A Gendered Career Stage Model to Explore Turnover Intent Among Correctional Officers

Abstract

Understanding the factors that lead to correctional officer (CO) turnover intent is vital. Using a gendered career stage model, this study focused on male and female CO similarities and differences in workplace variable effects on turnover intent across career stages. The results indicated that organizational commitment was a consistent predictor of turnover intent for all correctional officers at all career stages, and, at various career stages, quality of supervision, coworker support, and safety concerns affected both males and females. Male officers were more likely to leave at all career stages, with the impact of job stress and role ambiguity influencing male turnover intent.

Keywords

correctional staff turnover intent career stage theory gender model gender differences

Introduction

Historically, women have faced considerable obstacles in entering the correctional workforce, reporting hostility, harassment, and a general lack of acceptance and support from male coworkers (Belknap, 2007). Although there has been an effort to hire, retain, and promote more women in corrections, they are still underrepresented in the correctional workforce. Overall, about 40% of correctional staff are women (Winters, 2014). Women working in corrections face many challenges (Gibson, 2018). Research has focused on why more women do not work in correctional institutions, including how female and male correctional officers (COs) perceive their work environment and whether workplace variables affect them differently. This research draws attention to the gendered experiences of being a CO. Researchers have also studied whether the effects of correctional workplace variables, regardless of gender, differ across the major four career stages. This study seeks to extend the literature using a gendered model to explore the effects of workplace variables on turnover intent across four career stages for female and male officers.

Literature Review

Turnover is a problem in corrections, with the average turnover rate being about 20% (Matz et al., 2014; Minor et al., 2011). High levels of turnover among correctional staff strain valuable financial resources due to costs associated with recruitment, testing, selection, and training of new staff, which can reach tens of thousands of dollars per employee (Minor et al., 2011). A second concern is the disruptive nature of the turnover process. Loss of expertise and organizational knowledge resulting from high turnover rates and the time needed for new employees to master necessary skills have the significant potential to impact the proper running of any jail or prison (Mitchell et al., 2000). Turnover impacts the remaining employees as well. Supervisors can be inundated with additional responsibilities when faced with the task of filling vacant posts and training new staff (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). According to Mitchell et al. (2000), turnover is “more than a mere distraction; it is a serious threat to the safety and quality of service in correctional facilities” (p. 335). In light of the high costs, scholars have increasingly focused on the relationship between workplace variables and turnover/turnover intent among staff. Interestingly, the bulk of prior research in this area generally assumes that the effects of workplace variables are static across the careers of staff. This is a largely untested assumption. Career stage theory holds that the effects of variables on work outcomes, including turnover intent, vary across the career stages of an individual (Greenhaus, 1987). Recent research has found that the impact of workplace variables has different effects on COs’ intent to leave across career stages (Griffin, Hogan, & Lambert, 2014). Within the theoretical context of corrections as a site of gendered work, the current study incorporates a gendered model, suggesting that the effects of workplace variables on an officer’s intent to leave may differ between female and male staff (Griffin, 2006; Lambert et al., 2010).

Defining Turnover Intent and Associated Antecedents

Turnover intent is the cognitive process of deciding to leave employment voluntarily within a specified time period (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) contended that “the best single predictor of an individual’s behavior will be a measure of his intention to perform that behavior” (p. 369). Turnover intent has been reported to be one of the final stages before a person voluntarily quits (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Turnover intent is linked primarily to voluntary turnover, one of the two major forms of turnover. The other major form of turnover is involuntary. Although some involuntary turnover may actually be beneficial for organizations by allowing problem or nonproductive employees to be removed, voluntary turnover tends to be more disruptive for organizations (Lambert, 2006). Evidence suggests that good employees who choose not to stay can find employment with other organizations because they have highly valued skills, experiences, and job performance history (Wright, 1993). Notably, over two thirds of correctional staff turnover is voluntary (Blakely & Bumphus, 2004).

A growing body of research has identified important workplace variables that act as important antecedents of turnover intent among correctional staff (Byrd et al., 2000; Minor et al., 2011). Quality of supervision and support from coworkers appear to play a role in shaping whether correctional staff intend to stay or leave (Minor et al., 2011; Tipton, 2002). Supervisors and coworkers create an either pleasant or unpleasant work environment—the former likely promotes a desire to stay and the latter a reason to leave. Quality supervision and coworker support aids staff with being more productive and more positive about their jobs. A lack of quality supervision can be a straining experience, making work more difficult (Tipton, 2002). Role ambiguity occurs when a person receives conflicting or unclear orders or directions, or there exists uncertainty or a lack of information as to how to carry out one’s job (Rizzo et al., 1970).This stressor can cause frustration for staff, resulting in a desire to quit (Matthews et al., 2010). Little research, however, has explored this relationship between role ambiguity and turnover intent among correctional staff.

Organizational commitment (i.e., the bond between the employee and the organization) has been found to have a consistent and inverse effect on both turnover intent and turnover among correctional staff (Griffin et al., 2013; Lambert, 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2009). This bond connects the employee to the organization, helping to develop a sense of belonging and a desire to stay (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Another important work environment variable is organizational support. Organizational support may increase employees’ intent to remain; conversely, a lack of support may act as a strain on employees, leading them to question why they should remain with an organization that neither cares nor supports its employees. Feelings of safety in the workplace lead to lower turnover intent. Compared with those who felt safe on the job, correctional staff who believed their safety was at risk were more likely to express a desire to quit (Tipton, 2002). The literature supports the premise that correctional staff with more job satisfaction are less likely to either leave or express a desire to leave (Byrd et al., 2000; Lambert, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000; Wright, 1993).

Job stress refers to experiencing work-related tension, anxiety, and worry (Griffin, 2006). Stress wears on staff, most likely causing them to question their desire to remain with an organization. For most working adults, work and home are the two primary domains. Balancing these two sets of responsibilities can be difficult, and, when spillover occurs between these two domains, conflict may result (Matthews et al., 2010). Work–life balance generally increases satisfaction (Lambert et al., 2005). In the end, this may allow people to have a favorable perception of the job and want to stay. The negative effects of an imbalance may lead staff to question why they remain.

Gendered Model

Pioneering research on the gendered nature of the correctional work environment focused on the way in which the organizational structure influenced and amplified the barriers faced by female officers, and the ways in which women attempted to navigate this masculine environment (Griffin, 2012). This work laid the foundation for later research, which often made comparisons between male and female officers’ perceptions of the workplace, as well as the differential impact of critical work environment variables on male and female officers. Underlying this research framework is the notion that men and women are socialized differently, and often bring differing attitudes and orientations to the work environment. In addition, men and women continue to be situated differently within this gendered, often paramilitary organization, and wherein the skills most valued continue to be those generally associated with masculine qualities (Griffin, 2012).

Empirical support exists for the gendered model regarding various work outcomes. For example, work–family conflict, sexual harassment, organizational support for equal treatment policies, quality of supervision, and fear of being victimized had a greater impact on women’s level of job stress compared with that of men (Griffin, 2001, 2006; Savicki et al., 2003). Role ambiguity, role overload, and perceived dangerousness influenced levels of job stress for male staff, but not for female staff (Lambert et al., 2010). Furthermore, harassment, particularly sexual harassment and work–family conflict influences women’s organizational commitment more strongly than that of male staff (Lambert et al., 2010; Savicki et al., 2003). Griffin (2005) reported that male officers who perceived a lack of other employment opportunities had a significant positive association with continuance commitment (i.e., a desire to remain with the agency); whereas being the primary “bread-winner” at home had a significant positive relationship with this form of commitment for female officers. Work–family conflict appears to have a greater negative effect on job satisfaction among female staff, while role conflict and role ambiguity play a greater role for male staff (Lambert et al., 2010). These findings support the gendered model, at least for the outcome areas of job stress, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. The extent to which workplace variables would have a gendered effect on turnover intent is unclear, particularly once career stages are taken into account.

Career Stage Theory

Career stage theory holds that the impact of workplace variables on staff is not linear, but rather changes depending on the employee’s particular career stage (McElroy et al., 1999). Originally proposed by Super (1957), career stage theory suggests that individuals pass through different stages in their careers, and each stage represents unique foci reflecting the desires and needs of employees. As such, the effects of a range of workplace variables on salient outcomes, such as job satisfaction, absenteeism, job performance, or turnover intent, will vary across career stages (Rebele et al., 1996). Although Super (1957) originally proposed there were three career stages, the number of stages has been expanded to four or more (Greenhaus et al., 2000). In this study, four career stages were evaluated.

The first stage is the entry or exploration stage (Super, 1957). This stage generally occurs in the first year of employment with a particular organization. In this stage, individuals join an organization and explore whether or not the organization will play a long-term role in their career goals. As noted by Greenhaus (1987), this stage reflects the selection of “a job and an organization in which to begin employment in one’s chosen career field” (p. 88). New hires explore what the organization has to offer and whether the line of work and the organization fits their needs, wants, and desires (Super et al., 1988).

The second career stage is early career. This is a transitional career stage, generally taking place between 1 and 4 years of employment, wherein people acquire the skills, experiences, and knowledge that should allow them to be effective and efficient employees (Greenhaus et al., 2000). In this stage, workers begin to consider long-term career goals and whether the current employing organization fits into those plans (Super, 1957). During this stage, social relationships are formed (or not), often becoming important for many people, particularly as they move to later career stages. It is also during this stage that organizational and occupational socialization occurs (Lynn et al., 1996).

Midcareer building is the third stage, and typically occurs between 5 and 9 years with an organization (Greenhaus et al., 2000). In this stage, employees work on “being accepted as a competent contributor to the organization and to make a place for oneself in the occupation and organization” (Greenhaus, 1987, p. 89). A decision whether or not to remain with the organization has generally been made by this stage, particularly if social relationships and financial benefits bind the person to the organization and individuals usually put forth time and effort to be successful in the organization, to master their jobs, and to solidify important relationships, while seeking promotions (Greenhaus et al., 2000).

Maintenance career stage is the fourth and final career stage in this study. This stage usually occurs about 10 years into a career with an organization (Ornstein et al., 1989). During this stage, workers have settled in with the organization and have become comfortable with their jobs. They tend to be happier than before with their situation in the organization and focus on both membership in the organization and other aspects of their lives, such as family, friends, social clubs, and religious institutions (Greenhaus, 1987; Lynn et al., 1996). At later points in this career stage, efforts to disengage from work begin to emerge as the option of retirement becomes more likely (Savickas, 2002).

Research Focus

According to the career stage theory, the level of turnover intent and the effects of different workplace factors on turnover intent should vary across the four career stages for COs. Likewise, the gendered model holds that the effects of different workplace factors on turnover intent may vary by gender. Using a gendered career stage approach (i.e., testing the effects of workplace variables on turnover intent across four career stages for female and male officers), the current study explored the effects of various workplace variables on turnover intent. The specific workplace variables examined were quality of supervision, coworker support, role ambiguity, organizational support for equitable treatment, organizational commitment, organizational support, safety concerns, job satisfaction, job stress, and work–life balance. Although no published studies could be found that examined a gendered career stage theory among correctional staff, there are noncriminal justice studies that suggest that the effects of career stage vary between women and men. For example, Gomez-Mejia (1983) reported that job involvement among female and male managers and engineers varied the most across early career stages and diminished to insignificance by the last career stage. The change over time in converging job involvement for women and men was attributed to occupational socialization, which led to similar perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors for both genders the longer they remained with a particular organization. In a study of accounting professionals, career stage was more important in explaining job involvement and organizational commitment for men than for women, which suggests that workplace variables affect outcomes differently by gender at different career stages (Lynn et al., 1996). In a study of workers at an oil-producing company, career stage had a greater effect on organizational commitment for women than for men, but there was no significant difference by gender on the career stage effects on either career salience or job involvement (van der Velde et al., 2003). These studies support the postulation that the effects of career stage vary by gender.

Given that people enter into careers at different ages, tenure with the correctional agency rather than age of the officer, was used to establish career stages (Lynn et al., 1996; Ornstein et al., 1989). Based on prior research, the following were hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: The mean level of intent to leave will vary significantly for female and male COs across the four career stages among correctional line officers.

Hypothesis 2: The effects of the workplace variables on intent to leave will vary between female and male COs across the four career stages.

Method

Participants

Human subjects approval was obtained from an Institutional Review Board before data were collected in 2007. Staff of a Southwestern state adult prison system received a packet that included a cover letter, survey, and pre-addressed return envelope. The cover letter explained the focus of the study, indicated that participation was voluntary, and made it clear that responses would be anonymous. Approximately 59% of the staff (5,540) completed and returned the survey. For the current study, all security staff were selected (N = 3,378). The participants in this study were predominantly male (75.8%) and ranged in age from 18 to 69 years, with a mean age of 34.5 years. Approximately 66% of the participants self-reported their race as non-Hispanic White, and 34% identified themselves as Hispanic/Latinx, African American, Native American, or other. Complete descriptive statistics of the participants are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Surveyed Correctional Officers (N = 3,378).

Variable	n	%	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	α
Tenure
Less than 1 year	766	22.7
1–4 years	1,068	31.7
5–9 years	810	24.0
10 or more years	728	21.6
Gender
Male (coded = 1)	2,519	75.8
Female (coded = 0)	805	24.2
Race/Ethnicity
White (coded = 1)	2,199	65.8
Non-White (coded = 0)	1,141	34.2
Age (continuous years)			18	69	36.19	10.38
Educational level
High school (coded = 0)	2,347	69.5
More than high school (coded = 1)	1,031	30.5
Quality of supervision (seven-item index)			7	35	17.67	5.13	.82
Coworker support (six-item index)			6	30	14.90	2.75	.75
Role ambiguity (six-item index)			6	28	17.58	3.33	.77
Organizational commitment (six-item index)			6	30	15.57	4.71	.85
Organizational support (four-item index)			4	20	12.40	2.07	.77
Safety concerns (five-item index)			5	25	13.74	3.45	.69
Job satisfaction (five-item index)			5	25	12.30	3.46	.77
Job stress (five-item job stress)			5	25	15.29	3.31	.79
Work and home life balance (six-item index)			6	30	15.14	4.54	.72
Turnover intent (one-item variable)			1	5	2.74	1.23	N/A

Note. N represents the total number of participants who returned a survey, n the number of cases for a particular variable, and α Cronbach’s internal reliability coefficient value.

Measures

The dependent variable for these analyses was turnover intent. Turnover intent was measured using a single item, which is presented in the Appendix.

Workplace variables were the independent variables of interest in the current study. The specific items used to measure these independent variables are presented in the Appendix. Indexes measuring quality of supervision, coworker support, role ambiguity, organizational commitment, organizational support, safety, job satisfaction, job stress, and work/life balance were created. Although most of the items were previously used in past studies, index items were factor analyzed, as well as tested for internal reliability. Cronbach’s α values for each index are included in Table 1.

Quality of supervision was operationalized by a seven-item index that measured an officer’s perception of the quality of supervision received (Griffin, 2001). Coworker support measured the extent to which officers believed they shared a supportive and positive work relationship with fellow employees and was measured using six items from Motowildo et al. (1986). Role ambiguity was measured using six items from Griffin (2006). Support for equitable treatment measured officer perceptions of organizational efforts to promote equal treatment using policies and procedures to such issues of cultural diversity, unfair treatment of women and minorities, and equal access to merit increases and promotion (Griffin et al., 2005). Organizational commitment measured the affective or emotional bond to the organization using six items adapted from Mowday et al. (1982). An officer’s perception of organizational support was based on four items used by Eisenberger et al. (1986). Using five items from Hepburn and Crepin (1984), an index of safety concerns was created. Job satisfaction measured the extent to which officers were fulfilled with their job and enjoyed their duties, and was measured using five items (Hepburn, 1985). Job stress assessed the extent to which officers perceived feelings of tension and anger as a result of their jobs (Crank et al., 1995). Finally, work and home life balance was measured using six items that assessed the extent to which officers perceived a balance between their work and personal lives.

The demographic characteristics of tenure, gender, race, age, and educational level were included. For this study, tenure was measured as a categorical variable and used to group officers by career stage (i.e., less than 1 year, 1–4 years, 5–9 years, and 10 or more years). The participants were broken down into two groups for the analysis—women and men. The demographic characteristics of race, age, and educational level were included more as control than as explanatory variables. Race was coded as 0 = non-White and 1 = White. Age was measured in continuous years. Educational level was a dichotomous variable representing whether the participant had a high school degree (coded 0) or had some type of postsecondary educational exposure (coded 1). The descriptive statistics for all the variables used in this study are reported in Table 1.

Results

Based on the t tests compared with female officers, male officers reported significantly higher levels of intent to leave regardless of career stage (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Expressed Intent to Leave by Gender and Career Stage.

Career stage	n		M		SD
Career stage	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male
Less than 1 year	232	515	2.28	2.75**	1.11	1.24
1–4 years	259	785	2.63	3.09**	1.21	1.29
5–9 years	184	604	2.48	2.72*	1.06	1.23
10 or more years	117	588	1.06	1.20*	0.10	0.05

Note. The independent t test was conducted. n represents the number cases.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Table 3 provides the Pearson product–moment correlations. The three individual-level variables (i.e., race, age, and educational level) were significantly correlated with turnover intent; non-White, younger, and better-educated officers expressed higher levels of intent to leave. All work environment variables were significantly correlated with intent to leave, with role ambiguity and job stress correlated with higher turnover intent, while quality of supervision, coworker support, organizational commitment, organizational support, safety, job satisfaction, and work life balance were correlated with lower intent to leave.

Table 3.

Correlation Matrix (Pearson’s R) for Variables Included in Multivariate Analyses (N = 3,327).

Variables	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.
1. Race	1.00
2. Age	.13**	1.00
3. Educ	.01	.15**	1.00
4. Q Super	−.02	−.03	.06**	1.00
5. Cowork	.06**	−.03	.02	.44**	1.00
6. Role Am	.02	.01	−.03	−.39**	−.28**	1.00
7. Org Com	.02	−.05**	.11**	.49**	.46**	−.46**	1.00
8. Org Supp	.07**	.01	.04*	.37**	.36**	−.28**	.55**	1.00
9. Safety	−.02	−.02	.03	.39**	.40**	−.40**	.55**	.43**	1.00
10. Job Sat	.03	−.06**	.08**	.50**	.39**	−.37**	.71**	.40**	.47**	1.00
11. Job Str	−.05**	−.03	−.03*	−.26**	−.20**	.45**	−.37**	−.19**	−.29**	−.38**	1.00
12. Balance	.07**	.02	.04*	.15**	.13**	−.33**	.17**	.10**	.23**	.18**	−.52**	1.00
13. Leave	−.06**	−.15**	.10**	−.26**	−.20**	.33**	−.54**	−.26**	−.29**	−.43**	.28**	−.16**

Note. Educ = educational level; Q Super = quality supervision; Cowork = coworker support; Role Am = role ambiguity; Org Com = organizational commitment; Org Supp = organizational support; Safety = officer safety concerns; Job Sat = job satisfaction, Job Str = job stress; Balance = work and home life balance; Leave = turnover intent.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

To further explore the influence of work factors on an officer’s intent to leave, multivariate analyses were conducted. An ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was estimated for each of the four career stages with intent to leave as the dependent variable. The independent variables in each of the OLS regression equations included three individual level characteristics (race, age, and education), as well as nine work environment variables (quality of supervision, coworker support, role ambiguity, organizational commitment, organizational support, safety, job satisfaction, job stress, and work/life balance). Variance inflation factor scores (not reported) indicated that collinearity and multicollinearity were not a problem in any of the regression equations. Results for all four equations are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Multivariate Analysis Results of the Effects of Workplace Variables on Turnover Intent Across Four Career Stages for Female and Male Correctional Officers.

Variables	Female				Male
	<1 Year	1–4 Years	5–9 Years	10+ Years	<1 Year	1–4 Years	5–9 Years	10+ Years
	n = 228	n = 246	n = 176	n = 116	n = 504	n = 774	n = 592	n = 578
Demographic characteristics
Race/Ethnicity						−.06*
Age						−.10**	−.13*	−.12**
Educational level					.12**	.06*		.10**
Work environment variables
Quality of supervision			−.21**		−.19**
Coworker support		−.22**				−.07*
Role ambiguity					.13**			.15**
Organizational commitment	−.38**	−.42**	−.54**	−.54**	−.46**	−.52**	−.37**	−.46**
Organizational support
Safety concerns			−.20*	−.23**			−.09*
Job satisfaction
Job stress					.12*
Work and home life balance
F statistic	5.41	8.81	6.31	4.01	25.29	41.54	18.58	26.08
R ²	.19**	.28**	.27**	.24**	.37**	.37**	.26**	.34**

Note. Only the statistically significant standardized regression coefficients are reported.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

The explained variance in COs’ reported intent to leave across the eight regression equations varied between 19% and 37%. Compared with the models examining female officers’ intent to leave, more variance was explained by the models examining male officers’ intent to leave. There was also greater variation in the number and type of significant variables in the models predicting men’s turnover intent compared with that of the women’s models. For those female officers in the entry stage (less than 1 year), only organizational commitment significantly impacted intent to leave. Commitment remained a strong negative predictor of turnover intent among female officers in the early career stage (1–4 years). In addition, women who expressed increased levels of coworker support at this stage reported an increased desire to stay. At the mid-career building stage (5–9 years), increased levels of commitment, quality of supervision, and feelings of safety exerted a negative effect on turnover intent. Among female officers in the late career stage (10 or more years with the organization), only commitment and feelings of safety had significant effects. Across all four models, organizational commitment was the only significant predictor of turnover intent, having the greatest impact on women’s intent to leave.

The models for male officers presented greater variation in the predictors of intent to leave. Among male officers in the earliest stages of their career (less than 1 year), those who were better educated, who reported lower levels of quality of supervision and commitment, and higher levels of stress and role ambiguity indicated an increased desire to leave. At the early career stage (1–4 years), non-White, younger, and more educated officers expressed an increased intent to leave, as well as coworker support and commitment having negative effects. Only three variables significantly impacted male officers’ intent to leave during the mid-career building stage (5–9 years). Younger officers and those reporting lower levels of commitment and concerns about their safety reported increased turnover intent. The final model represented male officers in the late career stage. In this model, younger, more educated male officers, those reporting lower levels of commitment and increased role ambiguity reported an increased intent to leave. Similar to that found in the four models examining female officers’ intent to leave, organizational commitment was the only significant independent variable across all career stages.

Discussion

In an effort to extend existing research on female CO work experiences, this study applied a gendered career stage approach to explore the effects of workplace variables on turnover intent. Supporting the first hypothesis (i.e., that mean level of intent to leave will vary significantly for female and male COs), findings suggest that at each stage, male officers expressed a greater intent to leave than female officers. This may indicate that male officers have more job opportunities open to them or it may be that the job is not what they expected. Despite being a paramilitary structure, corrections is about human relations and communication. Male officers’ reality may not match initial expectations, whereas women’s expectations may be more realistic given that they are entering a predominantly male occupation. Furthermore, many women may have difficulty finding a job that equals the pay and benefits. In addition, officers who have worked for the organization for 10 or more years reported the lowest level of intent to leave, regardless of gender. This is not surprising. As officers become more invested in terms of time, effort, skill development, and money, their desire to remain with the organization strengthens (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). Although this can be construed as a positive outcome, it could also be an indication of continuance commitment, which is often considered a negative behavior bond where the employee stays only because of the benefits and investments. For example, Lambert et al. (2013) found that continuance commitment was negatively related with life satisfaction among correctional staff.

In terms of the second hypothesis, gender differences also were found when exploring the impact of workplace variables on turnover intent across career stages. Within this variation, however, it is crucial to note that organizational commitment proved to be a consistent and strong predictor of turnover intent regardless of gender or career stage. This indicates that commitment is a salient predictor of turnover intent (Lambert & Hogan, 2009). Given these differences by gender, this set of workplace variables appear to provide greater insight into the turnover intentions of male officers compared with that of female officers. For female COs, only organizational commitment, quality of supervision, coworker support and safety concerns impacted turnover intent within any of the four models. Unlike male officers, none of the demographic characteristics had a significant impact. Among female officers in the earliest career stage, only commitment influenced turnover intent. Career stage theory suggests that new hires are in a period of exploration in terms of the fit between themselves and the organization. The items used for this measure suggest the need to tease apart what is driving this early sense of loyalty and pride among female officers to understand this period of exploration.

Unlike female officers in the initial career stage who are influenced by commitment, male officers’ intent to leave is impacted by a host of other factors. For men, education was a significant predictor of intent to leave, which supports prior research that suggests education acts as an indicator of increased opportunities for other employment unavailable to less educated colleagues (Griffin et al., 2013; Lambert, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000). In addition to education, other work factors (quality of supervision, role ambiguity, organizational commitment, and job stress) impact a male officer’s intent to leave, accounting for more than a third of the variance in this model.

During the transitional and early career stage, coworker support becomes significant for female officers along with commitment. This is true for male officers as well. This finding supports prior research suggesting that during this stage, critical social relationships are formed (Lynn et al., 1996). Such relationships may act as a resource as officers are acquiring specific skill sets and beginning to find their place within the organization. Interestingly, all three demographic variables impact male officers’ intent to leave, with younger, non-White, more educated officers expressing an increased intent to leave. Greater similarities exist between women and men during the midcareer building stage (between 5 and 9 years). For male and female officers, commitment and safety concerns impacted turnover intent. Among male officers, educational level continued to be significant. For women, concerns regarding the quality of supervision impacted turnover intent. At this mid-career stage, officers are seeking to establish themselves, possibly assessing promotional opportunities. As such, this is a time when the importance of networking opportunities is highlighted. A rich body of qualitative research notes the obstacles faced by women when attempting to facilitate job opportunities within the corrections workplace (Britton, 1997). With men representing the vast majority of supervisory and administrative positions, Britton (1997) suggested that access to these critical informal ties is biased and informal social networks are limited for women. As a result, female officers may very well recognize the impact that a weak supervisory relationship may have on one’s promotion opportunities and opt to leave the organization.

During the later career stage, organizational commitment remained the strongest predictor of intent to leave for both genders. Among women, safety concerns remained salient. For men, role ambiguity was once again significant. It is interesting to note that age and education once again emerge as significant predictors for male officers. At this stage, employees are relatively settled into their career and begin to consider retirement. It should not be surprising then that those male officers who are older express less intent to leave supporting prior research suggestion that older officers and those employed for a longer time are more likely to stay until retirement (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005).

A possible underlying theoretical explanation for the gender differences in significant variables may be in part due to different moral orientations (Kohlberg, 1984). Expanding on this original work of justice reasoning, Gilligan (1982) asserted that women develop psychologically differently from men and operate more frequently from a web of connection based on caring for others. For the significant variables for women, all involve some type of connection to others, whether it is with coworkers, supervisors, or the organization. Even safety concerns that arise later in the career stages are connected to relationships with others and their ability to offer protection. Gilligan and Attanucci (1988) pointed out that men seem to respond more frequently to their environment from what is termed as a ladder of hierarchy. Men are more likely to assess situations from an equality/inequality, fair/unfair, or a rights-based perspective rather than an orientation based primarily on relationships. From this viewpoint, intention to leave is influenced by other factors and how they weigh in to the officers’ sense of justice. Thus, an expanded list of characteristics, including personal demographics, may become particularly relevant to men throughout all career stages suggesting that they view their current status as unfair or not equal as to what it perceived to be.

As with all research, this study has several limitations. As noted before, given the limited variance explained within all eight models, a great deal remains to be learned regarding officers’ turnover intent, particularly for female officers. In addition, the cross-sectional nature of the data used in these analyses does not allow us to follow specific officers as they progress through various career stages. Questions regarding the generalizability of the findings may be raised given that the data are from one state prison system. The prison system chosen may have procedures and policies that create an environment that is not reflective of other state systems, although results from this study appear to be consistent with prior research literature. In addition, the data were collected more than a decade ago, and current replication studies are needed. There could be social and generational forces which change over time that could influence the results.

This study provides some guidance to administrators who are grappling with the costs of turnover. Identifying variables that evoke intention to leave and then working to eliminate these barriers, may influence officers to stay. In this study, as in others, affective commitment is a primary target to address. Developing affective commitment through fair and just procedures, positive relationships with coworkers and supervisors, and a clear reward system, may alleviate turnover. Unfortunately, most correctional agencies do not allocate funds to work on relationship building, rather, most training is focused on security and custody procedures. By focusing more on human relations to build commitment, positive results may be seen.

Conclusion

In this study, we examined a gendered career stage theory hypothesizing that predictors of COs’ intent to leave would vary by gender and across career stages. Although some similarities did exist, in particular the strong impact of commitment on turnover intent, regardless of gender or career stage, our findings support the notion that men and women experience the corrections workplace differently. Clearly, by failing to provide separate assessment of female and male officers’ experiences, research allows the significance of gender to be masked. What is also evident is the extent to which these models offer greater insight into the work environment of male officers, while providing less understanding of the workplace dynamics of female officers. Overall, our study provides not only support for the point of gender differences across career stages, but also points to the need to further explore the gendered nature of turnover intent across career stages. Given the desire to hire and keep female officers, it is critical to tease apart what is driving this early commitment among women. In addition, what other work environment variables, perhaps more specific to women’s experiences, might impact female officers’ desire to stay with the organization need to be explored. Staff are the most critical and expensive resource for correctional institutions. Not only do the current findings have implications for correctional administrators and scholars, the current results also have implications for future research. Future research should expand both the number of work workplace variables studied and study different outcomes, such as absenteeism, job performance, job burnout, and organizational citizenships (i.e., going up and beyond what is expected at work). Without information, it will be difficult for correctional administrators to deal with turnover among female and male staff. In closing, we hope that this study will spark further interest in gendered career stage research among correctional personnel.

Footnotes

Appendix

The below items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagree (coded 1) to strongly agree (coded 5).

Turnover Intent: (a) I am currently looking for another job outside ADC [Arizona Department of Corrections]. Quality of Supervision:(a) I often receive feedback on my performance from my supervisor; (b) On my job, I know what my supervisor expects of me; (c) My supervisor asks my opinion when a work-related problem arises; (d) I am free to disagree with my supervisor; (e) I can tell my supervisor when things are wrong; (f) My supervisor respects my work; and (g) My supervisor is knowledgeable and competent. Coworker Support: (a) I usually get along very well with my coworkers; (b) The people I work with are helpful to me in getting my job done; (c) I know I can get help from my coworkers when I need it; (d) Coworkers criticize my work to others*; (e) The people I work with are competent; and (f) My coworkers respect my work and abilities. Role Ambiguity: (a) Oftentimes, one rule will tell us to do one thing, but another rule tells us to do something else; (b) When a problem comes up here, nobody can agree on how it should be handled; (c) The rules and regulations are clear enough here that I know specifically what I can and cannot do in my job*; (d) One of the problems here is that it’s never very clear as to who is responsible for doing different things; (e) The rules I am supposed to follow here never seem to be very clear; and (f) There are so many rules and regulations telling me how to do my job that I am not sure I can follow all of them. Organizational Commitment: (a) There is much to be gained from staying with Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC); (b) If I remain in corrections, I would prefer to remain with ADC; (c) I am proud to be employed by ADC; (d) Deciding to work for ADC was a very positive move on my part; (e) Most of the time, ADC is managed very well; and (f) I feel a sense of loyalty to ADC. Organizational Support: (a) The department takes pride in my accomplishments at work; (b) Even if I did the best job possible, the department probably wouldn’t notice*; (c) ADC is working hard to get better pay and benefits for me; and (d) The department values my input. Safety Concerns: (a) The physical facilities here make it easy for an officer to be safe while at work; (b) I feel safe when working among the inmates; (c) I received the kind of training I need to keep myself safe while working here; (d) I have the equipment need to keep staff from getting hurt by inmates; and (e) I have the back-up support I need if things get rough. Job Satisfaction: (a) I like the duties I perform in my job; (b) I am satisfied with my present job assignment; (c) At the end of the day, I usually feel that I have done something especially well; (d) I enjoy most of the work I do here; and (e) If I had to do it all over again, knowing what I know now, I would take the same job again. Job Stress: (a) When I’m at work, I often feel tense or uptight; (b) I usually feel that I am under a lot of pressure when I am at work; (c) There are a lot of things about my job that can make me pretty upset; (d) A lot of times, my job makes me very frustrated or angry; (e) My work environment allows me to be attentive, yet relaxed and at ease.*Work/Life Balance: (a) Often, when I am out with family or friends, I still am thinking about work*; (b) What happens at work affects my relationship with my spouse or partner*; (c) Whenever I make plans to do something special with family or friends, it seems like I have to change my plans just to get the work done here*; (d) It seems that there has been so much work to be done lately that I just don’t have much time for a personal life*; (e) I take work home or stay to finish up work, even if not specifically asked to do so*; and (f) I postpone my vacation or day off, in spite of personal inconvenience, to meet the needs of the organization.*

*Reverse Coded

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors also thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their comments and suggestions to improve the paper.

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.

Author Biographies

Marie L. Griffin, PhD, was a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University at the time of her death. Her research explored issues of organizational environment and gender in prisons, particularly how correctional officers experience and respond to the setting in which they work.

Eric G. Lambert, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno. His research interests include organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees, and the international perceptions, attitudes, and views on criminal justice issues.

Nancy L. Hogan, PhD, is a professor and graduate program coordinator for the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University. Her research has focused on work environment issues, inmate programming, and gender issues.

Natalie Todak, PhD, is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research is primarily focused on issues in American policing. Her work has been published in leading criminology and criminal justice journals, such as Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Women & Criminal Justice, and Police Quarterly.

John Hepburn, PhD, is a professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University. His research interests focus on the sociology of the prison as a complex organization and the effects of individual risk factors and criminal justice structures and processes on successful offender reentry to the community.

References

Belknap

Joanne

. 2007. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice, 3rd Edition. Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.

Blakely

Bumphus

(2004). Private and public sector prisons—A comparison of select characteristics. Federal Probation, 68(1), 49–55.

Britton

(1997). Perceptions of the work environment among correctional officers: Do race and sex matter? Criminology, 35, 85–105.

Byrd

Cochran

Silverman

Blount

(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, 69–89.

Crank

Regoli

Hewitt

Culbertson

(1995). Institutional and organizational antecedents of role stress, work alienation, and anomie among police executives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 152–171.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975). Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior. Addison-Wesley.

Gibson

(2018). In sight: Women of corrections on their paths, their jobs, and advice. Corrections Today, 80(1), 29–31, 74.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.

10.

Gilligan

Attanucci

(1988). Two moral orientations: Gender differences and similarities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 2(3), 223–237.

11.

Gomez-Mejia

(1983). Sex differences during occupational socialization. The Academy of Management Journal, 26, 492–499.

12.

Greenhaus

(1987). Career management. Dryden Press.

13.

Greenhaus

Callanan

Godshalk

(2000). Career management (3rd ed.). Dryden Press.

14.

Griffin

(2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of organizational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219–232.

15.

Griffin

(2005). Women as breadwinners: The gendered nature of side-bets and their influence on correctional officers’ commitment to the organization. Women and Criminal Justice, 17, 1–25.

16.

Griffin

(2006). Gender and stress: A comparative assessment of sources of stress among correctional officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4–25.

17.

Griffin

(2012). From resistance to integration: The influence of gender in the corrections work environment. In Renzetti

Miller

Gover

(Eds.), Routledge international handbook of crime and gender studies (pp. 279–291). Routledge.

18.

Griffin

Armstrong

Hepburn

(2005). Correctional officers’ perceptions of equitable treatment in the masculinized prison environment. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 186–206.

19.

Griffin

Hepburn

(2005). Side bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 611–625.

20.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

(2014). Career stage theory and turnover intent among correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 4–19.

21.

Hepburn

(1985). The exercise of power in coercive organizations: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 23, 145–164.

22.

Hepburn

Crepin

(1984). Relationship strategies in a coercive institution: A study of dependency among prison guards. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 139–157.

23.

Kohlberg

(1984). The psychology of moral development. Rand-McNally.

24.

Lambert

(2006). I want to leave: A test of a model of turnover intent among correctional staff. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(1), 57–83.

25.

Lambert

Altheimer

Hogan

(2010). An exploratory examination of a gendered model of the effects of role stressors. Women and Criminal Justice, 20, 193–217.

26.

Lambert

Hogan

(2009). The importance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 96–118.

27.

Lambert

Hogan

Paoline

Baker

(2005). The good life: The impact of job satisfaction and occupational stressors on correctional staff life satisfaction—An exploratory study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 1–26.

28.

Lambert

Kim

Kelley

Hogan

(2013). The association of affective and continuance commitment with correctional staff life satisfaction. The Social Science Journal, 50, 195–203.

29.

Lynn

Cao

Horn

(1996). The influence of career stage on the work attitudes of male and female accounting professionals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 135–149.

30.

Matthews

Bulger

Barnes-Farrell

(2010). Work social supports, role stressors, and work-family conflict: The moderating effect of age. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 78–90.

31.

Matz

Woo

Kim

(2014). A meta-analysis of turnover intent in criminal justice organizations: Does agency type matter? Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 233–243.

32.

McElroy

Morrow

Wardlow

(1999). A career stage analysis of police officer work commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 507–516.

33.

Minor

Wells

Angel

Matz

(2011). Predictors of early job turnover among juvenile correctional facility staff. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 58–75.

34.

Mitchell

MacKenzie

Styve

Gover

(2000). The impact of individual, organizational, and voluntary turnover among juvenile correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17, 333–357.

35.

Motowildo

Packard

Manning

(1986). Occupational stress: Its causes and consequences for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 618–629.

36.

Mowday

Porter

Steers

(1982). Employee—Organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. Academic Press.

37.

Ornstein

Cron

Slocum

(1989). Life stage versus career stage: A comparative test of the theories of Levinson and Super. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 117–133.

38.

Rebele

Michaels

Wachter

(1996). The relationship of career stage to job outcome and role stress. A study of external auditors. Advances in Accounting, 14, 241–258.

39.

Rizzo

House

Lirtzman

(1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.

40.

Savickas

(2002). Career construction: A developmental theory of vocational behavior. In Brown

(Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 149–205). Jossey Bass.

41.

Savicki

Cooley

Gjvesvold

(2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602–619.

42.

Super

(1957). The psychology of careers. Harper.

43.

Super

Thompson

Lindeman

(1988). Adult career concerns inventory: Manual for research and exploratory use in counseling. Consulting Psychologists Press.

44.

Tipton

(2002). Attitudes and perceptions of South Carolina’s juvenile correctional officers’ insight into the turnover epidemic. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25, 81–98.

45.

van der Velde

Bossink

Jansen

(2003). Gender differences in the influence of professional tenure on work attitudes. Sex Roles, 49, 153–162.

46.

Winters

(2014). Understanding and enhancing the value of female corrections professionals. http://www.corrections.com/news/article/36734-understanding-and-enhancing-the-value-of-female-corrections-professionals

47.

Wright

(1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 131–142.