Examining the Effects of Key Workplace Variables on Job Burnout of Southern Prison Staff

Abstract

Burnout is a phenomenon commonly found in the workplace. When burnout is job-related, it is considered job burnout. Historically, job burnout has been most common among those who work in human services fields and who deal with stressful situations on a regular basis. Job burnout consists of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of work ineffectiveness. While job burnout may be common, not all workers in stressful fields experience it, which indicates that there must be organizational or individual factors that limit the likelihood of job burnout for some workers. This study examined the impact of four job-related factors (job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment) on the three components of job burnout for correctional workers in a large, maximum-security prison in the Southern United States. The findings indicated that the four job-related factors were related strongly and in the predicted direction to two or three of the measures of job burnout.

Keywords

prison staff job burnout job stress job involvement job satisfaction organizational commitment

Introduction

Working in a correctional facility can be demanding. Armstrong and Griffin (2004) pointed out that “few other organizations are charged with the central task of supervising and securing an unwilling and potentially violent population” (p. 577). Burnout is a real possibility in corrections (Griffin et al., 2010). Keinan and Malach-Pines (2007) reported that correctional workers reported much higher levels of burnout than that experienced in the general population and that these levels of burnout were even higher than that reported by police officers. Burnout is detrimental to both staff and the correctional institution. Burnout can result in depression, withdrawal from the job, decreased work performance, lower support for rehabilitation of offenders, higher support of punishment of inmates, higher levels of substance abuse, greater absenteeism, and higher turnover/turnover intent (Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Jaegers et al., 2021; Neveu, 2007). There has been a small but growing number of studies that have examined how workplace variables are linked to correctional staff burnout.

While some studies have explored how different aspects of the workplace, such as how job stressors or job characteristics are linked to job burnout, one study (Griffin et al., 2010) examined how the salient workplace variables of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were associated with job burnout among staff at a private Midwestern prison. While this one study provided important information, it was a single study. Replication of past findings is critical because there is always the chance that single findings are due to random chance or may vary by different types of facilities The current study explored the effects of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among staff at a large Southern public prison. The current study aims to determine if the findings from the single previous study are replicated at the large Southern prison. Replication studies such as the current one at different types of correctional facilities will provide information to help answer the question of whether the effects of the four salient workplace variables are universal in their effects or are situational, varying across different types of prisons. In the end, this information will aid both correctional scholars and administrators by determining how these variables are linked to staff burnout so efforts can be undertaken to reduce job burnout since nothing positive occurs from burnout.

Literature Review

Burnout

Freudenberger (1974) created the term “job burnout” and indicated that job burnout occurred because of psychological exhaustion from the job. Building on the work by Freudenberger, Maslach and Jackson (1981) postulated that burnout had the unique dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feeling ineffective at work. Emotional exhaustion is the state of being emotionally drained and fatigued from the job. The emotionally exhausted worker is psychologically drained, has given all of the mental energy that they have to the job, and dreads going to work (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). In addition to emotional exhaustion, job burnout also creates interpersonal problems, both with coworkers and clients. The burned-out worker may relegate coworkers and clients to a lower status in a process known as depersonalization. This results in their treating coworkers and clients in a callous and impersonal manner, and the development of a cynical attitude regarding the value of these persons (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The final component is related to the worker's functional perception of themselves. This was referred to as feeling ineffective at work, and these refer to a lack of positive occupational impact (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). These three burnout dimensions were used in the current study.

Workplace Variables Related to Job Burnout in Past Correctional Studies

In a systematic review, Lambert et al. (2017) reported that workplace variables appear to be stronger predictors of burnout for correctional staff than do individual characteristics. Workplace characteristics in the form of job stressors, such as role ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, role stress, and perceived dangerousness of the job, have been shown to increase job burnout for correctional staff (Choi et al., 2020; Jin et al., 2018). Other occupational factors, such as harassment by coworkers (Savicki et al., 2003) and work-family conflict have also been reported to increase job burnout among correctional staff (Lambert, Altheimer, and Hogan, 2010). Conversely, employee input into decision-making, administrative and supervisory support for workers, peer support, and a sense of personal security while on the job have been reported to decrease the probability of job burnout for correctional staff (Isenhardt & Hostettler, 2020; Lambert, Hogan, and Altheimer, 2010; Neveu, 2007; Savicki et al., 2003). Administrative actions, such as offering clear and consistent job feedback, the ability to vary one's job assignments, job autonomy, clear formal controls for job behaviors, instrumental communication, supervisory trust, management trust, quality supervision, distributive and procedural justice, and expanded promotional opportunities were all observed to be inversely linked to job burnout (Griffin et al., 2012; Lambert et al., 2012; Lambert, Hogan, and Jiang, 2010). Input into decision-making, promotional opportunities, support, and instrumental communication all had negative associations with burnout, further indicating that proper administrative policies and behaviors can be effective in controlling job burnout (Isenhardt et al., 2019; Lambert, Hogan, & Jiang, 2010).

Most of the above workplace variables are theorized and have been found to help shape the job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of correctional staff (Lambert et al., 2012, 2015; Vickovic & Morrow, 2020). As such, research is needed to determine how the four salient work variables of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are associated with the three dimensions of correctional staff job burnout. Job stress had a positive association with all three dimensions of burnout (Boudoukha et al., 2013), and job satisfaction had a negative relationship with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Choi et al., 2020). As previously noted, Griffin et al. (2010) explored how job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were related to emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feeling ineffective at work among U.S. Midwestern correctional staff at a private prison. Job stress had a positive association with emotional exhaustion and depersonalization but had a nonsignificant effect on feeling ineffective at the job. Job involvement had a positive relationship with emotional exhaustion burnout and nonsignificant associations with the two other dimensions of burnout. Job satisfaction was a significant negative predictor of emotional burnout and feeling ineffective at work and not a significant predictor of depersonalization. Finally, the organizational commitment had nonsignificant relationships with all three burnout dimensions. There is a need for additional research on how job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on the burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feeling ineffective at work among correctional staff at different correctional institutions.

Job Stress, Job Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment

Job stress is typically defined as feelings of work-related psychological hardness, tension, frustration, and distress, and this is the definition used in the current study (Cullen et al., 1985). Long-term job stress can result in job burnout, raising the levels of all three burnout dimensions (Carlson & Thomas, 2006; Keinan & Malach-Pines, 2007). For the current study, job stress was hypothesized to increase the levels of the three elements of job burnout (emotional, depersonalization, and feelings of ineffectiveness).

The term job involvement refers to the psychological identification with the job and the importance the job plays in a person's life (Kanungo, 1982). DeCarufel and Schaan (1990) pointed out that “an individual with a high degree of job involvement would place the job at the center of his/her life's interests. The well-known phrase ‘I live, eat, and breathe my job’ would describe someone whose job involvement is very high” and that “persons with low job involvement would place something other than their jobs (e.g., family, hobbies) at the center of their lives” (p. 86). Cherniss (1980) noted that individuals who take jobs because they think the job is a “calling” tend to also be at a higher risk of burnout than an individual who had accepted a position because it was simply a job. Griffin et al. (2010) reported that those with the greatest job involvement are the most likely to experience job burnout due to their high dedication to their work. In the current study among Southern prison staff, job involvement was predicted to have a negative relationship with the three burnout dimensions.

Job satisfaction is an emotional response towards the job (Griffin et al., 2010). As Spector (1996) pointed out, job satisfaction is simply “the extent to which people like their jobs” (p. 214). A job that is not meeting a person's needs and wants may lead to a state of discomfort and discontent, increasing the chances of job burnout (Cherniss, 1980; Griffin et al., 2010). Correctional staff that have low job satisfaction may feel trapped and become burned out as way of coping with daily disappointment and a job they dislike. For the current study, job satisfaction was hypothesized to be negatively associated with the three dimensions of job burnout.

Organizational commitment refers to the bond between the worker and the overall organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday et al., 1982). Organizational commitment has three different forms based on how the bond is formed: continuance commitment, normative commitment, and affective commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Continuance commitment refers to the individual's intention to remain an employee with the organization because of the investments made in the organization, such as pay, benefits, seniority, nontransferable skills, retirement plan, social connections, and lost opportunities (potential employment with other organizations that were not pursued) (Griffin et al., 2010). The bond for normative commitment is based on the socialization of an obligation to commit to the organization because the organization took a risk and hired the person (Lambert et al., 2021). This socialization happens when a person is growing up and during the initial stages of being hired by the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Affective commitment represents the psychological bond with the organization and includes identification (i.e., the person is proud to be part of the organization), internalization the goals of the organization, and a desire be involved with the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). The affective commitment bond is believed to form and become more resilient through the positive treatment of the employee by the organization (Griffin et al., 2010). As most past correctional staff commitment studies measured the affective form of commitment when testing organizational commitment, the current study measured the affective form of organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2021). Affective organizational commitment may insulate those who bond with the organization and reduce the effects of burnout (Griffin et al., 2010). For the current study, affective organizational commitment was postulated to be negatively associated on the three dimensions of job burnout.

Method

The study had human subjects’ approval from an Institutional Review Board to engage with staff at a large, high-security Southern prison. At the time of the study, the prison housed almost 4,600 male offenders convicted of serious felony crimes. Of the approximately 720 staff employed at this prison, 527 staff were available for this study (some staff were on leave at the time—e.g., administrative, personal, sick, and vacation). A member of the research team provided a survey packet during muster (i.e., roll call) across seven days. The packet contained a consent form, a cover letter, the questionnaire, a bifurcated raffle ticket, and a return envelope. The cover letter indicated the purpose of the study, participation was strictly voluntary, responses would be anonymous, any item on the questionnaire could be skipped, and instructions for returning the questionnaire were provided. The questionnaire that had been pilot tested and revised was distributed to participating staff at a location and time they selected. A raffle with ten $50 VISA gift cards was held. A person could participate in the raffle by returning half of the bifurcated raffle ticket, regardless of whether the questionnaire was completed. Staff who filled out the questionnaire and/or chose to participate in the raffle were instructed to return their materials in one of four locked boxes on prison grounds. The boxes were secure, and the lock could only be opened by a member of the research team. Raffle tickets and informed consent forms were immediately removed from the returned envelopes so there was no way to identify the person submitting the questionnaire. A drawing for the gift cards was conducted after the data collection period ended; all ten gift cards were awarded.

Of the 547 questionnaires, 322 completed ones were returned (i.e., 61% response rate). About 74% of the participants were women, which is consistent as 70% of the prison's staff, including those holding the position of correctional officer, were women. The median age of those who responded was 42, and ranged from 20 to 77. In terms of position, 68% indicated that they held the custody position of correctional officer; the other 32% held another position (e.g., industry, food service, etc.). The median time in their current job role was 3 years, ranging from 0 to 30 years. In terms of highest educational level, 27% of those surveyed reported that they had earned a high school diploma (or GED), 28% noted that they earned college credits but no degree, 19% indicated that they had earned an associate degree, 17% responded that they had earned a bachelor's degree, and 9% answered that they had earned a graduate degree. The participants appeared to be representative of the overall prison workforce based on information provided by the prison human resource office. Regarding the entire prison workforce, 70% were women; the average age was about 40. Seventy percent held the position of correctional officer, and median tenure in the current position was under 4 years. The human resources office could not provide information about the overall educational level for the prison staff.

Variables

Dependent variables. The three job burnout dimensions of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feeling ineffective at work were the dependent variables in this current study, and the items used to measure these concepts were based on the work of Griffin et al. (2010). These items and the response options are presented in Appendix A. The four emotional exhaustion items, two depersonalization items, and three feeling ineffective at work items had Cronbach's alpha values of 0.89, 0.73, and 0.73, respectively. The job burnout items were entered into a factor analysis using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation (Gorsuch, 1983), and three factors resulted based on the Eigenvalues and the skree plot. The items loaded on the predicted factors, and all the factor loading scores were 0.60 or higher. Additive indexes for each of the burnout dimensions were created by summing the responses for the specific dimension.

Independent variables. Job stress, job involvement, and affective organizational commitment were the independent variables of interest in the current study. Appendix A provides the items used to measure these concepts and the response options. Job stress was measured using four items from Cullen et al. (1985) and had a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.84. Job involvement was measured using three items from Kanungo (1982) and had a Cronbach's alpha value 0.84. Job satisfaction was measured by four items from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) and had a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.95. Affective organizational commitment was measured using five items from Mowday et al. (1982) and had a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.90. The items for these four concepts were entered into a factor analysis using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation (Gorsuch, 1983). The items loaded on the predicted factor with a factor loading score higher than 0.60, indicating unidimensionality. The responses to the specific concept items were summed together to form additive indexes for job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment. Finally, the personal characteristics of gender, age, position, tenure and educational level were included more as control than explanatory variables. (Please see Table 1 for how these variables were coded).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables.

Variable	Description	Min	Max	Md	Mn	SD
Gender	74% female (coded 0)	0	1	0	0.25	0.43
Gender	36% men (coded 1)	0	1	0	0.25	0.43
Age	Measured in continuous years	20	77	42	40.07	12.74
Position	32% noncustody staff (coded 0)	0	1	1	0.68	0.47
Position	68% custody staff (coded 1)	0	1	1	0.68	0.47
Tenure	Tenure in position measured in continuous years	0	30	3	5.11	5.64
Educ	55% no college degree (coded 0)	0	1	0	0.45	0.50
Educ	45% college degree (coded 1)	0	1	0	0.45	0.50
Job stress	4 item additive index, α = 0.82	4	24	14	13.87	5.14
Job Inv	3 item additive index, α = 0.83	3	18	7	7.45	3.37
Job Sat	4 item additive index, α = 0.95	4	24	17	16.63	5.79
Affect OC	5 item additive index, α = 0.90	5	30	22	20.79	6.21
Emotion	4 item additive index, α = 0.89	4	24	14	14.09	5.62
Deperson	2 item additive index, α = 0.73	2	12	4	4.92	2.28
Ineffective	3 item additive index, α = 0.73	3	18	8	8.36	3.31

Note: Min = minimum value; Max = maximum value; Md = median value; Mn = arithmetic mean value; SD = standard deviation; Educ = educational level; Job Inv = job involvement; Job Sat = job satisfaction; Affect OC = affective organizational commitment; Emotion = emotional exhaustion dimension of job burnout; Deperson = depersonalization dimension of job burnout; Ineffective = feeling ineffective at work dimension of job burnout; and α = Cronbach's alpha value, a measure of internal reliability. The number of participants was 322.

Results

The descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Table 1. There was significant variation in both the dependent and independent variables (i.e., none were constants). The median and mean were similar to one another for each variable, which suggests that the variables were normally distributed. In addition, statistics also suggested a normal distribution. All the index variables had a Cronbach's alpha value above 0.70, which is viewed as good. The factor analysis results support the additive indexes for the latent concepts of emotional exhaustion burnout, depersonalization burnout, feeling ineffective at work burnout, job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment.

A correlation matrix is presented in Table 2. For emotional exhaustion, position, job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective commitment indicated several statistically significant correlations. Correctional officer status and job stress were associated with higher levels of this burnout dimension, and job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective commitment were associated with lower levels. For depersonalization, gender, age, position, educational level, job stress, job satisfaction, and affective commitment had significant correlations. Male staff, correctional officers, staff without a college degree, and job stress were associated with higher levels of depersonalization. Increases in age, job satisfaction, and affective commitment were associated with a reduction of this burnout dimension. Job involvement had a nonsignificant correlation with the depersonalization dimension of job burnout. For feeling ineffective at work, age, position, educational level, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective commitment each had significant correlations. Correctional officers in general reported higher levels of this dimension of burnout. College-educated staff on average reported feeling more effective at work. Increases in age, involvement, satisfaction, and commitment were related to decreases in feeling ineffective at work. Job stress, however, had a nonsignificant correlation with feeling ineffective at work.

Table 2.

Study Variable Correlations.

Variable	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.
1. Gender	1.00
2. Age	0.04	1.00
3. Position	0.01	−0.39**	1.00
4. Tenure	0.04	0.50**	−0.22**	1.00
5. Educ	−0.02	0.26**	−0.42**	0.08	1.00
6. Job Stress	0.10	0.03	0.12*	0.01	−0.06	1.00
7. Job Inv	0.02	0.06	−0.09	0.04	−0.04	−0.18**	1.00
8. Job Sat	−0.13*	0.19**	−0.31**	0.13*	0.07	−0.57**	0.44	1.00
9. Affect OC	−0.13*	0.12*	−0.20**	0.09	−0.06	−0.44**	0.51**	0.76**	1.00
10. Emotion	0.10	−0.09	0.26**	−0.05	−0.04	0.59**	−0.24**	−0.60**	−0.55**	1.00
11. Deperson	0.12*	−0.26**	0.17**	−0.08	−0.18**	0.18**	0.05	−0.22**	−0.17**	0.23**	1.00
12. Ineffective	−0.05	−0.25**	0.28**	−0.11	−0.21**	−0.01	−0.13**	−0.20**	−0.14*	−0.06	0.08	1.00

Note: Educ = educational level; Job Inv = job involvement; Job Sat = job satisfaction; Affect OC = affective organizational commitment; Emotion = emotional exhaustion job burnout; Deperson = depersonalization job burnout; Ineffective = feeling ineffective at work job burnout. Please see Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables and how they were measured.

* p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01.

Three ordinary least squares regression equations were estimated with each of the dimensions of job burnout as the dependent variable. The independent variables for the three multivariate regression equations were personal characteristics, job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment. Multicollinearity did not appear to be a problem in any of the models. Multicollinearity is seen as a problem when variance inflation factor (VIF) scores exceed 5 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Based on the VIF scores presented in Table 3, there appeared to be no issue with multicollinearity. Further, the issues of outliers, influential cases, normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals, and independence of errors in the regression equations were tested for in each of the regression equations (Berry, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

Table 3.

OLS Regression Results for the Three Dimensions of Job Burnout.

	Emotional exhaustion				Depersonalization				Ineffective
Independent variables	B	SE	β	VIF	B	SE	β	VIF	B	SE	β	VIF
Gender	0.22	0.62	0.02	1.06	0.56	0.34	0.10	1.05	−0.65	0.48	−0.08	1.06
Age	−0.03	0.03	−0.07	1.62	−0.05	0.01	−0.29**	1.63	−0.04	0.02	−0.15	1.66
Position	0.71	0.65	0.06	1.47	0.12	0.36	0.02	1.49	−0.83	0.52	0.12	1.55
Tenure	0.01	0.05	0.01	1.34	0.03	0.03	0.08	1.34	0.03	0.04	0.06	1.38
Educational level	0.37	0.57	0.03	1.25	−0.25	0.32	−0.05	1.27	−0.77	0.45	−0.12	1.27
Job stress	0.41	0.06	0.40**	1.54	0.06	0.03	0.13	1.50	0.10	0.05	0.17*	1.53
Job involvement	0.02	0.09	0.02	1.44	0.10	0.05	0.15*	1.40	−0.04	0.07	−0.04	1.44
Job satisfaction	−0.20	0.10	−0.21*	4.48	−0.02	0.05	−0.05	4.57	−0.18	0.07	−0.32**	4.69
Affective OC	−0.16	0.08	−0.18*	4.21	−0.03	0.05	−0.08	4.02	0.06	0.06	0.11	4.01
R-squared	0.49				0.15				0.16
Adjusted R-squared	0.47				0.11				0.13
F value	25.55**				4.31**				4.80**

Note: OLS = ordinary least squares; Emotional Exhaustion = emotional exhaustion dimension of job burnout; Depersonalization = depersonalization dimension of job burnout; Ineffective = feeling ineffective at work; B = unstandardized regression slope; SE = standard error of the regression slope, β = standardized regression slope, and VIF for variance inflation factor score, a measure of multicollinearity. Please see Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables and how they were measured.

* p ≤ 0.05 ** p ≤ 0.01.

The R-Squared for the emotional exhaustion equation was 0.49, which means the independent variables as a group explained almost half of the observed variance in the emotional exhaustion index. None of the personal characteristics had significant effects. Likewise, job involvement had nonsignificant effects. Job stress had a significant positive effect, and job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment had significant negative effects. In other words, job stress was associated with higher reported emotional exhaustion while job satisfaction and affective commitment were associated with lower levels. Based on the absolute standardized regression coefficient value (value in the β column in Table 3), the size of the effects of significant variables can be ranked from largest to smallest. Stress had the largest sized effect, almost twice that of satisfaction, which had the second largest effect. Followed closely was commitment which had the third largest effect.

The independent variables as a group accounted for about 15% of the observed variance in the depersonalization index (i.e., R-Squared was 0.15). Gender, position, tenure, educational level, job stress, job satisfaction, and affective commitment had nonsignificant associations with this dependent variable. Age and job involvement had significant relationships. Increases in age were associated with lower levels of depersonalization. Interestingly, greater involvement in the job was related to higher levels of depersonalization. Of the two significant variables, age had the largest sized effect.

About 16% of the observed variance in the feeling ineffective at work index was explained in the third regression equation. None of the personal characteristics had significant effects. Both job involvement and organizational commitment had nonsignificant effects as well. Job stress had a positive effect and job satisfaction had a negative effect. In other words, stress was related to feeling less effective at the job, and higher job satisfaction was linked to lower feelings of being ineffective at work. Of the two significant variables, job satisfaction had the largest sized effect, almost twice that of job stress, which had the second largest effect.

Discussion and Conclusion

Working in prison is a demanding job that often requires managing dangerous convicted offenders who are being held against their will. There are many pressures faced by correctional workers, and this occupation carries a substantial risk of job burnout (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Griffin et al., 2010). The current study explored the effects of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment on the three areas of employee burnout at an unusual Southern prison. This facility is unique because it is a very large high-security facility housing convicted male offenders where the majority of the staff, including the correctional officers, are women. Past research on correctional staff job burnout has been conducted at facilities where the majority of staff are men. The current study shows the importance of conducting replication studies, especially at research sites with important differences to determine the generalizability of the findings. Some of the findings reported by Griffin et al. (2010) were found in the current study, while other findings are unique to the current study. In both studies, job stress had a large positive effect on emotional exhaustion. It appears that constant job stress eventually wears correctional staff down, raising the levels of emotional exhaustion. The current results provide support that job stress may be universal in its contribution to prison staff emotional exhaustion, and efforts should be undertaken to reduce job stress in order to lower the emotional exhaustion of staff and their potential for burnout.

Both Griffin et al. (2010) and this current investigation found that job satisfaction is inversely related to emotional exhaustion regardless of whether the majority of staff are men or women. Job satisfaction likely provides a staff member with a positive psychological state which helps buffer or briefly interrupt the trying aspects of correctional work. This positive psychological state may interrupt the stress process which could change the likelihood of burnout, because burnout is partly the result of long-term unrelenting stress. As noted earlier, job satisfaction results because the job meets the employee's desires, needs, and wants. Job dissatisfaction likely results in a constant negative psychological state, which increases and stabilizes the stress levels of the worker, resulting in job-related burnout. Work represents a large proportion of an adult's day, and working in a position that is unpleasant, disliked, or even hated for eight to ten hours a day creates constant and unrelenting stress which eventually results in burnout. The past and current findings suggest that the negative effects of poor job satisfaction may be universal, and if this is the case, efforts to raise this variable should be undertaken with the goal of reducing prison staff burnout.

There were differences between the current study and the past research for job involvement. Griffin et al. (2010) reported that job involvement contributed to emotional exhaustion among staff at a Midwestern private prison where the majority of staff were men (59%). In this study, correlational analyses found job involvement to be related to two of the three burnout variables, but these relationships largely disappeared in the regression findings where job involvement was only found to have a minimal positive impact on depersonalization. This suggests that the effects of this variable may be contextual, differing between prisons. The current study found that the importance of the job may not play a role in shaping emotional burnout. It could be that many of the women at the Southern prison took the job for its financial benefits and not because it was a career calling. From discussions with some of the staff members, many of the women took the job for its paycheck and benefits, particularly health and dental care for their children. The vast majority of the staff at the Southern prison were women and most had children. The prison was one of the few good-paying jobs with decent benefits in the large rural area surrounding the prison. If employment is considered more of a job than a career, it probably does not play a direct role in emotional exhaustion. While Griffin et al. (2010) reported that commitment had no direct effects, the current study found commitment reduced the emotional dimension of burnout. This suggests that the effects of this variable may be contextual. For the Southern staff, being committed to the organization likely provided them with buffering effects against the demands of working in a high-security prison. It is important to note that working in prison is not an occupation expected for women, particularly in a Southern state. Affective commitment could represent the pride that the women staff members receive from occupying a trying and difficult job, while protecting society. Organizational commitment refers to the bond between the individual and the organization, and this bond may be partially due to the losses that could occur should the person leave the organization. For correctional staff that rely on both the wage and the benefits of the job, organizational commitment should be high, and this stability may serve to mitigate the stress of the job, and thereby minimally reduce emotional exhaustion. This perspective is supported by the highly significant negative correlation between affective organizational commitment and emotional exhaustion. This voluntary bond to the organization may have resulted from positive treatment by the benefits program within the prison which resulted in a positive psychological state and decreased emotional burnout.

Both Griffin et al. (2010) and this study observed that job satisfaction and affective commitment had nonsignificant effects on depersonalization. This suggests that these variables do not have direct effects on prison staff treating inmates and coworkers in an impersonal and non-caring manner. On the other hand, Griffin et al. (2010) reported that job stress increased depersonalization and the current study found this variable did not have significant effects. Again, this may be due to the different nature of this institution, and the large proportion of female correctional staff working at the line-officer level. In such a unique context, female officers may have to rely on each other to a greater degree than male officers would, and thus, in spite of the stressful nature of the position, never depersonalize their fellow workers or the inmates in their facility. In such a situation, interpersonal relationships could be key to the worker's survival, and to diminish those interpersonal relationships would be illogical and possibly detrimental to health and safety. Unlike the past research, the current study found that job involvement had a significant positive effect on depersonalization. It appears that the more importance a staff member places on the job, the more they treat others in a detached and possibly more cynical manner. Again, this finding could be explained by the dynamics of a facility populated by male prisoners yet staffed largely by female officers. Female correctional officers, in an attempt to remain professional and employed, could easily appear detached to avoid the appearance of a romantic or affectionate relationship with the inmates. This is a situation that would never happen with a male officer, who could be pleasant to an inmate without sending any interpersonal message. Female officers, in order to avoid that appearance, could choose to behave in a more professionally detached manner than a male officer in the same situation.

It appears from Griffin et al. (2010) and the current findings, that job satisfaction has significant negative impacts on feeling ineffective at work. It could be that feeling good about the job allows a person to feel that they have been effective at work. Most workers, regardless of the type of work, tend to gravitate toward the jobs they do well and avoid the jobs where they are least effective. It is possible that simply being more accomplished at work results in a person liking their job more. Additionally, the lack of direct significant effects of both job involvement and affective organizational commitment in both studies suggest these variables do not play a direct role in shaping this dimension of burnout. Based on the limited research findings, the effects of job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment appear to be consistent (i.e., universal) on feeling ineffective at work. Unlike Griffin et al. (2010), the current findings indicate job stress reduces this burnout dimension. Being stressed could result in a staff member withdrawing from the job and decreasing their personal efforts, which lowers the sense of accomplishment at work. They are stressed and they are doing the least necessary to get by at work, which increases their feelings of ineffectiveness at work and that they do not make a difference. While the relationship between these variables is clear, the direction of casualty between job satisfaction and job stress with feeling ineffective at work is less clear and needs to be explored in future studies.

Across the three regression equations, the only personal characteristic to have a significant association was age. Age had a negative association with depersonalization, which means older workers felt they were less impersonal in their interactions with coworkers and inmates. It could be as people age, they learn how to treat others, or they become less threatened by the correctional environment and do not have to be so guarded. It could also be a generational cohort effect on treating others, because there was a broad range of ages and job tenures represented in these data. The lack of the predictive power of the personal characteristics across the three regression models is good news for correctional administrators. Correctional administrators have the power to affect the levels of job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment among the staff, but they cannot change the demographic characteristics of their employees once they are hired.

Limitations

As with much research, the current study has limitations. Staff from a single prison were studied. Staff from other correctional facilities, including different types (e.g., jails, low security, juvenile, private, etc.) and regions were reported in the literature review and their findings compared favorably with the findings reported here. This information is critical for correctional scholars and administrators so they can determine what effects are universal and which are contextual and situational. A single study is not conclusive. Thus, future investigations should measure job involvement, depersonalization, and feeling ineffective with more items and in different types of prisons. Due to the survey's space limitations, these items were measured with a limited number of items. Therefore, future research should expand these items to examine how to raise the Cronbach alphas for depersonalization and feeling ineffective at work, which were above 0.70, but could have been higher. The R-Squared values for depersonalization (R²= 0.15) and feeling ineffective at work (R² = 0.16) were low, and this means that other, untested variables were helping to shape these job burnout dimensions. These other variables need to be identified and measured in future studies. It should be noted that the highest R-Squared in both the study by Griffin et al. (2010) and the current study was emotional exhaustion, suggesting that stress, involvement, satisfaction, and commitment have, as a group, a far greater impact on this dimension of prison staff burnout than the other two dimensions. Another limitation is that a variable for race/ethnicity was not included in the analyses due to this item being on the last page of the questionnaire that was dropped during printing. This error was not noticed until after the questionnaire had been distributed to the prison staff. Future research should examine whether the current findings hold across all racial/ethnic groups. While based on a past study and a theoretical foundation, the current study was cross-sectional, which means that causality cannot be empirically demonstrated. In order to show causality, a longitudinal design is needed. Future studies are needed to explore the effects of job burnout on staff over time. In addition, new research is needed on the effectiveness of reducing job burnout among prison staff. It is clear more research is needed.

In closing, prison staff are a valuable and expensive resource that need to be protected. Working in prison is a unique occupation that carries a risk of job burnout. There are no positive benefits from job burnout. The current study replicated Griffin et al. (2010) at an unusual Southern prison. The large Southern prison housing more than 4,500 male inmates were unusual because approximately 70% of the staff are women, a situation not found at the vast majority of high-security prisons holding male offenders. There were similarities and differences in the results between the current study and the past one. The similarities were: (1) that job stress added to emotional exhaustion; (2) job satisfaction decreased emotional exhaustion; (3) both job satisfaction and organizational commitment had nonsignificant effects on depersonalization; (4) job satisfaction was negatively related to feeling ineffective at work; and (5) neither job involvement nor commitment had significant direct effects on feeling ineffective at work. The differences were: (1) the effects of job involvement, where the previous study found a significant positive association with emotional burnout, a finding that was not found in the current investigation; (2) The previous research found nonsignificant effects of affective commitment on emotional exhaustion and the current study found significant negative effects; (3) the effects of job stress on depersonalization, with the past study finding a positive association and the current study a nonsignificant one; (4) the current study found that job involvement had a positive effect on depersonalization burnout and the past study finding no significant relationship; and (5) the effects of job stress on feeling ineffective, since Griffin et al. (2010) found no significant relationship and the current study found a significant positive connection. The current research shows the importance for replication studies and calls for more such investigations. Only with this information will a clearer picture develop for correctional administrators and scholars. Based on the current results, reducing job burnout among staff by addressing job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and affective organizational commitment is likely to be beneficial for all involved. At the very least, it is hoped this study will spark renewed interest and research on work-family conflict and job burnout among correctional staff. There is a need for scholars and administrators to be concerned for the quality of life of correctional staff. It is hoped at the least that this analysis will result in future research in this area. Doing nothing will not solve the problem of prison staff burning out from the job.

Footnotes

Acknowlegments

The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions which improved the paper. The authors also thank Janet Lambert for proofreading the paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Matthew C. Leone, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice, University of Nevada, Reno. His areas of specialization include corrections and community-based corrections, juvenile justice, drugs and crime, and White-collar crime.

Eric G. Lambert, PhD, is a faculty member in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, the College of Health and Human Services, Indiana University Northwest. His research interests include organizational issues and job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees.

Linda D. Keena, PhD, is an emerita faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Mississippi. She has conducted research, taught criminal justice courses, and facilitated restorative justice and entrepreneurship programs in maximum security prisons.

Stacy H. Haynes, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University. Her research focuses on issues related to corrections, sentencing, victimization, and criminal justice policy.

David May, PhD, is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University. He has published articles and books in the areas of corrections, cybercrime, school safety, human robotics interaction, and military sociology.

Appendix A

The response options for the items were a 6-point Likert scale of strongly disagree (coded 1), disagree (coded 2), somewhat disagree (coded 3), somewhat agree (coded 4), agree (coded 5), and strongly agree (coded 6).

Emotional Exhaustion Burnout: (1) I am emotionally drained at the end of the day from my job; (2) I feel that I am burned out from my job; (3) I emotionally dread going to work; (4) Work is an emotional strain for me.

Depersonalization Burnout: (1) I feel that I treat some inmates as if they were impersonal objects; (2) I feel that I have become more callous toward my coworkers.

Feeling Ineffective at Work: (1) I feel effective in solving problems at work (reverse coded); (2) I feel that I am a positive influence at this prison (reverse coded); (3) I feel that I am positively influencing inmates with my work here (reverse coded).

Job Stress: (1) A lot of time my job makes me very frustrated or angry; (2) I am usually under a lot of pressure when I am at work; (3) When I’m at work I often feel tense or uptight; and (4) I am usually calm and at ease when I’m working (reverse coded).

Job Involvement: (1) The major satisfaction in my life comes from my job; (2) The most important things that happen to me in my life usually occur on the job; and (3) I live, eat, and breathe my job.

Job Satisfaction: (1) I find real enjoyment in my job; (2) I like my job better than the average worker does; (3) Most days I am enthusiastic about my job; and (4) I feel satisfied with my job.

Organizational commitment: (1) I am proud to tell people that I work for the (name of the prison system); (2) I find that my values and the (name of the prison system) values are very similar; (3) I really care about the fate of the (name of the prison system); (4) The (name of the prison system) really inspires the best in me in the way of job performance; and (5) I tell my friends that this is a great organization to work for.

References

Allen

Meyer

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Armstrong

G. S.

Griffin

M. L.

(2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(6), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.08.007

Berry

W. D.

(1993). Understanding regression assumptions. Sage.

Boudoukha

A. H.

Altintas

Rusinek

Fantini-Hauwel

Hautekeete

(2013). Inmates-to-staff assaults, PTSD and burnout: Profiles of risk and vulnerability. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(11), 2332–2350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512475314

Brayfield

Rothe

(1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307–311. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055617

Carlson

Thomas

(2006). Burnout among prison caseworkers and corrections officers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43(3), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v43n03_02

Cherniss

(1980). Staff burnout: Job stress in the human services. Sage Publications.

Choi

Kruis

N. E.

Kim

(2020). The impact of occupational characteristics and victimization on job burnout among South Korean correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(7), 905–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820923024

Cullen

F. T.

Link

Wolfe

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2(4), 505–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828500088711

10.

DeCarufel

Schaan

J.-L.

(1990). The impact of compressed work weeks on police job involvement. Canadian Police College, 14(2), 81–97.

11.

Freudenberger

(1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x

12.

Gorsuch

(1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

(2012). Doing “people work” in the prison setting: An examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(9), 1131–1147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812442358

14.

Griffin

M. L.

Hogan

N. L.

Lambert

E. G.

Tucker-Gail

K. A.

Baker

D. N.

(2010). Job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment and the burnout of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809351682

15.

Isenhardt

Hostettler

(2020). Inmate violence and correctional staff burnout: The role of sense of security, gender, and job characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(1-2), 173–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516681156

16.

Isenhardt

Hostettler

Ramseier

(2019). Effects of social relations at work and support from family and friends on the consequences of inmate violence on correctional staff burnout. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(10), 1405–1426. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819846529

17.

Jaegers

L. A.

Vaughn

M. G.

Werth

Matthieu

M. M.

Ahmad

S. O.

Barnidge

(2021). Work–family conflict, depression, and burnout among jail correctional officers: A 1-year prospective study. Safety and Health at Work, 12(2), 167–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2020.10.008

18.

Jin

Sun

I. Y.

Jiang

Wang

Wen

(2018). The impact of job characteristics on burnout among Chinese correctional workers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(2), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16648419

19.

Kanungo

(1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. Praeger.

20.

Keinan

Malach-Pines

(2007). Stress and burnout among prison personnel: Sources, outcomes, and intervention strategies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(3), 380–398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806290007

21.

Lambert

Hogan

N. L.

Altheimer

(2010). The association between work-family conflict and job burnout among correctional staff: A preliminary study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1-2), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-009-9067-1

22.

Lambert

E. G.

Altheimer

Hogan

N. L.

(2010). Exploring the relationship between social support and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(11), 1217–1236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810379552

23.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton-Bellessa

S. M.

Jiang

(2012). Examining the relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(7), 938–957. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812439192

24.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

M. L.

Kelley

(2015). The correctional staff burnout literature. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(4), 397–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2015.1065830

25.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Jiang

(2010). A preliminary examination of the relationship between organizational structure and emotional burnout among correctional staff. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(2), 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010.00606.x

26.

Lambert

E. G.

Keena

L. D.

May

Haynes

S. H.

Buckner

(2017). To be committed or not: Examining effects of personal and workplace variables on the organizational commitment of southern prison staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 30(3), 223–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2017.1293536

27.

Lambert

E. G.

Leone

Hogan

Buckner

Worley

Barua Worley

(2021). To be committed or not: A systematic review of the empirical literature on organizational commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 34(1), 88–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2020.1762082

28.

Maslach

Jackson

(1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

29.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

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

30.

Neveu

J.-P.

(2007). Jailed resources: Conservation of resources theory as applied to burnout among prison guards. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.393

31.

Savicki

Cooley

Gjesvold

(2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in correctional officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(5), 602–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803254494

32.

Spector

P. E.

(1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. John Wiley.

33.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

34.

Vickovic

S. G.

Morrow

W. J.

(2020). Examining the influence of work–family conflict on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among correctional officers. Criminal Justice Review, 45(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016819863099