing six indicators from Mowday et al. (1982) to form an index, which had a Cronbach’s alpha of .92. Attitudinal commitment focuses on the affec-tive bonds an employee forms with the employing organization, such as loyalty, attach-ment, belief in the value system and goals of the organization, and so forth (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1979). All the indicators for job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction,

TABLE 2: Descriptive Statistics for Variables (N = 160)

Variable No. of Items Range M SD b

Independentvariable Jobinvolvement 3 3-15 5.90 2.51 .81Jobstress 5 6-25 14.29 4.51 .82Jobsatisfaction 5 5-25 18.34 4.67 .92Organizationalcommitment 6 10-26 18.14 4.00 .88

Dependentvariable Burnout:depersonalization 4 4-19 9.42 2.93 .74Burnout:emotional 3 3-14 7.08 2.40 .85Burnout:reducedsense 6 7-23 13.20 3.10 .72 ofpersonalaccomplishment





and organizational commitment were answered by a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Factor analysis was conducted for the indicators of the latent independent variables. The results indicated convergent validity among the indicators. Finally, the personal characteristics of gender, race, age, educational level, tenure, supervisory status, and position were used as control variables in this study (see Tables 1 and 2).

RESULTS

Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated and are presented in Table 3. Among the personal characteristics, only age and position had statistically significant correlations with the depersonalization aspect of burnout. With age, depersonalization decreased. Position was positively associated with depersonalization, wherein custody personnel reported higher levels of depersonalization. Job involvement, job satisfaction, and organi-zational commitment all had negative correlations with the depersonalization component of burnout, whereas job stress had a positive correlation. Supervisory status was the only personal characteristic to have a statistically significant correlation with the emotional exhaustion measure of burnout. Job stress had a large positive correlation with emotional burnout, and job satisfaction and organizational commitment had moderate-sized negative correlations. Job involvement had a nonsignificant correlation. Supervisory status and posi-tion were the two personal characteristics with significant correlations with the burnout area of reduced accomplishment with others at work. Job involvement had nonsignificant correlation. Job stress had a moderate-sized positive correlation, and both job satisfaction and organizational commitment had negative moderate-sized correlations with the measure of reduced sense of personal accomplishment at work. Finally, the three burnout indexes had moderately sized positive correlations with one another.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression models were used to test the effect of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on the three components of burnout, controlling for gender, race, age, educational level, tenure, super-visory status, and position, age, tenure, and education level. Results from these three mod-els are displayed in Table 4. For all three OLS regression equations, multicollinearity was not a problem. For all three equations, the highest variation inflation factor (VIF) value was 3.6 and the lowest tolerance statistic value was .40. VIF values greater than 6 and tolerance values less than 0.20 indicate that multicollinearity may be a problem (Maruyama, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

The findings provide some support for the hypothesized relationships between work environment variables and burnout; however, the significant relationships were not uni-form across all three dimensions of burnout. The combined effects of the control and work outcome variables (i.e., job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) in each of the three models were significant (see Table 4). As expected, the control variables exerted little influence on employees’ reported level of depersonalization, emotional exhaustion, or reduced accomplishment. In only one instance was an individual-level variable found to be significant. In the model examining depersonalization as the dependent variable (F = 6.10, p < .01, R2 = .31), age was found to have a significant inverse effect on depersonalization, wherein younger correctional staff reported higher levels of




247

TAB

LE

3:

Zer

o-O

rder

ed C

orr

elat

ion

s

Var

iabl

e 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10

11

12

13

1.

Gen

der

(1=

mal

e)

—

2

.R

ace

(1=

Whi

te)

.08

—

3.

Age

-.

17*

-.05

—

4.

Edu

catio

nall

evel

-.

13

.08

.16*

—

5

.Te

nure

.0

1.0

6.0

7.1

2—

6.

Sup

ervi

sor

.12

.04

.16*

.1

9*

.39

**

—

7.

Pos

ition

(1

=cu

stod

y)

.28*

*-.

02

-.53

**

-.29

**

-.20

**

-.47

**

—

8

.Jo

bin

volv

emen

t.0

4.0

8-.

04

.07

.10

.24*

*-.

23**

—

9

.Jo

bst

ress

-.

12

.04

.02

.06

.20*

*-.

10

.07

-.31

**

—

10

.Jo

bsa

tisfa

ctio

n.0

7.0

1.1

8*

.15

-.07

.2

8**

-.30

**

.38*

*-.

70**

—

11

.O

rgc

omm

itmen

t.0

5-.

01

.18*

.7

0-.

04

.23*

*-.

24**

.4

8**

-.53

**

.75*

*—

12.

Bur

nout

dep

erso

n.0

8-.

03

-.32

**

-.04

.1

0-.

10

.32*

*-.

18*

.40*

*-.

44**

-.

40**

—

13

.B

urno

ute

mot

iona

l-.

05

-.03

-.

06

.01

.16

-.16

*.0

9.1

3.7

3**

-.61

**

-.43

**

.46

**

—14

.B

urno

uta

ccom

p-.

12

-.01

-.

08

-.10

-.

02

-.24

**

.18*

.1

4.3

6**

-.43

**

-.30

**

.44

**

.38

**

Not

e.P

ears

on’s

cor

rela

tions

rep

orte

d.F

orh

owv

aria

bles

wer

em

easu

red,

see

Tab

les

1an

d2.

Org

=o

rgan

izat

iona

l;de

pers

on=

dep

erso

naliz

atio

n;a

ccom

p=

redu

ced

sens

eof

per

sona

lacc

om-

plis

hmen

tat

wor

k.N

=1

60.

*p≤

.05

.**p

≤.

01.





depersonalization. As hypothesized, job stress had a significant positive effect on deperson-alization. Contrary to our hypotheses, however, neither job involvement nor job satisfaction was found to significantly influence depersonalization. In addition, organizational commit-ment was not a significant predictor in this model.

The emotional exhaustion model was significant (F = 19.28, p < .01), with the control and work outcome variables explaining 59% of the observed variance. Providing more sup-port for the hypothesized relationships between the dimensions of burnout and work out-come variables, both job involvement and job stress exerted a positive influence, whereas job satisfaction had a negative relationship with the emotional exhaustion burnout measure. It should be noted that job stress had the largest impact on emotional exhaustion (b = .63, p < .01)—more than twice the size of that of job involvement or job satisfaction (b = .16, p < .01; b = –.22, p < .01, respectively). Organizational commitment was not found to be a significant predictor. Finally, the model examining predictors of perceptions of emotional exhaustion was significant (F = 30.93, p < .01, adjusted R2 = .22). Again, providing only partial support for our hypotheses, only job satisfaction had a significant effect on emo-tional exhaustion. As job satisfaction increased, a sense of reduced personal accomplish-ment with others at work decreased.

DISCUSSION

This study sought to explore the relationship of job involvement, job stress, job satisfac-tion, and organizational commitment with correctional staff’s perceptions of the three dimensions of job burnout. Several of the hypothesized relationships between job involve-ment, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and burnout were supported

TABLE 4: Ordinary Least Squares Model Results for Job Burnout

Burnout: Burnout: Depersonalization Burnout: Emotion Accomplishment

Variable B SE b B SE b B SE b

Gender(1=male) 0.22 .45 .04 .31 .28 .06 -.57 .51 -.09Race(1=White) -0.43 .50 -.06 -.40 .32 -.07 .06 .56 .02Age(years) -0.05 .02 -.19* -.01 .01 -.02 .01 .02 .02Educationallevel 0.29 .43 .05 .02 .27 .01 -.29 .48 -.05 (1=collegedegree)Tenure(months) 0.01 .02 .06 .01 .01 .04 -.01 .02 -.02Supervisorystatus 0.46 .63 .06 -.69 .40 -.12 -.80 .71 -.11 (1=supervisor)Position(1=custody) 1.06 .61 .17 -.28 .38 -.06 .43 .68 .07Jobinvolvement 0.01 .08 .01 .13 .05 .16** .07 .09 .06Jobstress 0.15 .07 .23* .34 .04 .63** .11 .07 .16Jobsatisfaction -0.07 .08 -.12 -.11 .05 -.22* -.20 .09 -.30*Organizational -0.10 .08 -.13 .01 .05 .02 .02 .09 .02 commitmentR2 F=6.10 .31** F=19.28 .59** F=30.93 .22** (df=11,48) (df=11,148) (df=11,148)

Note.N=160.*p≤.05.**p≤.01.





whereas others were not. Not surprisingly, only one personal characteristic had a significant association with any of the three dimensions of burnout. Age was the only personal char-acteristic found to significantly influence burnout, with younger staff reporting higher levels of depersonalization. It should be noted that our failure to find no significant rela-tionship between tenure and any of the three components of burnout in the OLS models could reflect the relatively limited tenure of the staff at the facility. The facility had been open approximately 5 years at the time of the survey. In addition, for many staff members, this was their first job working in a correctional institution. As noted in the literature, burn-out is not a relatively quick event but rather a long-term process. Thus, it is possible that a positive relationship between tenure and burnout would be observed at facilities where staff had worked for decades rather than years.

Turning to the work variables, we found that job satisfaction, job stress, and job involve-ment were more important predictors of burnout than the personal characteristics of gender, race, age, education, tenure, supervisory status, and position. This proves to be an impor-tant consideration for correctional administrators. A variety of administrative policies have the potential to influence issues of job stress, job satisfaction, and job involvement. By identifying and implementing policies that work to promote positive work outcomes, administrators have the capacity to influence such negative organizational outcomes as burnout and turnover.

Job satisfaction exhibited a significant negative relationship with two of the three dimen-sions of job burnout. Staff members who reported higher levels of job satisfaction were less likely to report experiencing emotional exhaustion and a reduced sense of accomplishment at work. Although Maslach and Jackson (1981) did not see job dissatisfaction as a cause of burnout, Cherniss (1980) argued that it was a major cause. The results of the current study support Cherniss’ contention that job satisfaction is a salient predictor of burnout. Satisfaction with the job implies that the job is meeting the needs and desires of the person. As such, the employee reports a sense of enjoyment of the work, even when comparing themselves to other employees. This general sense of satisfaction may very well act to protect the employee from job-related burnout.

Job stress was found to be a significant predictor for two of the three dimensions of burnout. Correctional employees who reported increased levels of job stress experienced higher levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization but not a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. As previously indicated, job stress is a negative state for most employees. Stress generally wears down a person, which leads to increased emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). In addition, it appears that job stress leads correc-tional workers to treat others callously and impersonally. This may reflect a lack of willing-ness to interact with other people. Contrary to our hypothesis, job stress was not linked to a reduced sense of accomplishment at work. It appears that a person can experience job stress but still feel he or she is effective in dealing with others at work. The extent to which this is an accurate assessment of one’s own sense of accomplishment at work is unclear. Workers may look to external issues as a way of handling job stress while ignoring their own internal negative responses. It is important to note that Pines and Keinan (2005) reported that this is one of the differences between stress and burnout. A person can experi-ence stress without ultimately experiencing burnout. In fact, short-term stress can be ben-eficial at times, particularly if it spurs a person to focus and work harder to overcome a given problem or situation (Pines, 2000). The same cannot be said of job burnout.





Job involvement was significantly associated with correctional employees’ reported level of emotional exhaustion. Those who have high degrees of psychological identification with the job are more likely to feel emotionally drained, fatigued, overextended, and used up from the job. It should be noted, however, that this relationship between job involvement and emotional exhaustion may be more a function of the items used to measure emotional exhaustion. These measures (e.g., “I live, eat, and breathe my job”; “The most important things that happen to me in my life usually occur at work”; “The major satisfaction in my life comes from work”) reflect fairly extreme measures of job involvement. At the same time, it seems reasonable that employees with high job involvement place so much impor-tance on their jobs that burnout results from frustrated goals and expectations. The prison is a unique work environment, and approximately 80% of those surveyed worked directly with the inmate population (e.g., officers, counselors, teachers, medical staff) or supervised those who did. Working with an incarcerated population can be difficult, creating feelings of great satisfaction or great disappointment, particularly in light of the collective goals put forth by prison administration. These collective, and often conflicting, goals are twofold. First, all staff members (some more directly than others) are responsible for safety and security of those who work and live within the institution. Second, staff members may be told that it is also their responsibility to assist offenders in their efforts toward rehabilitation. This is an incredibly difficult task, one that is not often respected or valued within society. Simply put, many staff members may be torn between their custody roles (incarceration, security, order, and incapacitation) and their rehabilitation or treatment roles. It should not be surpris-ing, then, that such strong personal and emotional investment in an occupation that is diffi-cult at best would result in increased levels of emotional exhaustion. Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, however, the data also suggest that job involvement is not linked with the burnout dimensions of depersonalization or a reduced sense of personal accom-plishment at work. Being involved with offenders in whatever capacity requires a high degree of personalization and a significant amount of time, energy, and patience. This level of commitment most likely would not translate into staff members viewing themselves as not being effective at work; rather, staff could very well place responsibility for failure, however defined, on the offenders’ inability to change.

The salient nature of both organizational commitment and burnout in the correctional literature prompted our examination of the relationship between these two variables. Given the lack of research examining the relationship between these two variables, however, this study did not specify an expected relationship between these two organizational variables. As noted earlier, perhaps increased levels of organizational commitment would act to pro-tect workers from burnout, or perhaps increased commitment would increase the likelihood of staff burnout if negative aspects of the workplace were found to be overwhelming. Regardless of these hypothesized relationships, this study found that organizational com-mitment did not have significant relationship with any of the three dimensions of burnout.

Maslach and Jackson (1984) argued that the three dimensions of job burnout (i.e., emo-tional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal accomplishment at work) are related to one another but are unique aspects of burnout. It is important to note that support for this conceptualization of dimensions of burnout was observed in the current study. There were moderate positive correlations among the three dimensions of burnout (see Table 3); however, none of the zero-ordered correlations was over .46. Moreover, the influence of job involvement, job stress, and job satisfaction differed for the three dimensions





in the multivariate analyses. This suggests that the dimensions of burnout are related to one another but represent distinct dimensions of job burnout.

As with most research, this study has limitations. The issue of generalizability is a con-cern, given that only staff from one midwestern private correctional facility that housed youthful offenders was studied. Thus, there is a need to study the effects of job involve-ment, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on job burnout among staff at other correctional facilities before definitive conclusions can be drawn. Such research is needed to determine whether the findings can be replicated and, perhaps most importantly, whether differences exist between private and public correctional facilities in terms of the potential causes of staff burnout. In addition, the current study relied on three components of burnout using items based on the MBI rather than the actual inventory itself (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). This raises several issues. First, it would be useful to know if similar results would be obtained using the MBI or if more detailed and extensive measures of the latent concepts would yield the same results. Because the MBI has been widely used and has been found to be both valid and reliable (Langballe, Falkum, Innstrand, & Aasland, 2006; Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1982), future studies that make use of this measure could more easily be compared from one study to another.

Similarly, future researchers should also explore if using other measures of job involve-ment, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment would yield similar results. There is more than one method to measure each of these latent concepts. For example, an attitudinal measure of organizational commitment was used in this study. It is possible that different results would have been observed if a continuance or moral measure of organiza-tional commitment were used. Likewise, the items used to measure job involvement, although used in past studies, may be tapping more into job obsession than into job involvement.3

The use of cross-sectional data, which does not allow for causality to be demonstrated, can also be problematic. A longitudinal study will be needed to explore in more depth the causal process between job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, organizational com-mitment, and job burnout. Moreover, continued research is needed to explore other possible antecedents of job burnout among correctional staff. This is particularly true for the sense of reduced accomplishment at work, in which the independent variables account for only 22% of the variance. For example, future studies may wish to examine officers’ motivation for working in this particular field and how such motivation might influence an individual’s likelihood of experiencing work-related burnout. Freudenberger (1980) argued that those who were highly idealistic and selected a job with an unrealistic desire to change the lives of others were much more prone to suffer from burnout than those who had realistic expec-tations from the job. The importance of such individual characteristics brought to the work-place has received little attention in recent correctional literature. Furthermore, the relationship between the three dimensions of burnout among correctional staff needs to be better understood. It is unclear whether emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of accomplishment occur relatively at the same time or if there is a progres-sion of one dimension to the next (Cherniss, 1980; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Finally, from a policy perspective, the need to refine and extend current research on officer burnout in the correctional setting is driven by the link between burnout and other critical work-place behaviors and attitudes. Such research can inform policy and training opportunities for correctional staff, thus allowing administrators to tackle such long-standing problems as turnover and absenteeism.





CONCLUSION

Regardless of one’s position, working within a correctional facility is often difficult, dan-gerous, and undervalued by society at large. Given the myriad of possible negative work outcomes, it is important for correctional administration to be attentive to the development of burnout among staff. Maslach (1978) and Maslach and Jackson (1981) indicated that job burnout refers to an employee who is emotionally exhausted from work, is cynical, treats others in an impersonal and depersonalized manner, and feels a lack of accomplishment at work. The limited research on burnout in the field of corrections suggests that burnout proves to be a significant problem for many officers and other prison staff (Garland, 2004; Hurst & Hurst, 1997; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007; Lindquist & Whitehead, 1986). Burnout is harm-ful not only to the employee but also to the friends and family members of the employee, to coworkers, to inmates, and to the organization. Burnout takes time to develop and can be combated (Whitehead, 1989); however, burnout cannot be significantly reduced without meaningful interventions and the commitment of the administration to assess and understand the possible effects of this stressful work environment on its employees. In the end, both the individual and the organization benefit when the likelihood burnout is minimized.

APPENDIXSURVEY INDICATORS

BURNOUT: DEPERSONALIZATION

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)

BURNOUT: EMOTIONAL EXHAUSTION

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.

BURNOUT: REDUCED SENSE OF PERSONAL ACCOMPLISHMENT AT WORK

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)

JOB INVOLVEMENT

1. I live, eat, and breathe my job.2. The most important things that happen to me in my life usually occur at work.3. The major satisfaction in my life comes from work

(continued)





APPENDIX (continued)

JOB STRESS

1. A lot of time my job makes me very frustrated or angry.2. I am usually under a lot of pressure when I am at work.3. When I’m at work I often feel tense or uptight.4. I am usually calm and at ease when I’m working. (reverse coded for index)5. There are a lot of aspects of my job that make me upset.

JOB SATISFACTION

1. I definitely dislike my job. (reverse coded for the 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.

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT

1. I tell my friends that this is a great organization to work for.2. I feel very little loyalty to this prison. (reverse coded for index)3. I find that my values and the prison’s values are very similar.4. I am proud to tell people that I work at this prison.5. This prison really inspires the best in me in the way of job performance.6. I really care about the fate of this prison.

All the indicators were answered with a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

NOTES

1. It should be noted that Wright and Saylor (1991) measured affective commitment at two different levels. One level reflected commitment to the overall correctional agency, and the other level represented commitment to the particular institu-tion in which a person was assigned to work.

2. The survey measured a wide array of areas and included 222 questions. The data set used in this study has also been used in other papers (e.g., the impact of job characteristics on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, turnover intent, and the effects of organizational support on staff).

3. We thank the reviewers for this and other important points.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

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.

Belcastro, P. A., Gold, R. S., & Grant, J. (1982). Stress and burnout: Physiologic effects on correctional teachers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 387-395.

Brayfield, A. H., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-

related stress, and anxiety of jail employees’ inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and Criminal Justice, 23, 69-93.Carlson, J. R., Anson, R. H., & Thomas, G. (2003). Correctional officer burnout and stress: Does gender matter? Prison

Journal, 83, 277-288.Carlson, J. R., & Thomas, G. (2006). Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections officers. Journal of Offender

Rehabilitation, 43(3), 19-34.Cherniss, C. (1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human services. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.





Cook, J., Hepworth, S., Wall, T., & Warr, P. (1981). The experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New York: Academic Press.

Crank, J., Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & Culbertson, R. (1995). Institutional and organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 152-171.

Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their perfor-mance. New York: Lexington.

Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505-533.DeCarufel, A., & Schaan, J.-L. (1990). The impact of compressed work weeks on police job involvement. Canadian Police

College, 14, 81-97.Dignam, J., Barrera, M., & West, S. (1986). Occupational stress, social support, and burnout among correctional officers.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 177-193.Dollard, M., & Winefield, A. (1998). A test of the demand-control/support model of work stress in correctional officers.

Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 243-264.Drory, A., & Shamir, B. (1988). Effects of organizational and life variables on job satisfaction and burnout. Group and

Organization Studies, 13, 441-455.Freudenberger, H. (1980). Burnout: The high cost of high achievement. Garden City, NY: Anchor.Garland, B. (2002). Prison treatment staff burnout: Consequences, cause, and prevention. Corrections Today, 64(7), 116-120.Garland, B. (2004). The impact of administrative support on prison treatment staff burnout: An exploratory study. Prison

Journal, 84, 452-471.Garner, B. R., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Burnout among corrections-based drug treatment staff: Impact of indi-

vidual and organizational factors. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 510-522.Gerstein, L. H., Topp, C. G., & Correll, G. (1987). The role of the environment and person when predicting burnout among

correctional personnel. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 352-369.Griffin, M. (1999). The influence of organizational climate on detention officers’ readiness to use force in a county jail.

Criminal Justice Review, 24, 1-26.Griffin, M. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organizational climate

variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219-232.Griffin, M., & Hepburn, J. (2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational commitment among correc-

tional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 611-625.Grossi, E. L., Keil, T. J., & Vito, G. F. (1996). Surviving “the joint”: Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress. Journal

of Crime and Justice, 19, 103-120.Hurst, T. E., & Hurst, M. M. (1997). Gender differences in mediation of severe occupational stress among correctional offi-

cers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 121-137.Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile?

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14, 5-25. Kanungo, R. N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 119-138.Kanungo, R. N. (1982a). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 341-349.Kanungo, R. N. (1982b). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York: Praeger.Keinan, G., & Malach-Pines, A. (2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention

strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 380-398.Lambert, E. G. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff. Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.Lambert, E. G. (2006). I want to leave: A test of a model of turnover intent among correctional staff. Applied Psychology in

Criminal Justice, 2, 57-83.Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Paoline, E. A., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction,

and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18(4), 33-50.Langballe, E., Falkum, E., Innstrand, S., & Aasland, O. (2006). The factorial validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory: General

survey in representative samples of eight different occupational groups. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 370-384.Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. T. (1970). Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motiva-

tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312.Lindquist, C. A., & Whitehead, J. T. (1986). Burnout, job stress, and job satisfaction among southern correctional officers:

Perceptions and causal factors. Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation, 10(4), 5-26.Lombardo, L. X. (1981). Guards imprisoned: Correctional officers at work. New York: Elsevier.Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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., & Jackson, S. E. (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., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M. (1982). Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologist.





Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 52, 397-422.Matteson, M. T., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1987). Controlling work stress: Effective human resource and management strategies.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D., Styve, G., & Gover, A. (2000). The impact of individual, organizational, and voluntary turnover

among juvenile correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17, 333-357.Morgan, R. D., Van Haveren, R., & Pearson, C. A. (2002). Correctional officer burnout: Further analysis. Criminal Justice

and Behavior, 29, 144-160.Mowday, R. T., Porter, L., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absen-

teeism and turnover. New York: Academic Press.Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 14, 224-247.Neveu, J.-P. (2007). Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnout among prison guards. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 28, 21-42.Paullay, I. M., Alliger, G. M., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure

job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224-228.Pelletier, D., Couto, S., & Lamonde, A. (1996). Work and gender issues in secure juvenile delinquency facilities. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40, 32-43.Pines, A. M. (2000). Nurses’ burnout: An existential psychodynamic existential perspective. Journal of Psychological

Nursing, 38(2), 1-9.Pines, A. M., & Keinan, G. (2005). Stress and burnout: The significant difference. Personality and Individual Differences,

39, 625-635.Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in corrections officers. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 30, 602-619.Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review.

International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19-48.Shamir, B., & Drory, A. (1982). Occupational tedium among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 9, 79-99.Spector, P. E. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York: John Wiley.Stohr, M. K., Self, R. L., & Lovrich, N. P. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes and

preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478.Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Toch, H., & Grant, J. D. (1982). Reforming human services: Change through participation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Wolfe, N. T. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’

orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472-500.Whitehead, J. T. (1989). Burnout in probation and corrections. New York: Praeger.Whitehead, J. T., & Lindquist, C. A. (1986). Correctional officer job burnout: A path model. Journal of Research in Crime

and Delinquency, 23, 23-42.Wright, K., & Saylor, W. (1991). Male and female employees’ perceptions of prison work: Is there a difference? Justice

Quarterly, 8, 505-524.

David N. Baker is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. His research interests include gender issues, race and crime, critical criminology, community policing, the death penalty, and the criminal justice system and the mass media.

Marie L. Griffin is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. Her research interests include institutional and community corrections, with particular focus on issues of organizational cli-mate in the correctional setting, use of force by correctional officers, prison gang policies, and gender and crime.

Nancy Lynne Hogan is a faculty member and graduate program coordinator in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University. Her research interests include health issues of inmates, correctional staff satisfaction, and the effectiveness of cognitive correctional interventions.

Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. His research interests include organizational issues; job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees; and the evaluation of correctional interventions.

Kasey A. Tucker-Gail is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Toledo. Her research interests are on police technology, the felony deaths of law enforcement officers at both the structural and situational levels, and crime mapping.




job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of...

Documents