Assessing the Organizational Culture in a Jail Setting

Abstract

The culture of an organization shapes much that occurs in that environment. Leaders who are oblivious of their organizational culture are less likely to succeed. Organization members who do not understand the culture may be vulnerable to its more negative influences. Assessing the key attributes of an organizational culture in an agency is a tricky but important enterprise. In this research, we pre-tested an instrument that could be used, in tandem with others, to assess the organizational culture of a criminal justice agency’s (in this case a jail). We focused on the perceptions of the ‘lower level’ workers in this organization.

Keywords

jail corrections organization culture survey

Introduction: The Centrality of Organizational Culture

The culture of an institution, as reflected in its particular beliefs, norms, language, values and traditions, shapes much that occurs in an organization. In turn, culture is formed and refined by the formal and informal strictures, context, practices and history inside and outside that organization. Schein (1992) argues that leaders who are oblivious to, or dismissive of, their organization’s culture are likely to be less successful at innovation, communication, and achieving change. Likewise, organization members who do not understand or recognize the organization’s culture may be vulnerable to its more negative influences.

Isolating and assessing the key attributes of an organizational culture in any given agency is a tricky enterprise; yet, as Schein (1992) notes, to understand organizational operation, or how to improve upon it, this must be done. Public administration/political science/psychology and business scholars, some whose work dates back over a half century, delineate what key attributes of a culture are in any given organization (Barley, Meyer & Gash, 1988; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Goffman, 1959, 1967; Homans, 1950; Martin, 1991; Ott, 1989; Ouchi, 1981; Schein, 1992; Smircich & Calas, 1987; Schneider, 1990; Trice and Beyer, 1984, 1985). These attributes include such factors as the nature of the leadership at the top and throughout the organization, engagement, and the degree of employee input, pay and benefits, opportunities for individual development (such as training), and the breadth and type of job tasks themselves. In addition what are those norms, values, beliefs, language and traditions that distinguish one workplace from another, even when they deliver the same service?

In this research, the study team pre-tested an instrument that was developed with this literature in mind, and which we hoped might be used, in tandem with others, to assess the organizational culture of a criminal justice agency, in this case a jail’s. We purposefully focused on the perceptions of the ‘lower level’ workers in this organization, rather than its leaders, as they are in the so-called ‘trenches’ where it is believed that policy is translated into practice. Besides, while leaders shape the organizational culture, sometimes in unintended ways, they may misperceive its actual nature, being “above it,” both literally and figuratively. Moreover, this instrument is intended for use by managers to assess the need for change in their organizations, and to effectuate it if warranted.

Organizational Culture Literature

Cultural Attributes Are Related to Failures and Successes for Organizations

A number of scholars have asserted that the source of many organizational maladies, including ethical violations, employee dissatisfaction, and learned helplessness, is rooted in the organizational culture of an agency. Scholars also believe that the culture of an organization is critical to the development of positive outcomes, like employee satisfaction, innovation and increased output. For these reasons, an assessment of an organization’s culture can yield many benefits (Carroll, 2007; Lee & Chang, 2008; Trefy, 2006), as the culture is perceived to be the key to organizational improvement (Jung et al., 2009; Walker, Symon & Davies, 1996). Organizations with a culture that provides more opportunities for staff engagement and greater input, resources for employees to do their job–and with added enrichment in a professional environment–are said to meet the human needs of staff, to reduce organizational maladies and to produce a better work product (Erdogan, Liden & Kraimer, 2006; Heil, Bennis & Stephens 2000; Kiekbusch, Price & Theis, 2003; Maslow, 1961; Masood, Dani, Burns & Backhouse, 2006; McGregor 1957; Ouchi, 1981; Parker Follett., 1926; Patenaude, 2001; Peters, 1995; Saxena & Shah, 2008; Trefy, 2006).

Erodogan and his colleagues (2006) found in their Turkish study of over thirty schools and their employees that organizations with a team orientation in their personnel practices and operations (jobs design, hiring, and work rewards) were more likely to have productive leader/member relationships. Schein (1992) also argued that communication, change, and innovation in an organization–whether and how they happened–depended on the culture of an organization. Lee and Chang (2008), in their study of employees in manufacturing companies in Taiwan, found that “an innovative and group-oriented culture” in an organization is linked to higher levels of employee satisfaction.

There are also structural aspects of organizations that shape their culture. As Schein (1992) noted, the size of an organization can determine if there is primarily one or many cultures. The larger the organization is, the more likely it is that there are many subcultures that shape values and actions. Moreover, in police and correctional agencies, the bureaucratic and paramilitary command structure and trappings formally shape the organizational culture, advantaging them in terms of formal rule adherence and accountability by members, but likely reducing the flexibility to adjust to change in internal and external environments (Masood et al., 2006). Both the formal, or official, culture, and the informal, or unofficial culture, are determinative in structuring organizational and individual outcomes (Franklin & Pagan, 2006). This must also be taken into account as shaping the thoughts and behavior of organization members.

The Perceptions of Those at the Lower Levels May Be More Accurate

As Goleman and his colleagues (2002) note regarding communication in a bureaucracy, the higher up the organizational ladder a leader is, the less likely he (she) receives accurate information about critical operational factors. They note that subordinates are fearful of relaying information to a leader that reflects badly on the organization, or, particularly, on the leader’s own performance, as they expect they might be punished for it (the ‘kill the messenger’ phenomena), or they just do not want to be the bearer of bad news. As a consequence, leaders are often denied access to critical information and may, therefore, not be the best at assessing organizational culture or its effects on operations. In fact, in a study of governmental organizational culture, Glaser, Zamanou and Hacker (1987), found top management believed there was better organizational climate, communication, and supervision than was perceived by lower level employees.

Relatedly, in a study by Johnson (2004) of medical caregivers’ perceptions of organizational culture and their own training as related to medical errors and their prevention, those who deliver services were found to have a different and valuable perspective to contribute, compared to the leaders who are typically surveyed.

The extent to which the new instrument pretested here, or any such instrument, can measure the important attributes of the organizational culture, as perceived by correctional officers and other lower level staff, is an empirical question worthy of investigation (Cooper & O’Connor, 1993).

The Measurement of Culture

Some scholars have questioned whether the valid measurement of organizational culture, as reflected in individual perceptions and individual and organizational action, is even possible (Fey & Dennison, 2003). However, while actions are measurable–though values, beliefs and assumptions that underlie them are more “slippery” in a measurement sense–it might be possible to relate certain organizational characteristics to their individual and organizational outcomes (Trefry, 2006). Moreover, in comparison of organizational culture types in a specific industry, it might be that some measures of culture work better than others.

For instance, in one study of mental health clinics, Schiff (2009) found that some scales fit the peculiarities of a given work situation better than others. In her study, Schiff (2009, p. 89) found that the Organizational Culture Inventory (a widely used measure of culture in business settings) was not as “discriminating” of the various cultures in mental health clinics as was the Organizational Culture in Mental Health instrument specifically devised to fit those settings.

Jung (2009) and his colleagues found a surfeit (70) of instruments that assess organizational culture. Of these 70 instruments, only 48 had psychometric information available, and the authors reported that many of these measures were misnamed or duplicates of other instruments. They also found a 50-year span in the development of such instruments. Some measures were specific to types of industries (e.g., nursing or schools), while others measured only certain attributes of an organization (e.g., values or learning or group engagement).

The aims of instrument developers also appeared to vary–with some intending to use the measure to identify cultural parameters that might be changed–and others simply to identify the parameters (Jung et al., 2009). Methods applied for the use of these instruments ranged from structured questionnaires to unstructured ethnographic approaches. Likert-type scales were utilized most often when structured statements were included, and the number of such statements ranged from 3 to 129, with a “grading” range from 3 to 10 points (Jung et al., 2009, p. 1091). The extent to which these instruments were subjected to validity checks varied widely, and, in most cases, the research was inadequate.

Jung and his colleagues (2009, p. 1092) conclude that organizational culture, as exemplified by its measurement, is “conceptualized in many different ways.” They also note that there is evidence that those instruments that measure practice over values and take a value-neutral approach (i.e., there is no superior culture) are most likely to accurately measure a culture in an organization. In other words, as practice is a reflection of values (e.g., see also Walker et al., 1996), subjective statements about practice are likely to unintentionally put off or bias respondents, thus skewing their responses. In fact, Jung and his colleagues (2009) report that in earlier organizational culture studies, researchers most preferred a qualitative rather than a quantitative approach. The relative advantages and shortcomings of each approach vary and are well documented in the literature (Tucker, McCoy & Evans, 1990; Walker, Symon & Davies, 1996).

The authors (Jung et al., 2009) and others (i.e., Scott et al., 2003) conclude that there does not appear to be an ideal instrument or methodology for discovering an agency’s organizational culture. Rather, they recommend that researchers consider the purpose of the cultural assessment, the way the data will be used, the transferability of such data across time, and the particular circumstances facing an organization. Essentially agreeing with the assessment of other authors regarding the diversity of instruments and methodologies, Tucker, McCoy, and Evans (1990) acknowledge that it is difficult to compare studies or findings. Further, it is possible that practitioners may become disheartened and abandon the study of organizational cultures altogether.

As with the instruments themselves, items and the dimensions of quantitative instruments range across the spectrum of organizational attributes. As Scott and his colleagues (2003) found in their study of 13 instruments developed for use in the health care field, some of the more common dimensions assessed by these instruments included thinking styles, power and roles, tasks, supervision styles, pay and benefits, employee satisfaction, hospital image, communication, workload, attitude towards clients, decision making, understanding of expectations, praise, relationship with supervisor, opportunities for growth, and commitment to the organization. However, the instruments varied widely, with none of them covering all or even most of these topics.

Similarly, in a study of the organizational culture of the National Health Service in England by Mackenzie (1995), there were 12 dimensions of culture in the questionnaire. The items covered attitudes of employees regarding “commitment, innovation, change, conflict, management styles, leadership confidence, openness, teamwork and cooperation, action and human resource and consumer orientations and organizational direction” (Mackenzie, 1995, p. 72).

In a 1990 publication on organizational culture in Denmark and the Netherlands by Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders, the researchers found that in 20 units from 10 different organizations (private manufacturing, private service and public institutions) practices, as they were perceived by organizational members, were what distinguished one organization from another. They used a mix of qualitative interviews and two sets of questionnaires as a means of data collection. “Value items describe what the respondent feels ‘should be,’ practice items” (which the authors thought reflected values) were “what she or he feels ‘is’” (Hofstede et al., 1990, p. 294). In the factor analysis of the 135 survey items, the practices and values loaded on different factors. The items included assessments of work goals, beliefs, supervisory decision-making styles, work practices, and promotion and dismissal reasons. They found that the questions were best at discriminating cultural elements of different organizations and units.

Based on these studies of organizational culture instruments, it would appear that the range of items to be included could be quite broad. Therefore, fashioning an instrument to assess a correctional agency’s culture requires some ‘pruning down’ to identify the essential facility features. Because public organizations need to adapt to changing environments, a number of scholars have been interested in whether an organization fosters learning (Crank & Giacomazzi, 2009; Gordon & Milakovich, 1998; Maslow, 1961; McGregor, 1957; Peters, 1992; 1995). Similarly, the degree to which staff has input into how their work is done, or whether participatory management is allowed or encouraged, has been of interest to those studying private and public sector organizations for some time (Drucker, 1954, 1964; Heil, Bennis & Stephens, 2000; Lovrich, 1989; Maslow, 1961; McGregor, 1957; Ouchi, 1981; Stohr, Lovrich, Menke, & Zupan, 1994). Clearly, it might be supposed that the hierarchical and bureaucratic structures of organizations like jails, prisons, and police departments are less likely to foster learning or allow input compared to other public or private organizations. Organizational scholars also argue that pay, training levels, hiring and promotional opportunities, and their perceptions of fairness shape an organization’s culture (Gordon & Milakovich, 1998).

As jails are somewhat isolated from the community and their staff exercise great formal power vis-à-vis their clients, researchers have been very concerned about jail staff ethical behavior, such as official deviance or conduct dictated by subcultural values (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 1991; Crank & Caldero, 2000; Pollock, 2004; Lee & Visano, 1994; Stohr & Collins, 2009). In contrast, scholars have noted that a job that is “enriched” (defined as one with task significance and identity, skill variety, autonomy and feedback from supervisors; Hackman & Oldham, 1974) is desirable for staff and may result in more pride in and a more positive perception of one’s work (Conover, 2000; Johnson, 2002; Lombardo, 1989).

The Particularized Attributes of a Jail Organization

Jails are a distinct organizational type even among public sector agencies. They tend to be overcrowded county-level institutions, closed off to most public scrutiny, with a hierarchical command structure and bureaucratic ‘paramilitary’ operation. While jails are legally bound to deprive some community members of liberty in order to maintain community safety and security, their clientele are non-voluntary and have many unmet needs–physical and mental health, educational, social skills, and treatment. With clientele ranging from the innocent to the guilty, from less serious offenders to violent ones, from the unconvicted, to the convicted, to the sentenced, jails hold males and females, young and old, and diverse racial and ethnic groups. As community organizations, jails reflect community wealth or poverty and a myriad of social and political issues. Yet, jail staff tend to have less education than most professional level public sector workers, and on-the-job training varies widely from jail to jail and state to state.

On the one hand, some organizational elements of jails are much the same as other public and private agencies. Among such similarities, staff, particularly those at certain educational or experience levels, are likely to expect to have some input into how their organization is operated. Staff at such agencies are likely to expect reasonable compensation. More today than in the past, an acceptance of diversity and its merits is likely more the norm. On the other hand, because of the unique nature of jails, the organizational culture differs from a private sector business entity or a public sector health care or educational agency. This means that the organizational culture of jails is best measured by an instrument specifically developed to assess this institution’s unique nature, as well as some of the similarities it shares with other public and private entities.

What the Literature Tells Us

The literature on organizational cultures tells us several things: 1) There are identifiable attributes of an organizational culture that appear to be related to positive outcomes; 2) Those attributes can be assessed by its members, but are perhaps most accurately identified by those at the lower levels of the organization; 3) The point of assessing the culture is to determine if it needs changing to effect organizational outcomes that are more positive for clients and staff; 4) Organizational culture measurement instruments that are created to “fit” a particular type of organization are more likely to validly measure the culture. Finally, the literature review reveals that an organizational culture instrument developed for jails did not exist before it was created for this research.

Hypotheses and Justification

Hypothesis 1: There will be a high level (alpha of at least .70) of congruence between instrument items.

Hypothesis 2: The items will load on their respective seven dimensions.

The research team sought to determine which items and dimensions were the best fit for an Organizational Culture Instrument (our justification for doing further analysis).

Method

Development of the Organizational Culture Instrument

The Organizational Culture Instrument (OCI) was developed by two of the researchers after completing ethics and role-focused research study in correctional institutions. As that research progressed, it became obvious that the nature of the organization was likely affecting how and whether people behaved in an ethical manner. The instrument was refined by the other researchers and practitioners to increase the face validity of the items. This process included three structured meetings with upper level jail staff in which the instrument items were discussed at some length. As a result of these discussions, some changes, additions, and deletions were made to adapt the instrument to the jail environment. Next, the instrument was pre-tested with the command staff, resulting in slight revisions.

The Organizational Culture Instrument was developed with seven underlying dimensions in mind. These dimension items were created to reflect issues in the literature regarding:

Participatory management or lack thereof (Drucker, 1954; 1964; Heil, Bennis & Stephens, 2000; Lovrich, 1989; Maslow, 1961; McGregor, 1957; Ouchi, 1981; Stohr, Lovrich, Menke & Zupan, 1994—items 1,4,11,13, 25,28, 33, 38,43, 52,55,59,62);

Satisfaction with pay, training, promotions and personnel decisions (Gordon & Milakovich, 1998—items 5,7,10,17, 21, 44,45,50,51, 53,54, 64);

Ethics (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 1991; Crank & Caldero, 2000; Lee & Visano, 1994; Pollock, 2004—items 6,9,16,18,23, 30, 36, 40, 51,58);

Job enrichment, including task significance, task identity, skill variety, autonomy and feedback (Hackman & Oldham, 1974—items 12,15,22, 27,35,49, 57, 60,61,63,65,66);

Learning organization (Crank & Giacomazzi, 2009; Gordon & Milakovich, 1998; Maslow, 1961; McGregor, 1957; Peters, 1992; 1995—items 2,8,14,19,24, 34,39);

Respect and acceptance (Gordon & Milakovich, 1998; Maslow, 1961; McGregor, 1957—items 3,20,31,32,37,41, 46, 47,48,56);

Public perception of the work/pride in the work (Conover, 2000; Johnson, 2002; Lombardo, 1989 and Lt. Shepherd at the County Detention Center—items 29,42,67,68).

Administration of the Staff Questionnaire

The staff questionnaire was administered to all staff below the rank of lieutenant on a Tuesday and a Saturday of the same week in early June, 2007. All staff (with the exception of nurses and medical personnel) were required to attend these training sessions, at the beginning of which the questionnaires were administered by the research team.

The administration procedure was set up as follows: With no formal forewarning for staff, the research team arrived at the training sessions and were introduced by the lieutenant running the session. Management staff then left the room while the research team described the reason for our presence.

The assembled staff were assured that their participation was completely voluntary and that they could refuse to participate (or decide at some point that they no longer wanted to participate.) They were also told that the questionnaire was completely anonymous. After administering the questionnaires to staff, the research team answered questions. The typical completion time for a survey was 20-30 minutes, with some staff taking as long as 45 min.

From conversations with management personnel, researchers learned that a few persons (less than five) per training session were unavoidably absent (due to illness or other commitments). The total number of staff available to take the questionnaire was 135, and the number who took it was 135, for a 100% response rate. In some of the analyses, due to missing cases, the N was reduced, but the response rate never fell below 75%. At the time of survey administration, there were 120 deputies, about 20% of them were female, and the majority were white, with only five Hispanic, two Asian and one Black deputy.

Results

Reliability Analysis of the Items

Our assessment of the organizational culture instrument found that the Cronbach’s alpha, which is a coefficient that measures the internal consistency of the items of a scale, was a remarkably strong .96, indicating a high level of reliability in response patterns. As Bachman and Schutt (2003, p. 166) note, reliability is a “prerequisite for measurement validity” because one cannot measure something if the results of that measurement are inconsistent. However, a high alpha does not in any way indicate that the measurement is valid.

Cooper and O’Connor (1993) note that an alpha over .90 is desirable when employing instruments in applied settings where change is intended. In such settings, including correctional environments, any organizational change will have a direct impact on the lives of others. Thus, instruments that measure constructs in that environment should have a higher degree of reliability, as this instrument clearly does.

The research team was concerned that the magnitude of this alpha could be unduly influenced by the fact that the N of cases (which, once missing cases are removed, was 105) was not proportionally that much larger than the number of items (68). Therefore, this issue is addressed at the end of our analysis.

Staff Demographics

The staff at this jail are typically white males in their mid thirties with no military service background and some college (see Table 1). It would appear that the number of women working in the detention facility may be well below the national average for jails, where women now comprise about 40% of correctional officer staff, as compared to the roughly 20% of deputies and transport officers at this county and the 17% of respondents in this study (Maguire & Pastore, 2003). Almost 95% of the staff respondents were detention officers (with the balance being sergeants), with an average of seven years of service in. Of those 26% of staff respondents with previous correctional work experience, about equal percentages (10%) had been employed in a jail as in a prison and another 5% had worked in another correctional environment. The length and history of service in corrections for many of these staff would indicate that they have had plenty of time to develop perceptions of the organizational culture at their facility.

Table 1.

Staff Characteristics

Number of Responses	135(N)
Age
Range	22-60
Mean	35.65
Standard deviation	9.4
Gender
Female	17.4 %
Male	82.6 %
Race/ethnicity
White	89.3 %
Hispanic	7.6 %
African American	0.0 %
Other	3.1 %
Education
Less than GED or high school	1.5 %
GED or high school graduate	15.2 %
Some college	53.0 %
College degree	28.8 %
Master’s degree or more	1.5 %
Military service
Yes	30.0 %
No	70.0 %
Position
Detention officer	94.7 %
Sergeant	5.3 %
Years of service at county detention center
Range	1-24
Mean	7.2
Standard deviation	5.6
Previous experience working in corrections
Yes	26.5 %
No	73.5 %
Previous experience-type of facility
Jail	10.8 %
Prison	10.0 %
Other	5.4 %
N/A	73.8 %
Previous experience-length of service
Range	1-14
Mean	5.04
Standard deviation	3.4

Organizational Culture Instrument Findings

Item analysis

This study is a pretest of the use of the 68-item Organizational Culture Instrument. Perusal of the means for these items (see Table 2) indicates that there was general agreement (a mean of 6.00 or “somewhat true” on the scale) on fully half, or 34, of these items. Clearly, many staff perceived their work in a very favorable light; they believed that the organizational culture is positive in the sense that it provides an environment where learning and involvement are valued, where they believe ethical practice occurs, and where they have pride in that work.

Table 2.

Staff Organizational Culture Item Means and Standard Deviations (23 items recoded)

Item (N = 102)	Mean/SD
1. Staff usually have the opportunity to determine, in a meaningful way, how their job is done	5.71/1.27
2. Staff are sometimes publicly humiliated by supervisors when they make a mistake.	6.07/0.85
3. Security staff are treated with respect by administrators.	6.15/1.20
4. Managers tend to tell everyone else what to do without asking for input.	5.69/0.90
5. When we are asked to complete a new task, we are sufficiently trained in how to do it.	5.07/1.67
6. My supervisors usually reinforce doing the right thing over doing what is easiest.	6.29/1.22
7. The rationale for new policies and procedures are usually thoroughly explained to staff.	/1.59
8. When staff make a mistake in the workplace, they don’t mind if others know about it.	4.21/1.66
9. The managers “model” what it means to be ethical.	5.66/1.63
10. Staff do not receive enough training to prepare them to do their job.	5.77/1.05
11. Before making a decision, staff input is usually sought out by managers here.	4.76/1.64
12. When the task is clear-cut and I know what I’m doing, my supervisor tends to leave me alone to do my work as I see fit.	5.98/1.48
13. Security, treatment, support and administrative staff work as a team.	5.51/1.44
14. People are afraid to complain in this workplace because they fear they will be punished.	5.89/0.85
15. My work allows me to practice a number of skills.	6.23/0.96
16. Everyone who works here knows the code of ethics that governs correctional work.	6.12/1.23
17. The low pay that I receive is forcing me to consider looking for work elsewhere.	6.50/0.83\
18. People who work in this facility rarely abide by the code of ethics.	6.60/0.66\
19. Most supervisors listen to complaints and respond fairly.	5.93/1.32
20. Coworkers generally treat each other with respect here.	6.12/1.07
21. I don’t think that I will be given a fair opportunity to be promoted.	6.07/1.10
22. We are asked to do too much in too little time here.	5.66/1.01
23. When unethical or illegal practices are uncovered, the guilty party or parties are punished.	6.09/1.28
24. Good work is recognized by management.	5.80/1.25
25. The people that I work with tend to share common organizational goals.	5.74/1.22
26. Staff generally treat inmates with respect at this facility.	6.29/.65
27. My job allows me to be a positive influence in other people’s lives.	6.35/0.80
28. Communication at this facility always comes from the top down.	5.61/.92
29. If I could choose over again, I would choose this work.	5.93/1.71
30. Staff who engage in corrupt activities are not accepted by their coworkers.	5.65/1.63
31. The working environment is negative here for staff.	6.07/0.94
32. Women are less likely to be accepted as staff at this facility.	6.27/.98
33. The people that I work with appreciate me and my work.	5.98/1.13
34. The staff at this facility believe in innovation and positive change.	5.90/1.20
35. My supervisor rarely communicates what he/she thinks I do well on the job.	6.02/0.95
36. There is a general acceptance in my workplace that we should cut some corners in job requirements in order to get the work done.	6.07/0.95
37. Hispanic staff are readily accepted as part of the work team.	6.51/1.30
38. I am comfortable in asking for assistance from my coworkers.	6.51/1.01
39. Most of the people I work with are willing to try new policies and practices that they believe will improve the workplace.	6.13/1.02
40. Some supervisors at this facility overlook corrupt behavior by staff.	6.42/0.85
41. People often tell offensive jokes at my workplace.	5.63/1.01
42. I discourage people that I like from applying for the kind of job that I have.	6.37/0.97
43. New staff have little to contribute to the workplace until they learn the ropes.	6.16/0.83
44. It appears that personnel decisions are usually fair.	5.29/1.72
45. People are promoted more because of who they know, rather than what they do.	5.75/1.11
46. African-American staff members are readily accepted as part of the work team at this facility.	6.09/1.78
47. New staff members are made to feel welcome here.	6.37/0.82
48. People in my workplace do not support efforts to increase the diversity of personnel.	6.24/1.00
49. If I’m asked to do too much in too short a period of time, I am comfortable in letting my supervisor know that.	5.50/1.57
50. I have received enough training to do my job well.	5.90/1.29
51. In general, the work atmosphere of this facility is positive.	6.11/1.03
52. The managerial staff show respect for the security, treatment, and support staff of this facility.	6.13/1.00
53. The pay that I receive for my job is fair.	6.11/1.02
54. Those with the most skills and abilities tend to be promoted at this facility.	4.92/1.78
55. Support staff (e.g., medical, secretarial, maintenance, etc.) are often left out of the decision-making processes.	5.64/1.00
56. Program and health services staff recommendations are respected by the administrators of this facility.	5.90/1.22
57. The tasks that I am required to do on the job are made clear to me.	6.22/0.77
58. Ethical behavior by staff is rewarded when promotional decisions are made.	5.14/1.65
59. Security and treatment staff seldom work together to accomplish tasks.	5.87/0.99
60. My work in this facility has little meaning or significance.	6.39/0.85
61. Supervisors often fail to provide positive feedback to those who work under them.	5.88/1.00
62. Supervisors at this facility tend to trust my professional judgment.	6.01/1.06
63. I’m allowed to work independently when I know how to do a particular task.	6.27/1.02
64. The training provided by this facility provides me with the skills I need to do my job.	5.95/1.01
65. My work allows me to participate in projects from the beginning to the end.	5.59/1.34
66. I am comfortable in asking my supervisors for assistance in this facility.	6.18/1.11
67. When people ask me what I do for a living, I don’t mind telling them the truth.	6.05/1.46
68. I have relatives or friends who would like a job like mine.	5.03/2.05

However, there was less agreement on the other 34 items, in particular those nine items with a mean less than 5.50, indicating a less positive assessment of cultural aspects. Though these items constitute less than an eighth of the 68, there are a few that appear common across the dimensions of an organizational culture. For instance, five (items 5, 7, 44, 54, 58) out of the nine items were in the area of satisfaction with pay, training, promotions and personnel decisions, one (item 8) was related to learning (or in this case allowing others to know of one’s mistakes), one (item 11) was related to participatory management (or whether management seeks input by staff), one (item 49) was related to job enrichment (or willingness to let the supervisor know when a person is overloaded with work) and one (item 68) was under the dimension of public perception in the work/pride in the work (or whether relatives or friends would like this kind of job).

Since in most instances these less positive assessments of the organizational culture were in dimensions where most items were perceived more positively by staff, it would not be accurate to suggest that the organizational culture was negative in these aspects. The one exception, of course, would be on the dimension of pay, training, promotion, and personnel decisions. Out of twelve items on this dimension, five fit our ranking of less than 5.50, indicating that the jail has a possible problem in this area that might ultimately result in negative work output (see Table 2).

Factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was applied to determine whether the items in this questionnaire would load on their theoretically determined seven dimensions. No prior research has utilized this instrument in an institutional setting. Without any empirical data collected on this survey, the appropriate technique is to conduct exploratory, rather than confirmatory, factor analysis. Before embarking on this exercise, however, a Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was conducted to determine if the variables were related to each other. The findings were significant; therefore, it was reasonable to proceed. The research team also examined an anti-image correlation matrix and determined that since most of the off-diagonal values were closer to 0 (thus indicating that there is not a low degree of correlation between the variables when the other variables are held constant), the analyses could proceed. The KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test) was not performed, as the study involved a population and there was no need to determine if the sample was adequate.

The items loaded on 19 components with an eigenvalue above one, collectively explaining 74.67% of the variance (these results are not reported in table form here because they were too unwieldy in size). We did not find that they loaded on just seven factors or components as we had hypothesized.

Reliability and factor analyses of the dimensions

In order to get a better sense of why the OCI had such a high Cronbach’s alpha–because of the number of variables or because all of the items were highly correlated with each other?–and as a way of determining how the dimensions would perform when collapsed, we factor analyzed each dimension separately and then together. As indicated in the Participatory Management dimension Rotated Component Matrix displayed in Table 3, the alpha for this dimension is a very robust .795, and the three components with an eigenvalue of 1 or more explained 57.06% of the variance. All of the items load on one of the three components at .5 or higher, save item 4 (“Managers tend to tell everyone else what to do without asking for input”), which was at .486 on component 1. However, it was determined that it had face validity in terms of its fit with this dimension and, therefore, it was left it in. Initially, this dimension also included item 43 (which loaded at .440 on component 2). Upon reexamination of this item, however, which is the statement, “New staff have little to contribute to the workplace until they learn the ropes,” we decided it did not have the same face validity or fit and eliminated it.

Table 3.

Participatory Management Dimension (w/o #43)

Cronbach’s Alpha .795
Factor Analyses Three Components Explain 57.06% of the Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3
1 OCI JobDone	.578	.478	.149
4 OCI Manage	.497	.441	.142
11 OCI InputDec	.567	.424	.186
13 OCI TeamWk	.321	.711	−.199
25 OCI OrgGoal	.673	.259	−.170
28 OCI TopDown	.086	−.041	.847
33 OCI Apprec	.769	.174	−.131
38 OCI Comfort	.574	−.045	−.512
52 OCI MgmtResp	.559	.499	.004
55 OCI DMSprtStf	−.074	.755	−.161
59 OCI SecTxTask	.135	.645	.164
62 OCI SupTrust	.678	−.078	.139

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

As indicated in Table 4, the Satisfaction dimension has an alpha of .855 and its three components with an eigenvalue of 1 or more explain 67.37% of the variance. Item 44 was eliminated from this analysis and dimension as it loaded very poorly on the three dimensions. This item, “It appears that personnel decisions are usually fair,” is perhaps too generic and too tentative–with its use of “appears” and “usually”– making it unambiguous.

Table 4.

Satisfaction Dimension (w/o #44)

Cronbach’s Alpha .855
Factor Analyses Three Components Explain 67.37% of the Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3
5 OCI TrainSuf	.681	.339	.045
7 OCI Rationale	.444	.650	−.110
10 OCI PrepTrain	.674	.333	−.086
17 OCI LowPay	.090	.141	.849
21 OCI Promo	.050	.829	.181
45 OCI PromoKnow	.256	.818	.008
50 OCI Training	.803	.071	.242
51 OCI Atmos	.561	.445	.126
53 OCI FairPay	.155	.020	.850
54 OCI PromoSkill	.258	.736	.124
64 OCI ProvTrain	.868	.121	.215

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Rotation converged in 6 iterations

The Ethics (Table 5), Job Enrichment (Table 6), Learning Organization (Table 7), Respect and Acceptance (Table 8) and Public Perception of the Work/Pride in the Work (Table 9) dimensions had alphas in the acceptable range (above .70), with the exception of the Public Perception dimension, which had an alpha of .667. Their components with an eigenvalue over 1 explained 50 to 60% of the variance with the lowest, again, being the Public Perception of the Work/Pride in the Work dimension (see Table 9), which explained only 52.79%. A few items in the Job Enrichment (item 65, .480, “My work allows me to participate in projects from the beginning to the end”) and the Respect and Acceptance (item 3, .484, “Security staff are treated with respect by administrators” and item 56, .494, “Program and health services staff recommendations are respected by the administrators of this facility”) dimensions loaded at a relatively low level (below .5) on their rotated components. But, in all three instances, those items were thought to have face validity that would warrant keeping them in the OCI and in their respective dimensions.

Table 5.

Ethics Dimension

Cronbach’s Alpha .749
Factor Analyses Three Components Explain 57.14% of the Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3
6 OCI Right	.668	.006	−.210
9 OCI Model	.759	.208	.101
16 OCI EthCode	.176	.874	.021
18 OCI EthAbide	.092	.850	.089
23 OCI Punish	.507	.209	.330
30 OCI Corrupt	−.017	.077	.734
36 OCI AcceptCC	.667	.149	.194
40 OCI Overlook	.273	.013	.757
51 OCI Atmos	.600	.296	.094
58 OCI EthPromo	.650	−.120	.246

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Rotation converged in 4 iterations

Table 6.

Job Enrichment Dimension

Cronbach’s Alpha .773
Factor Analyses Three Components Explain 53.23% of the Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3
12 OCI Autonomy	−.093	.116	.817
15 OCI PracSkills	.510	.255	.370
22 OCI WkLoad	.504	.347	.073
27 OCI PosInf	.240	.520	−.140
35 OCI SupCom	.015	.710	.224
49 OCI ComfSup	.654	−.014	−.184
57 OCI Clear	.724	.127	.184
60 OCI WorkMean	.260	.627	.105
61 OCI SupPosFB	.108	.835	.120
63 OCI Indep	.293	.035	.785
65 OCI ProjPart	.480	.138	.388
66 OCI AskAssist	.691	.350	.149

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Rotation converged in 5 iterations

Table 7.

Learning Organization Dimension

Cronbach’s Alpha .793
Factor Analyses Two Components Explain 62.38% of the Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2
2 OCI Humiliate	.691	.324
8 OCI Mistake	−.021	.858
14 OCI FearofComp	.381	.656
19 OCI SupComp	.625	.510
24 OCI Recog	.684	.202
34 OCI PosChge	.840	.009
39 OCI PPImp	.771	.106

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization

Rotation converged in 3 iterations

Table 8.

Respect and Acceptance Dimension

Cronbach’s Alpha .708.
Factor Analyses Three Components Explain 56.89% of Variance
Rotated Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1	2	3
3 OCI SecStaff	.385	.484	−.165
20 OCI CWResp	.789	.166	−.075
31 OCI Neg	.291	.666	−.215
32 OCI WomAcc	.673	.094	−.063
37 OCI Hisp	−.143	.126	.796
41 OCI Jokes	−.037	.810	.256
46 OCI AAAcc	.364	−.170	.745
47 OCI Welcome	.659	.287	.117
48 OCI Div	.653	.135	.293
56 OCI PHSResp	.403	.494	.067

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

Rotation converged in 6 iterations

Table 9.

Public Perception of the Work/Pride in the Work Dimension

Cronbach’s Alpha .667.
Factor Analyses One Component Explained 52.79% of the Variance
Component Matrix^a
	Component
	1
29 OCI Choice	.768
42 OCI DiscApp	.832
67 OCI Living	.708
68 OCI RelFrnd	.573

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

1 component extracted

Finally, we conducted a reliability and factor analysis of all of the dimensions together. From this analysis (see Table 10), it was determined that the alpha was a strong .926, which indicates that the high alpha for all items was not an artifact of the number of variables, but a true representation of the reliability of this instrument. Second, it was determined that all of these dimensions were correlated enough that they loaded on one component; this explained 72.251% of the variance. On the component matrix included under Table 10, the loading of these dimensions is at the .8 to .9 level, with the exception of Public Perception of the Work/Pride in the Work dimension, which loads at .636. A reexamination of the items in this dimension led the research team to exclude it from further analysis, as it might not be measuring attributes of an organizational culture, and it was suspected that if the topics it represented were a proper fit for OC, we had not accurately operationalized them here. A reanalysis of all of the dimensions of the OCI, excluding PUBPRIDE, yielded both a higher alpha (.933) and stronger explanatory power for the first component (78.42% of the variance; see Table 11).

Table 10.

All OCI Dimensions

Cronbach’s Alpha .926
Factor Analyses One Component Explained 72.251% of the Variance
	Total Variance Explained
	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	5.058	72.251	72.251	5.058	72.251	72.251
2	.739	10.554	82.806
3	.372	5.311	88.117
4	.324	4.628	92.744
5	.286	4.088	96.833
6	.222	3.167	100.000
7	5.065E-16	7.236E-15	100.000

Component Matrix^a

						Component
						1

Particman						.890
Satisfac						.842
Ethics						.859
Enrich						.930
respaccept						.826
Pubpride						.636
Learning						.930

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1 component extracted.

Table 11.

All OCI Dimensions (except Public Perception of the Work/Pride in the Work)

Cronbach’s Alpha .933
Factor Analyses One Component Explained 78.42% of the Variance
	Total Variance Explained
	Initial Eigenvalues			Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Component	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %	Total	% of Variance	Cumulative %
1	4.705	78.420	78.420	4.705	78.420	78.420
2	.424	7.071	85.491
3	.335	5.579	91.071
4	.307	5.116	96.187
5	.229	3.813	100.000
6	−4.156E-16	−6.927E-15	100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis

Component Matrix^a
						Component
						1
Particman						.882
Satisfac						.837
Ethics						.856
Enrich						.945
respaccept						.842
Learning						.945

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. 1 component extracted.

Conclusions

Findings

We found in this pretest of the Organizational Culture Instrument that the items (alpha of .96) and their dimensions (alpha of .93) were strongly related, indicating a high degree of reliability for this instrument. When assessing the face and content validity assessments completed before the creation of this instrument, there is evidence that the organizational culture instrument developed for this research holds some promise for the assessment of correctional environments, particularly jails. More important for this jail was the finding that the majority of staff were content with many aspects of their work and satisfied with the organization. On the 9 out of 68 items where there was less agreement among staff on the organizational culture, there was some indication that staff were not always content with their pay, training or promotional opportunities. We found that the dimensions of an organizational culture are not always easily identifiable. As the literature did indicate (e.g., Jung et al., 2009; Scott et al., 2003), there are many aspects to a culture that define and distinguish it.

We found at least 19 factors that, when combined, explained almost 75% of the responses on this instrument. When collapsed into its six dimensions (after excluding the PUBPRIDE dimension), the explanatory power of the component improves to 78%.

Relevance of the Findings

The organizational culture instrument developed for this study needs to be tested in other jails to determine if the findings can be replicated. If norms for this instrument are generated for jails and the questionnaire is found to be valid, the instrument should have high utility for jail managers and staff .

It is unlikely that staff in a jail that is hierarchically organized and bureaucratized will report to their sheriff or jail manager that they are dissatisfied with the fairness of promotional opportunities. Yet, such dissatisfaction can lead to staff resentment, turnover, and stress, with resulting inferior work performance. The use of an organizational culture instrument to assess the jail culture, particularly when administered by an outside evaluation or research group, can provide jail managers with the kind of information they need to both diagnose and address such issues in their facility before they lead to negative outcomes (Tucker, McCoy & Evans, 1990).

Study Limitations

This research suffers from several limitations. Namely, as this is just one jail, in one state, the generalizability of these findings to other jail/detention center settings is limited. Moreover, as this jail is located in a fairly prosperous metropolitan area where officers have more education and training than is the norm, these findings may not be generalizable to other facilities in this state, though they might apply to jails in comparable metropolitan settings. The jail staff were also different in that they were more homogeneous in terms of both race/ethnicity and gender.

We concede that this study is a pretest of the organizational culture instrument; therefore, we have no basis for comparison and for claims of potential generalizability. However, our findings might be suggestive of what would be found in other “like” jurisdictions

A third possible limitation is the instrument itself. We cannot be certain that it is a valid instrument. However, since the alpha was very high for the organizational culture instrument, we can speculate that there is some reliability in what we are measuring. The review of this instrument by other practitioners does supply some evidence of face validity. Moreover, since we found discernable differences between staff on the organizational culture instrument, we might reasonably conclude that this instrument is tapping into real, and perhaps true, differences in these areas of interest. It is also fair to note that validity in such environs may be measured in degrees and that attainment of it is an ongoing process (Cooper & O’Connor, 1993). We know that this study should be replicated many times over before a better sense of the instrument’s relative validity is confirmed. We also concede that there may be other organizational culture dimensions that our instrument is not ‘tapping into.’ For instance, there were only indirect measures of leadership, and there were no items related to violence and the treatment of inmates.

Finally, Schein (1992) warns that it is often difficult to determine if a given behavior is a response to, or reflection of, the culture, or whether it is driven by some other impulse that could be related to biology or the larger culture. So, staff perceptions regarding jail behavior and activities may not reflect the culture of the jail at all. Last, Schein (1992) observes that organizational size does matter. He argues that larger and more diverse organizations do not have just one behavioral-influencing “culture.” Rather, there are many ‘smaller’ cultures that govern each specific area of operation. If Schein is correct, this would mean that the assessment of a jail’s culture may need to be dispersed to ‘capture’ what is occurring in these subcultures. Certainly, this would apply to larger jails and prisons, where there are divisions of the organization engaged in major tasks (e.g. treatment, work supervision, unit management, etc.) and where the cultures could reflect these varying operations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Leo Carroll, who kindly reviewed the organizational culture instrument and provided useful feedback. The authors also acknowledge the administrators and staff of the jail where this research was conducted.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Mary K. Stohr is a professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Missouri State University. She has published over 75 academic works in the areas of correctional organizations and operation, correctional personnel, inmate needs and assessment, and program evaluation.

Craig Hemmens is department head and professor in the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at Missouri State University. He holds a JD from North Carolina Central University School of Law and a PhD in criminal justice from Sam Houston State University. He has published twenty books and more than one hundred articles and book chapters on a variety of criminal justice-related topics.

Peter A. Collins is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Seattle University. He received his PhD from Washington State University and his MA from Boise State University.

Brian Iannacchione is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Northern Colorado. He received his PhD from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and his MA from Boise State University.

Marianne Hudson received her MA from Boise State University.

Hailey Johnson received her MA from Boise State University.

References

Bachman

Schutt

R. K.

(2003). The practice of research in criminology and criminal justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Barley

S. R.

Meyer

G. W.

Gash

(1988). Cultures of culture: Academics, practitioners, and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative science quarterly, 33, 24-60.

Braswell

M. C.

McCarthy

B. R.

McCarthy

B. J.

(1991). Justice, crime and ethics. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Carroll

(2007). Organizational culture: An overview of perspectives, methods and findings. Unpublished manuscript.

Conover

(2000). New Jack: Guarding sing sing. New York, NY: Random House.

Cooper

S. E.

O’Connor

R. M.

(1993, July/August). Standards for organizational consultation assessment and evaluation instruments. Journal of counseling and development, 71, 651-660.

Crank

J. P.

Caldero

M. A.

(2000). Police ethics: The corruption of noble cause. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Crank

J. P.

Giacomazzi

(2009). A sheriff’s office as a learning organization. Police Quarterly, 12, 351-369.

Deal

T. E.

Kennedy

A. A.

(1982). Corporate cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

10.

Drucker

P. F.

(1954). The practice of management. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

11.

Drucker

P. F.

(1964). Managing for results. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

12.

Erdogan

Liden

R. C.

Kraimer

M. L.

(2006). Justice and leader-member exchange: The moderating role of organizational culture. Academy of management journal, 49, 395-406.

13.

Fey

C. F.

Denison

D. R.

(2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can American theory be applied in Russia? Organization science, 14, 686-704.

14.

Franklin

A. L.

Pagan

J. F.

(2006). Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline practices. Review of public personnel administration, 26(1), 52-73.

15.

Glaser

S. R.

Zamanou

Hacker

(1987). Measuring and interpreting organizational culture. Management communication quarterly, 1, 173-198.

16.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Doubleday.

17.

Goffman

(1967). Interaction ritual. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.

18.

Goleman

Boyatzis

McKee

(2002). Primal leadership: Realizing the power of emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

19.

Gordon

G. J.

Milakovich

M. E.

(1998). Public administration in America (6th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

20.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1974). The job diagnostic survey: An instrument for the diagnosis of jobs and the evaluation of job redesign projects (Tech Rep. No.4). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Department of Administrative Sciences.

21.

Heil

Bennis

Stephens

D. C.

(2000). Douglas McGregor revisited: Managing the human side of the enterprise. New York, NY: John Wiley.

22.

Homans

(1950). The human group. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

23.

Hofstede

Neuijen

Ohayv

D. D.

Sanders

(1990). Measuring organizational culture: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative science quarterly, 35, 286-316.

24.

Johnson

(2004) Keeping patients safe: An analysis of organizational culture and caregiver training. Journal of healthcare management, 49, 171-178.

25.

Johnson

(2002). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

26.

Jung

Scott

Davies

H. T. O.

Bower

Whalley

McNally

Mannion

(2009, November/December). Instruments for exploring organizational culture: A review of the literature. Public administration review, 1087-1096

27.

Kiekbusch

Price

Theis

(2003). Turnover predictors: Causes of employee turnover in sheriff-operated jails. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(2), 67-76.

28.

Lee

J. A.

Visano

L. A.

(1994). Official deviance in the legal system. In Stojkovic

Klofas

Kalinich

(Eds), The administration and management of criminal justice organizations: A book of readings (pp.202-231). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

29.

Lee

Y.-D.

Chang

H.-M.

(2008). Relations between team work and innovation in organizations and the job satisfaction of employees: A factor analytic study. International journal of management, 25, 732-739.

30.

Lombardo

L. X.

(1989). Guards imprisoned 2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

31.

Lovrich

N. P.

(1989, winter). The Simon/Argyris debate: Bounded rationality versus self-actualization conceptions of human nature. Public administration quarterly, 13.

32.

Mackenzie

(1995). Surveying the organizational culture in an NHS trust. Journal of management in medicine, 9(6), 69-77.

33.

Maguire

Pastore

A. L.

(2003). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2002. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice.

34.

Martin

(1991). A personal journey: From integration to differentiation to fragmentation to feminism. In Frost

and others (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

35.

Masood

S. A

Dani

S. S.

Burns

N. D.

Backhouse

C. J.

(2006). Transformational leadership and organizational culture: the situational strength perspective. Journal of engineering manufacture, 220, 941-949.

36.

Maslow

A. H.

(1961, reprinted in 1998). Maslow on management. New York, NY: John Wiley.

37.

McGregor

(1957, reprinted in 2001). The human side of enterprise. In Shafritz

J. M.

Ott

J.S.

(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (5th ed., pp. 152-157). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.

38.

Ott

J. S.

(1989). The organizational culture perspective. Belmont, CA: Dorsey Press.

39.

Ouchi

(1981). Theory z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

40.

Parker Follett. (1926, reprinted in 2001). The giving of orders. In Shafritz

J. M.

Ott

J. S.

(Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp. 152-157). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College.

41.

Patenaude

A. L.

(2001). Analysis of issues affecting correctional officer retention within the Arkansas department of correction. Corrections management quarterly, 5(2), 49-67.

42.

Peters

(1995). Two complete books: Thriving on chaos and a passion for excellence (with Nancy Austin). New York, NY: Random House.

43.

Peters

(1992). Liberation management: Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. New York, NY: Knopf.

44.

Pollock

J. M.

(2004). Ethics in crime and justice: Dilemmas and decisions (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

45.

Saxena

Shah

(2008) Effect of organizational culture on creating learned helplessness attributions in R&D professionals: A canonical correlation analysis. VIKALPA, 33(2), 25-45.

46.

Schein

E. H.

(1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Schiff

J. W.

(2009). A measure of organizational culture in mental health clinics. Best practices in mental health, 5(2), 89-110.

48.

Schneider

(ed.) (1990). Organizational climate and culture. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

49.

Scott

Mannion

Davies

Marshall

(2003). The quantitative measurement of organizational culture in health care: A review of the available instruments. Health services research, 38, 923-944.

50.

Smircich

Calas

M. B.

(1987). “Organizational culture: A critical assessment.” In Jablin

F.M.

Putnam

L.L.

Roberts

K.H.

Porter

L.W.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

51.

Stohr

M. K.

Collins

(2009). Criminal justice management: Theory and practice in justice-centered organizations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

52.

Stohr

M. K.

Lovrich

N. P.

Menke

B. A.

Zupan

L. L.

(1994) Staff management in correctional institutions: Comparing DiIulio’s “control model” and “employee investment model” outcomes in five jails. Justice Quarterly, 11, 471-497.

53.

Trefy

M. G.

(2006). A double-edged sword: Organizational culture in multicultural organizations. International journal of management, 23, 563-575.

54.

Trice

H. M.

Beyer

J. M.

(1984). Studying organizational culture through rites and ceremonials. Academy of management review, 9, 653-669.

55.

Trice

H. M.

Beyer

J. M.

(1985). Using six organizational cultures through rites and ceremonials. In Kilmann

R. H.

Saxton

M. J.

Serpa

& Associates (Eds.) Gaining control of the corporate culture (pp. 370-399). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

56.

Tucker

R. W.

McCoy

W. J.

Evans

L. C.

(1990). Can questionnaires objectively assess organizational culture? Journal of managerial psychology, 5(4), 4-11.

57.

Walker

Symon

Davies

(1996). Professional forum: Assessing organizational culture: A comparison of methods. International journal of selection and assessment, 4(2), 96-105.