Effects of Work Environment Variables on Job Satisfaction Among Community Correctional Staff in China

Abstract

Job satisfaction is an important predictor of organizational efficiency and effectiveness; it can also predict attitudes and behaviors of staff. The field of organizational studies contains an ever-expanding quantity of empirical research on satisfaction, including research specifically focused on community corrections; however, no published research in the English language on satisfaction regarding community corrections in China currently exists. Using data from 225 community correctional officers from 15 counties (or equivalents) in Hubei, China in 2013, this study examined community correctional staff’s satisfaction and its predictors. The majority of Chinese community correctional officers were satisfied with their jobs. Role clarity, formalization, and perceived promotional opportunities were significant predictors of the satisfaction. Although distributive justice and procedural justice have often been found to be predictors of job satisfaction in the United States, particularly procedural justice, they were not predictors of job satisfaction among this group of Chinese community correctional staff.

Keywords

job satisfaction community corrections correctional staff China organizational justice

Both empirical research and organizational theories suggest that higher job satisfaction is linked to positive work attitudes and behavior (Cranny, Smith, & Stone, 1992; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2001). Furthermore, satisfied employees are generally more productive, creative, and motivated (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002b). On the other hand, a lack of job satisfaction is associated with negative work attitudes and behavior. For example, job dissatisfaction¹ increased negative job outcomes, such as stealing, misusing company property, moonlighting on the job, using work time to accomplish personal tasks (e.g., phone calls to friends), reduced job input (e.g., such as purposely missing meetings, long breaks, looking busy), intentionally failing to do quality work, and reduced work inclusion (e.g., tardiness, absenteeism, early voluntary retirement, and quitting; Lambert et al., 2002b). Empirical studies in the field of corrections have presented findings similar to those found in the general organizational research literature, such as the effects of job satisfaction on turnover or turnover intent (Camp, 1994; Dennis, 1998; Lambert & Hogan, 2009; Lambert et al., 2001; Lee, Joo, & Johnson, 2009; Matz, Woo, & Kim, 2014; Simmons, Cochran, & Blount, 1997; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992; Whiteacre, 2006; Wright, 1993), job burnout (Griffin, Hogan, Lambert, Tucker, & Baker, 2010; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986), and life satisfaction (Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 2005). The importance of job satisfaction has led to a large quantity of research in Western countries in the field of organizational studies in general and in corrections in particular; however, no job satisfaction research about corrections exists in China. This exploratory study was undertaken to fill this void.

This study has both theoretical and practical significance. In theory, it tests whether the models of job satisfaction found in the West are applicable to China and whether job satisfaction in China has similar predictors from the West. In practice, this study can provide Chinese decision makers and managers with findings about what factors are related to job satisfaction. Consequently, they will be able to manage their organizations better, reduce employees’ negative attitudes and behaviors, and motivate employee to be more productive and creative. In addition, this study can begin to help correctional scholars understand how workplace variables affect job satisfaction across different nations.

The current study had two primary purposes. The first was to reveal the extent to which Chinese community correctional officers were satisfied with their jobs. The second was to examine the predictors of job satisfaction. As this study examined job satisfaction among Chinese community correctional officers, its literature review focuses on studies in corrections including community corrections.

Chinese Community Corrections

Community-based corrections are not new to China. For example, prior to 2003, China had five types of legal sanctions that were carried out at the local community: public surveillance (管制), probation (缓刑), parole (假释), the temporary execution of a sentence outside a confinement facility (暂予监外执行), and the deprivation of political rights (剥夺政治权利). The Ministry of Public Security was officially in charge of these sanctions in communities (Guo & Zheng, 2004; Jiang et al., 2014). As the police have many other responsibilities, community-based corrections depended largely on local community village committees in the countryside and residents’ committees in cities. Bangjiao (帮教) was an important practice in community-based corrections. Literally, bangjiao means help and guidance. It refers to the programs of helping, guiding, and directing offenders, especially juvenile offenders, to reenter free society successfully. Bangjiao groups usually consisted of the offender’s family members, a member of the community committee, an officer from the local police station, a head of the work unit where the offender formerly was employed (if the youth is an ex-employee), or the head of the school where the offender (if an ex-student) was once a student (Zhang et al., 1996). On one hand, bangjiao groups supervised offenders and helped the offenders realize their criminal behaviors were wrong. On the other hand, bangjiao groups provided offenders with love, emotional support, and heart-to-heart persuasion, as well as assistance in employment, housing, schooling, and daily life skills (Zhang et al., 1996).

Although China has a long history of utilizing the community to help educate and reform offenders, community corrections were not officially adopted as a correctional strategy until 2003. Facing legal issues of traditional community-based or mass-based corrections, increasing crime, a large number of offenders in custody, costly incarceration, overcrowded prisons, and increasing offenders reentering the society, the Chinese government was pressured to take note of those offenders who served their sentences within the local community (see Guo & Zheng, 2004; Jiang et al., 2014; Li, 2014, for more details).

On July 10, 2003, the Supreme Peoples’ Court, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security, and the Ministry of Justice (CPSJ for short) jointly issued a notice on experimental programs of community corrections in Beijing, Jiangsu, Shandong, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Zhejiang. Since then, China has gradually expanded the program to the entire nation and moved toward the formalization and professionalism of community-based corrections. Formalization of community corrections is reflected in the development of written rules and regulations. Prior to 2003, China’s community-based corrections lacked written rules; however, since 2003, there have been numerous notices and regulations issued by CPSJ and local governments, including the 2012 version of Community Corrections Implementation Measures. In 2011, an amendment to the Criminal Law included the concept of community corrections in Chinese Criminal Law for the first time.

The professionalization of community correctional officers, staff, and volunteers is evidenced by their recruitment and training. For example, prior to 2003, the local justice office, which is the current major community correctional agency, was primarily responsible for the promotion of the law and legal aid. Some offices had one full-time officer, while others had only one part-time officer. Since 2003, China has made efforts to have at least one full-time officer who has some educational training in law in every local justice office. In Wuhan, the capital city of Hubei province, every office has a full-time leader (Tian, 2015). In China, each township- or street-level government, the lowest government level, has a local justice office. The population that each justice office serves varies greatly. For example, in Wuhan, the largest population served by a justice office was 314,000 and the smallest was 22,000; in 2014, the average number of permanent residents per justice office was 69,000. The largest office had six employees including the head of the office and social worker(s) and the smallest office had two employees with an average of approximately three employees per office. Although exact data were lacking, the community corrections authority in Wuhan estimated that the average length of stay on community control for offenders in that city was 1.5 years.

Another indicator of the professionalism is the hiring of certified social workers as probation and parole officers. In 2014, Wuhan had 206 social workers in community corrections with an average of 1.3 social workers per local justice office (Tian, 2015). Besides their educational backgrounds in law, social work, or other areas, community correctional officers in China are required to attend a variety of workshops in law and psychology. In traditional community-based corrections, bangjiao group members required neither professional degrees/certificate nor professional training. Bangjiao group members just used their work experience and morality to guide and supervise offenders. Their major responsibility was to keep offenders under surveillance so that they would not recidivate. Although bangjiao techniques such as work experience sharing, morality education, and heart-to-heart persuasion are still used today, community correctional officers and staff are required to follow the law and governmental policies, as well as record their interactions with offenders. They are expected to keep offenders under close surveillance and educate and treat offenders (Jiang et al., 2014).

Although Chinese community corrections have made progress on formalization and professionalization, it is still in its infancy. According to the Community Corrections Implementation Measures issued by CPSJ in 2012, community corrections is led by justice agencies, supported by peoples’ courts, people’s procuratorates, and public security agencies (or police departments) and assisted by local communities. At the operational level, the local justice office is in charge of community corrections and assisted by the village (or residents’) committee and relevant units or groups such as offenders’ former employers, schools, and families. Limited personnel at local community correctional agencies in China make the investigation of correctional officers’ job satisfaction very important for the success of community corrections. For example, a high level of job satisfaction can lead to positive attitudes and behavior. However, a low level of job satisfaction can lead to a high turnover rate among community correctional officers. As a local justice office usually only has one or two officers (this is especially true in rural areas), one officer’s turnover can result in no officer at the office for a certain period of time or an increased caseload for the remaining officer. This, in turn, may lead to a deterioration in supervision, low morale, increases in unnoticed violations, client recidivism, and increased expenditures related to the recruitment and training of replacements (Simmons et al., 1997). In addition, job dissatisfaction can lead to undesirable work behavior (Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985; Whiteacre, 2006). Correctional officers with job dissatisfaction may lose patience while attempting to rehabilitate offenders and become more punitive toward offenders.

Literature review

Job satisfaction

Locke (1976) defined job satisfaction as “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences” (p. 1300). Muchinsky (1987) defined job satisfaction as an emotional, affective response resulting from the extent to which a person derives pleasure from his or her job. Put more simply, job satisfaction is “the extent to which people like their jobs” (Spector, 1996, p. 214). These definitions demonstrate that job satisfaction is an affective (i.e., emotional) feeling toward the job (Millan, Hessels, Thurik, & Aguado, 2013). In other words, job satisfaction is a subjective, individual-level feeling reflecting whether a person’s needs are, or are not, being met by a particular job (Cranny et al., 1992; Lambert, Barton, & Hogan, 1999). In studies of Western institutional and community correctional staff, higher levels of job satisfaction were linked to positive work outcomes, such as greater support for rehabilitation, satisfaction with life, and compliance with organizational rules and goals (Fox, 1982; Kerce, Magnusson, & Rudolph, 1994; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Baker, 2005; Whiteacre, 2006). Moreover, in studies on correctional staff, low levels of job satisfaction were linked to negative work behaviors and intentions, such as burnout, absenteeism, turnover intent, and turnover (Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Dennis, 1998; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005; Matz et al., 2014; Whiteacre, 2006; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986; Wright, 1993). In light of the fact that job satisfaction is a salient outcome for both correctional agencies and staff, many studies have been undertaken to determine the antecedents of job satisfaction for correctional staff.

Different workplace factors have been observed to be associated with correctional staff job satisfaction. Role stressors, such as role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, perceived dangerousness of the job, as well as job stress, have frequently been found to be associated with lower levels of job satisfaction (Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996; Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 2005; Lambert & Paoline, 2005; Lambert, Reynolds, Paoline, & Watkins, 2004; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). Workplace supports, such as input into decision making, formalization, coworker cohesion, perceived promotional opportunities, job autonomy, integration, job variety, perceptions of equitable treatment, and quality of supervision have been reported to be linked with higher levels of job satisfaction among Western correctional staff (Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Barton, Hogan, & Clarke, 2002; Lambert, Paoline, & Hogan, 2006; Stohr, Lovrich, Monke, & Zupan, 1994; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986; Wright, Saylor, Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Finally, both distributive justice and procedural justice have been found to be positively associated with job satisfaction among U.S. correctional staff (Lambert, 2003; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007). A considerable amount of research has examined job satisfaction among correctional officers; yet, the vast majority of studies to date have focused on Western correctional staff, particularly U.S. staff. Correctional staff work in countries across the globe. The effects that work environment variables have on Chinese correctional staff job satisfaction may vary from those reported for Western correctional staff.

Focus Of Current Study

The person–environment fit theory, an overarching explanation of why workplace factors are linked to important workplace outcomes, such as job stress or job satisfaction, provides a foundation for the current study (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006; Kristof, 1996). Although this theory can be applied to a wide array of settings, most of the research on this theory has focused on the work environment. As such, this theory is important in understanding the relationship between a worker and the employing organization in explaining employee perceptions, attitudes, views, intentions, and behaviors (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Edwards, 1991). The person–environment fit theory is based on an interactional perspective in that the interaction between a person and his or her environment helps shape various outcomes, meaning that neither the individual nor the situation accounts for the outcome alone; rather, they work in conjunction with one another (Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b). If there is a fit between the employee and the work environment, usually there are positive outcomes for both the worker and the organization, such as increased job satisfaction. Similarly, if there is a poor fit between the employee and the work environment, negative outcomes generally result, such as reduced job satisfaction (Edwards et al., 2006; Kristof, 1996). Within this theory are two major frameworks, the demand–abilities fit and the needs–supply fit. The demand–abilities fit focuses on the demands of the job and the organization. If an employee perceives a particular aspect of the work environment as too demanding, threatening, stressful, or not providing what he or she desires, it places strain on the person, likely reducing job satisfaction (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b). For example, job stress or a lack of role clarity may result in strain for a person, ultimately reducing the level of job satisfaction. The needs–supply fit focuses on the needs being met by the organization and positive experiences from the structure and function of the organization (Cable & Judge, 1994; Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b). For example, the worker may value being part of the decision-making process, and when given this opportunity, job satisfaction may increase.

The effects of work environment variables on correctional staff under the person–environment theory could be contextual and could vary across different nations and cultures (Shao, Rupp, Skarlicki, & Jones, 2013). Ngo, Foley, Ji, and Loi (2014), in discussing the findings of past Western studies of the antecedents of job satisfaction, noted that “whether or not such findings can be generalized to non-Western societies is dubious” (p. 458). They contended that research is needed in different nations to determine how workplace variables are linked with job satisfaction. To explore if any association various work environment variables would have with Chinese correctional staff, the associations between input into decision making, perceived promotional opportunities, role clarity, job stress, coworker cohesion, formalization, distributive justice, and procedural justice with job satisfaction among Chinese correctional staff were tested in the current study.

Input into decision making refers to the level that staff members feel they are allowed involvement in salient organizational decisions (Slate & Vogel, 1997). It refers to organizational power sharing and giving staff a voice in the organizational process (Lambert, Minor, Wells, & Hogan, 2015). Allowing staff members input sends a message that they are appreciated, which may allow them to see their jobs in a more positive light. In addition, input into decision making can result in changes which improve the working conditions, resulting in a more pleasant job, which in turn can allow for staff to gain more satisfaction from their jobs (Lambert et al., 2006). Among U.S. correctional staff, having input into decision making has been associated with greater job satisfaction (Hepburn, 1987; Lambert et al., 2006; Stohr et al., 1994; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986).

Perceived promotional opportunities refer to the degree to which staff members perceive their chances to grow and be promoted within the organization (Lambert, Hogan, & Jiang, 2008). Promotional opportunities deal with the fact that many people seek more than just a job but also a career that provides them opportunities to advance (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). Staff differ in their perceptions of promotional opportunities and may never be promoted to the position they desire. Perceived promotional opportunities do not deal with actually being promoted; rather, they deal with whether employees perceive a chance to be promoted within the organization (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). In general, perceived promotional opportunities can result in overall positive feelings about a job, which can increase job satisfaction (Price & Mueller, 1986). Furthermore, perceived promotional opportunities can result in a sense of long-term investment with the organization and the job, which can increase a sense of greater sense of purpose, increasing satisfaction from the job (Lambert et al., 2008). The variable perceived promotional opportunities has been found to be positively related to U.S. correctional staff job satisfaction (Lambert & Paoline, 2008).

Role clarity exists when the expectations of the job and directions are clear (Halepota & Shah, 2011). It is the opposite of experiencing role ambiguity and role conflict (Lambert, Hogan, Cheeseman, & Barton-Bellessa, 2013). Role ambiguity results when there is a lack of information or there is uncertainty about carrying out the tasks and duties for a position (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). Role conflict occurs when staff receive orders or directions which are not consistent with one another, making compliance difficult or impossible (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980). A lack of role clarity can cause frustration and strain for staff, which in the long run could result in reduced satisfaction from the job. Conversely, role clarity probably allows staff to be more effective at their jobs, which in turn, increases a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction. Although not directly studied as role clarity, research focusing on U.S. correctional staff has observed that role ambiguity and role conflict (i.e., a lack of role clarity) are negatively associated with satisfaction from the job (Grossi & Berg, 1991; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 2005; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Whitehead & Lindquist, 1986).

Job stress is commonly defined as feelings of job-related hardness, tension, anxiety, frustration, and worry arising from work (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Grossi et al., 1996). Job stress is a negative condition for most individuals. Over time, it can wear on staff, causing staff to see their jobs in a more negative light (Hogan, Lambert, Jenkins, & Hall, 2009). Past studies among U.S. correctional staff support the contention that job stress has a negative relationship with job satisfaction (Byrd et al., 2000; Grossi et al., 1996; Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert, 2004; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Walters, 1993). In fact, Lambert (2004) and Hogan et al. (2009) both found that job stress was the strongest predictor of job satisfaction in their studies. In addition, Robinson, Porporino, and Simourd (1997) reported that job stress had a negative association with job satisfaction among Canadian correctional officers.

Coworker cohesion is important in correctional organizations because staff need to work together for organizational objectives and goals to be met (Halepota & Shah, 2011). Most human beings are social creatures who seek positive interactions with others, including at work (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan, 2006). Good relations and interactions with coworkers should create a more pleasant working experience (Lambert et al., 2002). In addition, coworker cohesion could provide support and guidance on how to handle conflicts at work (Lambert et al., 2015). As such, coworker cohesion should increase job satisfaction. Positive views of coworkers and coworker integration have been found to be positively associated with job satisfaction among U.S. correctional staff (Lambert et al., 2002; Paoline et al., 2006).

Formalization is the extent to which written rules and procedures are established within an organization (Lambert et al., 2006; Price & Mueller, 1986). It refers to an organization’s written codification of rules and procedures (Pandey & Scott, 2002). Formalization provides direction and guidance for correctional staff so they can be successful in their jobs, which in turn probably results in greater job satisfaction (Lambert & Paoline, 2012; Pandey & Scott, 2002). In two studies among U.S. correctional staff, formalization was found to have a positive association with job satisfaction (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert et al., 2006).

The concepts of justice and fairness are found in organizational settings and often are referred to as organizational justice. Organizational justice refers to employee perceptions that they are treated fairly by the employing organization (Greenberg, 1987; Lambert, 2003). The two major dimensions of organizational justice are distributive and procedural justice (Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Distributive justice focuses on the perceptions of fairness of outcomes for staff within an organization (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Greenberg, 1990a). This form of organizational justice is based on the idea of equity (Greenberg, 1982). People evaluate organizational outcomes based on their inputs and inputs of others, and if they feel the outcome is fair, then they are more likely to form positive views of distributive justice within the organization (Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Salient organizational outcomes include job evaluations, pay, treatment in general, and job assignments (Greenberg, 1982; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011). Staff are aware not only of the final outcomes but also the processes used to arrive at salient outcomes.

Procedural justice refers to the perceptions that the processes and procedures used to reach salient organizational employee outcomes are fair and just (Greenberg, 1990a; Halepota & Shah, 2011). Most people prefer a fair and open process in decisions that affect them, regardless of the outcome (Lambert et al., 2007; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For example, Landy, Barnes-Farrell, and Cleveland (1980) found that the perceived fairness of employee evaluation procedures were very important for employees, regardless of whether their performance appraisals were negative or positive. Procedural justice can improve the legitimacy of an organization (Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Like distributive justice, procedural justice covers a wide array of processes and procedures, including the perceived fairness in the process of deciding pay raises, assignments, shifts, and promotions (Greenberg 1990b; Lambert et al., 2007).

It is important to note that perceived promotional opportunities and perceptions of organizational justice can overlap, but they are distinct concepts (Lambert et al., 2007; Lincoln & Kalleberg, 1990). A person may feel there are promotional opportunities for himself or herself, but it does not necessarily mean that the person feels the promotions are fair. As such, there can be different outcomes based on the concepts of perceived fairness and promotional opportunity. A person could feel that the process is fair and he or she has good chances. A person could also feel that the promotional process is fair, but he or she does not have good chances for promotion. In addition, a person could feel that the process is unfair, but he or she has a good chance of promotion for different reasons, such as needed skills. Finally, a staff member could feel that the promotional process is unfair and he or she has a no chance of being promoted because of various reasons, such as lack of specific skills or connections.

Although there can also be overlap between input into decision making and perceptions of justice, they are seen as distinct concepts (Greenberg, 1982; Lambert et al., 2006, Price & Mueller, 1986). Input into decision making refers to being allowed input into a wide array of organizational matters, which may include issues in perceived justice, but is not limited to areas of justice. Allowing input on how to improve procedural justice in an organization is what Thibaut and Walker (1975) called having a “voice” in the process, because employees often have information about procedures that are perceived fair or not fair that administrators may not. Nevertheless, there does not need to be a voice in the process to build positive perceptions of organizational justice. For example, hiring more qualified person instead of a relative of top administrators (i.e., avoiding nepotism) is likely to build on perceptions of organizational justice even though there was no input by staff in the matter. In addition, allowing input into decision making does not mean that the results will be fair or improve the process of procedural justice, nor does it mean that the input of staff will be followed.

In sum, distributive justice deals with perceptions of the “ends,” and procedural justice deals with perceptions of the “means” (Lambert, 2003). Both distributive justice and procedural justice go to the heart of the legitimacy of how a person views the employing organization (Greenberg, 1990a). Perceptions of organizational unfairness could result in negative feelings, such as frustration and resentment, which could lead to a less favorable view of the job, resulting in decreased job satisfaction (Greenberg, 1990a; Lambert et al., 2007; Taxman & Gordon, 2009). Among U.S. correctional staff, research has found that distributive justice and procedural justice are positively related to job satisfaction (Lambert, 2003; Lambert et al., 2007).

Method

Sample

Data used in this exploratory study were collected from 225 community correctional officers from 15 counties (or equivalents) in Hubei, China in 2013. There were two types of community correctional officers in Hubei: the heads of local justice office and social workers. The heads of local justice office are salaried employees who are paid from the governmental budget. They are civil servants and salaried officials (Jiang, Zhang, et al., 2015). The local justice offices and their heads have multiple responsibilities. They include, but are not limited to, legal education, legal consultation, participating in the community security comprehensive management, guiding and participating in the people’s mediation, working with the police to maintain public order and control crime, and community corrections (Jiang, Xiang, et al., 2015). Although the head of local justice office is the leader of community corrections, it is just one of his many duties. In fact, social workers are primarily responsible for the implementation of community corrections except those offices that do not have social workers or those one-person offices in the countryside. Social workers are also salaried, full-time employees, but their jobs are not as secure as the justice office leaders. Social workers’ employment term varies from contract to contract (Jiang, Zhang, et al., 2015). In addition, social workers are not governmental officials. They are hired for community corrections and supervised by the head of local justice office. The research team found that because they are part of local justice office, social workers were asked to carry out other duties of the office beyond community corrections. In Wuhan, there are approximately 3,800 offenders under community corrections in 2015 with an average of 18 offenders per social worker (Tian, 2015).

The respondents in this study were generally satisfied with their jobs. Job satisfaction was measured by five items (liking a job, enthusiastic about a job, satisfied with a job, bored with a job [reversely coded], enjoying a job. See the appendix for details). The distribution for job satisfaction on the five items was as follows: 70.7% of the participants reported liking their job, 85.3% expressed enthusiasm about their job, 76.6% indicated satisfaction with their job, 68.4% were bored with their job, and 70.7% reported enjoying their job. According to Table 1, 66% of the respondents were men. Their mean age was 39 with a minimum age of 20 and a maximum age of 59. Eighty percent of the respondents were married. Only 3% of the respondents had a high school diploma or below, and 97% of the respondents had completed or were studying for a college degree.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Variable	Description	Minimum	Maximum	Median	M	SD
Gender	34% female (coded 0) 66% male (coded 1)	0	1	1	0.66	.48
Age	Measured in continuous years	20	58	39	38.93	9.79
Marital St	20% not currently married (coded 0)	0	1	1	0.80	.40
	80% currently married (coded 1)
Educ Lev	0% elementary school or below (= 1)	2	7	6	5.44	.78
	1% junior high (= 2)
	2% high school (= 3)
	2% 2-year occupation school (= 4)
	41% 3-year college (= 5)
	52% 4-year college (= 6)
	1% graduate school (= 7)
Input DM	3-item index, α = .86	−2.40	1.75	.03	0.00	1
Prom Opp	4-item index, α = .96	−2.50	1.90	.24	0.00	1
Role Cl	5-item index, α = .83	−3.22	2.58	−.18	0.00	1
Job stress	4-item index, α = .79	−2.50	3.54	−.23	0.00	1
Coworker	4-item index, α = .73	−2.92	1.99	−.02	0.00	1
Formal	4-item index, α = .85	−4.46	1.96	.26	0.00	1
Dist Just	5-item index, α = .94	−2.39	2.10	.10	0.00	1
Proc Just	4-item index, α = .87	−3.22	2.66	.24	0.00	1
Job Sat	5-item index, α = .86	−3.27	2.08	.32	0.00	1

Note. Please note that because all factors in the table are standardized variables, they all have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. Marital St = marital status; Educ Lev = educational level; Input DM = perceived level of input into organizational decision-making matters; Prom Opp = perceived promotional opportunities in the organization; Role Cl = perceived level of role clarity; Job stress = perceived level of stress from the job; Coworker = perceived level of cohesion with coworkers; Formal = perceived level of formalization; Dist Just = perceived level of distributive justice in the organization; Proc Just = perceived level of procedural justice in the organization; Job Sat = perceived level of satisfaction from the job; α = Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of internal reliability.

Materials

The data were collected by a research team that was composed of seven professors and 37 graduate students from China and the United States. The professors have expertise in corrections and community governance, as well as survey experience in China and the United States. To increase validity and reliability of the survey data, the professors started to review community corrections literature in the West and China and then developed the questionnaire. Based on the literature review and the field observations, the draft of the questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was then revised several times based on the pretests among college students, faculty, staff, local justice offices in urban and rural areas, and the research team members. The revisions based on the pretests included wording, adding or deleting questions, and order of questions. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of approximately 200 items written in Chinese that tapped into various aspects of Chinese community correctional staff’s occupational attitudes, practices, and challenges they faced. Variables used in this study were part of the survey questionnaire.

Measures

Dependent Variable

Job satisfaction, the dependent variable, was measured using five items based on Lambert and Paoline (2005). See the appendix for the five job satisfaction items, which were answered with a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha (a measure for internal reliability) value for the five items was .86. Factor analysis was conducted, and all the items loaded on a single factor, which indicates unidimensionality of the items and convergent validity. The factor accounted for 65% of the common variance in the five items. Regression-based factor scores were created from the estimated factor loadings.

Independent Variables

Input into decision making, perceived promotional opportunities, role clarity, job stress, coworker cohesion, formalization, distributive justice, and procedural justice were the primary variables of interest in the current study. All the items used to measure these latent concepts are presented in the appendix. Factor analysis was conducted on all indexes, and the items for each index loaded on a single factor, which indicates unidimensionality of the items and convergent validity. The individual indexes were created from the estimated factor loadings.

Input into decision making was measured using three items, and the items were adopted from Curry, Wakefield, Price, and Mueller (1986).² The Cronbach’s alpha for the items was .86. The factor accounted for 78% of the common variance in the three items.

Perceived opportunity to be promoted within the organization was measured using four items derived from Curry et al. (1986). The items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .96. The factor accounted for 84% of the common variance in the four items.

Five items were used to form an index measuring role clarity. The items were from a survey questionnaire used by Cullen et al. (1985). The Cronbach’s alpha for the role clarity items was .83. The factor accounted for 61% of the common variance in the five items.

Job stress was measured using four items adapted from Crank, Regoli, Hewitt, and Culbertson (1995).³ The Cronbach’s alpha for the four items was .79. The factor accounted for 62% of the common variance in the four items.

Using four items adapted from Mueller, Boyer, Price, and Iverson (1994), the index coworker cohesion was formed based on factor analysis. The items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .79. The factor accounted for 57% of the common variance in the four items.

An index for formalization was created based on factor analysis using four items. The four items were adapted from Oldham and Hackman (1981), and these items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .85. The factor explained 69% of the common variance in the four items.

Distributive justice is a factor which was formed from five items adapted from Price and Mueller (1986). The items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .94. The factor explained 82% of the common variance in the five items.

Using four items adapted from Lambert, Hogan, and Jiang (2010), an index was created to measure procedural justice. The four items had a Cronbach’s alpha value of .87. The factor was accounted for 74% of the common variance in the four items.

Finally, the personal characteristics of gender, age, marital status, and education were included more as control than explanatory variables. Past research dealing with U.S. correctional staff job satisfaction has included personal characteristics variables (e.g., Griffin, 2001; Hogan et al., 2009; Lambert, 2003, 2004; Lambert et al., 2015; Paoline et al., 2006; Stohr et al., 1992). Gender was measured with women being coded as 0 and men coded as 1. Age was measured in continuous years. Marital status was measured with non-married participants being coded as 0 and married participants being coded as 1. Finally, education was measured by the highest degree completed or was studying for elementary or less (= 1), junior high (= 2), high school (= 3), technical school (= 4), 3-year college (= 5), bachelor (= 6), and graduate school (= 7).

Procedure

Under the current political situation in China, a survey of correctional officers must receive permission from different levels of governmental agencies. Thus, the research team first contacted the county level or higher levels of authorities to get permission to enter the field, and then, the county-level authorities introduced the team members to local justice offices. From the local justice offices, correctional officers were interviewed.

All the members of the research team were required to have training on how to ask questions and complete a questionnaire before they went to the field to conduct the survey. As many Chinese citizens are not familiar with the questionnaire surveys or may not understand the importance of the survey, the correctional officer data were collected via a face-to-face survey as well as in-depth interviews. All the completed questionnaires were required to be checked by the interviewers at the survey site to increase the completion rate of each question and the entire survey. For both structured and unstructured interviews, the following aspects were made clear to the respondents: (a) who the researchers or the survey conductors were, (b) that the survey would be used for academic research and the findings would be used for policy making, (c) the data from the survey would be confidential and no individual respondent would be identified in publications or reports, and (d) the survey was voluntary and nobody should be forced to complete it. There was a concern that government officials could affect the responses given. Consequently, when a questionnaire survey or in-depth interview started, the government officials except the interviewees were not at the site for the structured or unstructured interviews and did not see the completed questionnaires or in-depth interview notes. All those who were present at the survey time participated. A few individuals were out of the office for a variety of reasons, such as leave, business travel, or being ill. Overall, 225 completed questionnaires were collected, which was a response rate of approximately 96%.

Results

For all the index variables in this study, the Cronbach’s alpha value was .73 or higher (see the appendix for details), which indicates that these measures had an acceptable level of internal reliability (Gronlund, 1981). As previously noted, factor analysis was conducted, and the items for the latent concepts loaded on the predicted factors, which showed that the index variables had unidimensionality and convergent validity.

The correlations between the variables are reported in Table 2. There are seven variables that had statistically significant correlations with job satisfaction: age, input into decision making, perceived promotional opportunities, role clarity, coworker cohesion, formalization, and distributive justice. All the correlations were positive.

Table 2:

Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Gender	—
2. Age	.29**	—
3. Martial St	.09	.57**	—
4. Educ Lev	−.14*	−.26**	−.01	—
5. Input DM	.13	.19**	.09	−.03	—
6. Prom Opp	.14	.08	.01	−.03	.19**	—
7. Role Cl	−.01	.04	−.01	.07	.27**	.22**	—
8. Job stress	.04	.07	.03	.05	−.04	−.20**	−.24**	—
9. Coworker	.04	.14*	.02	−.01	.28**	.28**	.36**	.14*	—
10. Formal	−.10	.01	−.12	−.05	.24**	.30**	.57**	−.13	.31**	—
11. Dist Just	.10	.08	−.06	−.01	.06	.52**	.05	−.06	.18**	.09	—
12. Proc Just	−.02	−.01	−.04	.07	.03	.37**	.07	−.20**	.16*	.15*	.17**	—
13. Job Sat	.05	.23**	.12	−.12	.23**	.35**	.46**	−.12	.34**	.42**	.21**	.10	—

Note. Please see Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables. Marital St = marital status; Educ Lev = educational level; Input DM = perceived level of input into organizational decision-making matters; Prom Opp = perceived promotional opportunities in the organization; Role Cl = perceived level of role clarity; Job Stress = perceived level of stress from the job; Coworker = perceived level of cohesion with coworkers; Formal = perceived level of formalization; Dist Just = perceived level of distributive justice in the organization; Proc Just = perceived level of procedural justice in the organization; Job Sat = perceived level of satisfaction from the job.

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

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis was conducted with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, and the results are reported in Table 3. The skewness of the dependent variable was −.164. Collinearity did not appear to be a problem based on the correlations reported in Table 2. No correlation was greater than .70, which suggests no problem with collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). The highest correlations between the independent variables were r = .57 (p ≤ .01), which occurred between age and marital status and between role clarity and coworker cohesion. Tolerance values below .20 and Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) scores above 5 indicate a problem with multicollinearity among the independent variables (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Multicollinearity was not an issue based in the OLS regression analysis. The tolerance values ranged from .89 to .53, and the VIF scores ranged from 1.14 to 1.89. The issues of outliers, influential cases, normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals, and independence of errors in the regression analysis were tested and addressed (Berry, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013).

Table 3:

OLS Regression Results With Job Satisfaction as the Dependent Variable

Variable	B	OLS model
Variable	B	SE B	β
Gender	−.05	.13	−.02
Age	.01	.01	.13
Marital status	.16	.18	.06
Educational level	−.11	.08	−.09
Input into decision making	.02	.06	.02
Perceived promotional opportunities	.16	.07	.16*
Role clarity	.29	.07	.29**
Job stress	.01	.06	.01
Coworker cohesion	.10	.06	.10
Formalization	.17	.07	.17*
Distributive justice	.07	.07	.07
Procedural justice	−.02	.06	−.02
F value / (df)		9.83** / (12,212)
R²/Adjusted R²		.36/.32

Note. B represents the unstandardized regression coefficient, SE B the standard error of the slope, β the standardized regression coefficient, and (df) for degrees of freedom. See Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables. OLS = ordinary least squares.

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

Based on the adjusted R² statistic, the independent variables explained about 32% of the variance observed in the job satisfaction variable. None of the personal characteristics (i.e., gender, age, marital status, or educational level) had a statistically significant association with the dependent variable. Among the workplace variables, input into decision making, job stress, coworker cohesion, distributive justice, and procedural justice all had a non-significant association with job satisfaction. Perceived promotional opportunities, role clarity, and formalization each had a significant relationship with the dependent variable. Estimated regression coefficients for the three independent variables were .16 (perceived promotional opportunities) with p < .05, .29 (role clarity) with p < .01, and .17 (formalization) with p < .05, respectively. The direction of all the three coefficients was positive, which means that increases in perceived promotional opportunities, role clarity, and formalization were associated with greater reported satisfaction from the job. Using the standardized regression coefficient (i.e., the β column in Table 3), it is possible to rank the size of the effects of the variables. Among the three significant independent variables, role clarity had the greatest effect (β =. 29), followed by formalization (β =. 17), and then perceived promotional opportunities (β =. 16). Finally, although not reported in tabular format, an OLS regression analysis was conducted with job satisfaction as the dependent variable, and the personal characteristics of gender, age, marital status, and educational level as the independent variables (i.e., the workplace variables were not included). The R² value for this regression equation was .04, which means that the four personal characteristic variables accounted for only 4% of the observed variance in the job satisfaction index. In other words, the vast majority of the variance in job satisfaction was explained by the workplace variables.

Discussion And Conclusion

This study focused on the examination of predictors of job satisfaction among community correctional staff in China. There are several points worthy of discussion. First, the mean score of the five job satisfaction questions in this study was 3.81, which is higher than the result from Lu, Liang, Li, and He (2014), but lower than the result from Lo and Snape (2005), both of whom surveyed lawyers in China. Results from these two studies and the current study indicate that majority of employees in Chinese criminal justice were satisfied with their jobs. Nevertheless, there is a need for far more research on job satisfaction among criminal justice employees in China.

Second, role clarity and formalization affected job satisfaction, which would be expected under the person–environment theory for the needs–supply fit. As noted before, China officially adopted the community corrections strategy in 2003. Since then, China, in general, and Hubei province, in particular, have attempted to enhance the formalization and professionalization of its community corrections (Jiang et al., 2014). Community correctional staff have multiple roles. In addition, community correctional staff can be asked by political leaders to do things that are not closely related to community corrections. In other words, in many cases, there are no clear rules on community corrections and responsibilities for community correctional officers. In the field interview, the research team frequently heard that the respondents were not clear about their responsibilities, and thus, they had to do many things outside the community corrections. They expected the Chinese government to enact the community corrections laws as soon as possible. They also wanted their agencies to spell out their responsibilities clearly. Some offices had instituted formalization and others had not; therefore, it was not a surprise that both formalization and role clarity positively affected job satisfaction among community correctional staff. In addition, results from further data analysis indicated that formalization and role clarity were highly and positively related (r =. 57), which suggests that formalization may increase the degree of role clarity faced by staff. Levels of role clarity may be also due to organizational communication (i.e., salient information of what is to be done and how it is to be done). Without effective organizational communication of what is expected and how to do job tasks, staff may feel that they lack role clarity. The role communication plays in shaping role clarity among Chinese community correctional staff needs to be empirically tested in future studies.

It is a surprise, however, that both distributive justice and procedural justice were not significant predictors of job satisfaction among Chinese community correctional staff. In the United States, both types of justice are important to the society as well as individuals (Lambert et al., 2002; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Furthermore, the perceived fairness of the procedures was very important among U.S. employees, regardless of whether their performance appraisals were negative or positive (Landy et al., 1980; Tyler, 2000). Although it is very limited, there are a few studies on the impact of organizational justice on U.S. correctional staff job satisfaction. For example, Lambert (2003) found that both distributive justice and procedural justice had significant positive effects on job satisfaction among staff at a U.S. Midwestern state prison. Lambert et al. (2007) found that although procedural justice had a significant impact on job satisfaction, distributive justice did not at a private U.S. prison.

Third, and in contrast to the United States, China has long emphasized informal control and lacked formal (legal) control, and fair outcomes are stressed (Jiang, Lambert, & Wang, 2007). Consequently, China has a tradition of emphasis on distributive justice rather than procedural justice (Xu, 2004; Yang & Zhang, 2004). Bivariate associations between job satisfaction and two types of justice from Table 2 confirmed the tradition. That is, the relationship between job satisfaction and distributive justice was significant while the relationship between job satisfaction and procedural justice was insignificant. Our further analysis (results not shown here) revealed that after controlling for demographic variables, the first correlation was still significant. When controlling for perceived promotional opportunities, the relationship became insignificant. It appears that the relationship between job satisfaction and distributive justice may be due to perceived promotional opportunities. It is commonly believed and consistently revealed by empirical studies in the United States that procedural justice is positively related to job satisfaction or satisfaction with the decision maker (see Lambert et al., 2002; Tyler & Huo, 2002, for a review). Why are the two variables unrelated in China? It may be a cultural background (Tyler, 2000) that explains the relationship. China has long lacked the rule of law, and Chinese people have no strong sense of law-based justice; hence, procedural justice may not be important predictor of their satisfaction with job. The insignificant relationship between the two variables may be due to the measurement issue. For example, the measure of procedural justice in this study focused on the standards used to evaluate an employee’s performance and promotional opportunities. It may be too simple to capture the all dimensions of this concept. Recent studies indicate that procedural justice has multiple dimensions, such as quality of treatment, quality of decision making, and trust (Tyler & Wakslak, 2004).

Relatedly, there could have been overlaps between concepts which, when controlled for in multivariate analysis, resulted in a non-significant relationship between the justice variables and job satisfaction. There were moderately sized correlations between perceived promotional opportunities and both distributive and procedural justice (see Table 2), which suggests that there may be overlaps between these concepts. It is important to note that the correlation was below .80, which would indicate an issue with co-linearity between the variables (i.e., measuring the same latent concept; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Nevertheless, future studies should explore the factors which may shape or modify justice perceptions, such as perceived promotional opportunities or instrumental communication. Interestingly, input into decision making had non-significant correlations with both distributive and procedural justice (see Table 2). As previously indicated, Thibaut and Walker (1975) indicated that staff should have “voice” in the process to improve procedural justice. The lack of significant correlations in current study suggest that input into decision making and justice are not tapping into the same latent concepts. Having a voice in the area of procedural justice typically tends to be more narrowly focused than the broader concept of general input into decision making, where the first refers to allowing staff to point out what they feel is fair and unfair in the process that determines salient distributive outcomes, such as promotions, and the latter allows staff to have a say in a wide array of organizational decisions, such as what type of equipment should be used for a particular task. In sum, it is obvious that further investigation of procedural justice, distributive justice, and their relationship with job satisfaction is needed among Chinese correctional staff.

Fourth, none of the demographics variables were statistically significant. This is not a surprise. Most studies on Chinese people’s views of criminal justice issues, including police (Jiang, Sun, & Wang, 2012; Wu & Sun, 2009, 2010), crime control (Jiang et al., 2007; Jiang, Land, & Wang, 2013), the death penalty (Jiang, Lambert, & Nathan, 2009; Liang, Lu, Miethe, & Zhang, 2006), views of law and legal system (Jiang & Wu, 2015; Jiang, Wu, & Wang, 2013), and community corrections (Jiang et al., in press; Jiang, Xiang, et al., 2015), reported similar results; demographic variables are either not related to people’s views of criminal justice or weakly related. It would appear that in this study, demographic variables were not significant predictors of job satisfaction among Chinese community correctional staff. This is good news to Chinese community corrections administrations because it is difficult, if not impossible, to change most demographic variables such as gender, age, and marital status. This is not the case with workplace variables, which are more in the control of administrators.

Findings from this study should be read with caution. Even though respondents were selected from a large number of local justice offices in both urban and rural areas in Hubei, the sample was not randomly chosen; therefore, findings from this study are not necessarily generalizable to other community correctional officers in either the province or China. If more financial support becomes available, future research needs to use the random sampling method to select respondents from a broader region throughout China. In addition, the adjusted R² for the model of job satisfaction was .32, indicating that more predictors should be included in the model in the future research. Future research should examine how interactional justice is associated with job satisfaction. Interactional justice basically refers to how staff are treated, such as with respect and dignity or with disrespect and rudeness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Furthermore, other dimensions of work environment, such as job variety, instrumental communication, and feedback, are associated with job satisfaction of Chinese community corrections staff. Other than job satisfaction, research is needed to determine how different work environment dimensions affect other salient outcomes, such as organizational commitment, burnout, and organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e., going beyond what is expected). As previously indicated, the current study was exploratory, which means its theoretical underpinnings could be enhanced. Future studies should explore other theoretical focuses, such as the social exchange theory, the demand-control model, the conversation of resource model, the job characteristics model, the equity theory, and the affect theory, to gain a more refined understanding of how and why different dimensions of the work environment affect salient outcomes of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, and burnout among Chinese community corrections staff. There is clearly a need for more research among Chinese community corrections staff.

Despite these limitations, the current study has made a significant contribution to the community corrections field. It is the first empirical study published in a Western journal of job satisfaction among Chinese community correctional officers. The study found that the majority of Chinese community correctional officers were satisfied with their jobs. Role clarity, formalization, and perceived promotional opportunities were significant predictors of job satisfaction. Although distributive justice and procedural justice have often found to be predictors of job satisfaction in the United States, this study revealed that they were not predictors of job satisfaction among Chinese community correctional staff. There are both similarities and differences between Chinese and American correctional staff in terms of predictors of their job satisfaction.

The current findings have implications for policy makers and professionals in China. For example, community correctional officers were more satisfied with their jobs in justice agencies with higher levels of formalization and role clarity. This finding has a clear implication that Chinese government authority and local justice leaders need to further formalize community corrections and spell out duties and responsibilities for community correctional staff to increase their job satisfaction. Care should be taken to avoid “red tape,” which refers to excessive and/or irrational rule formation. A significant relationship between perceived promotional opportunities and job satisfaction suggests that the Chinese government and local justice agencies need to increase promotional chances so that their community correctional staff have more hopes and higher levels of job satisfaction, which, in turn, will lead to high quality of community correctional service. At the very least, it is hoped that the current study will spark further research on the variables that shape the job satisfaction of Chinese correctional staff.

Footnotes

Appendix

Job Satisfaction items (α = .86 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 64.7): (a) I like my job more than most colleagues; (b) Most days I am enthusiastic about my job; (c) I feel fairly satisfied with my job; (d) I am seldom bored with my job; and (e) I find real enjoyment in my job. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Input into Decision-Making (α = .86 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 78.0): (a) How much freedom do you have as to how to do your job? (b) How much does your job allow you to make decisions on your own? and (c) How much say do you have over what happens on your job? The answer categories for these items were from 1 to 5. 1 stands for the lowest level of input while 5 stands for the highest level of input.

Perceived Promotional Opportunities (α = .94 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 84.1): (a) There is a good chance to get ahead; (b) There is an opportunity for advancement; (c) There are chances for promotion; and (d) Promotions are regular. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Role Clarity (α = .83 and amount of factor analysis the variance explained = 60.9): (a) Clear and planned goals and objectives exist for my job; (b) I know that I have divided my time properly; (c) I feel certain how much authority I have; (d) I know what my responsibilities are; and (e) I know what is expected of me. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Job Stress (α = .79 and amount of factor analysis explained = 61.9): (a) When I’m at work, I often feel tense of uptight; (b) I am usually under a lot of pressure when I am at work; (c) There are lots of aspects of my job that make me upset; and (d) A lot of time my job makes me very frustrated or angry. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Coworker Cohesion (α = .73 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 56.7): (a) To what extent are the people in your immediate work group friendly? (b) When you need help, are your coworkers willing to help you? (c) To what extent do you look forward to being with people in your work group each day? and (d) During the past 12 months, have you often had gathers or collective activities? Each of these five questions had different answer categories but all had five categories. 1 stands for the lowest degree of coworker cohesion while 5 stands for the highest degree of coworker cohesion.

Formalization (α = .85 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 68.6): (a) Whenever a situation arises, we have procedures to follow in dealing with it; (b) A ‘rules and procedures” manual exists and is readily available within this organization; (c) My organization keeps a written record of everyone’s job performance; and (d) Job guidance is readily available. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Distributive Justice (α = .94 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 81.8): (a) How fair has your organization been in rewarding you when you consider the amount of effort that you have put forth? (b) How fair has your organization been in rewarding you when you consider the responsibilities that you have at work? (c) How fair has your organization been in rewarding you when you take into account the stresses and strains of your job? (d) How fair has your organization been in rewarding you when you take into account the amount of education and training you have? and (e) How fair has your organization been in rewarding you when you consider the work that you have done well? The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Procedural Justice (α = .87 and amount of factor analysis variance explained = 74.1): (a) There is a fair opportunity to be promoted; (b) My own hard work will lead to recognition as a good performer; (c) The standards used to evaluate my performance at my organization have been fair and objective and (d) My supervisor is familiar enough with my job to fairly evaluate me. The answer categories for these items were strongly disagree (=1), disagree (=2), uncertain (=3), agree (=4), and strongly agree (=5).

Note that α represents Cronbach’s alpha value, which is a measure of internal reliability.

Acknowledgements

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

Notes

Shanhe Jiang is a professor of criminal justice, Wayne State University, and visiting chair professor, Central China Normal University. His recent research focuses on institutional and community corrections. He is the author or coauthor of more than 90 articles, chapters, and books.

Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the Department of Legal Studies at the University of Mississippi. He received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. 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.

Dawei Zhang is an associate professor of sociology at the Central China Normal University. His recent research includes community development, local governance, and social policy. He is the author or coauthor of more than 50 articles, chapters, and books.

Xiaohong Jin is an associate professor of sociology at the Central China Normal University. Her recent research focuses on community corrections and floating population and crime in China.

Mengfei Shi recently received her master’s degree in criminal law from Wuhan University. Her research interests include legal mediation and community corrections.

Deping Xiang is a professor of sociology at Wuhan University. He has published more than 60 articles, chapters, and books.

References

Berry

(1993). Understanding regression assumptions. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

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 & Criminal Justice, 23, 69-89.

Cable

Edwards

(2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834.

Cable

Judge

(1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348.

Camp

(1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279-305.

Colquitt

Conlon

Wesson

Porter

(2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

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.

Cranny

Smith

Stone

(Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their performance. New York, NY: Lexington Books.

Cullen

Link

Wolfe

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505-533.

10.

Curry

Wakefield

Price

Mueller

(1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847-858.

11.

Dennis

(1998). Here today, gone tomorrow: How management style affects job satisfaction and, in turn, employee turnover. Corrections Today, 60(3), 96-102.

12.

Edwards

(1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In Cooper

Robertson

(Eds.), International review of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 282-327). London, England: John Wiley.

13.

Edwards

Cable

Williamson

Lambert

Shipp

(2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827.

14.

Folger

Cropanzano

(1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Fox

(1982). Organizational and racial conflict in maximum-security prisons. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

16.

Greenberg

(1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In Greenberg

Cohen

(Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389-435). New York, NY: Academic Press.

17.

Greenberg

(1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.

18.

Greenberg

(1990a). Looking fair vs. being fair: Managing impressions of organizational justice. In Shaw

Cummings

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 111-157). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

19.

Greenberg

(1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

20.

Griffin

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

21.

Griffin

Hogan

Lambert

Tucker

Baker

(2010). The issue of job involvement, job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in the burnout of correctional staff: A preliminary examination. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 239-255.

22.

Gronlund

(1981). Measurement and evaluation in teaching. New York, NY: MacMillan.

23.

Grossi

Berg

(1991). Stress and job satisfaction among correctional officers: An unexpected finding. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 73-81.

24.

Grossi

Keil

Vito

(1996). Surviving “the joint”: Mitigating factors of correctional officer stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 103-120.

25.

Guo

Zheng

(Eds.). (2004). Introduction to community corrections in China. Beijing, China: Law Press.

26.

Halepota

Shah

(2011). An empirical investigation of organizational antecedents on employee job satisfaction in developing country. Transforming Government: People, Process, and Policy, 5, 280-294.

27.

Hepburn

(1987). The prison control structure and its effects on work attitudes: The perceptions and attitudes of prison guards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 49-64.

28.

Hogan

Lambert

Jenkins

Hall

(2009). The impact of job characteristics on private prison staff: Why management should care. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 151-165.

29.

Hulin

Roznowski

Hachiya

(1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250.

30.

Ivancevich

Matteson

(1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

31.

Jiang

Jin

Xiang

Goodlin-Fahncke

Zhang

Yang

(in press). Punitive and rehabilitative orientations toward offenders among community correctional officers in China. The Prison Journal.

32.

Jiang

Lambert

Nathan

(2009). Death penalty attitudes among Chinese citizens: Retributive or instrumental? Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 225-233.

33.

Jiang

Lambert

Wang

(2007). Correlates of formal and informal social/crime control in China. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 261-271.

34.

Jiang

Land

Wang

(2013). Social ties, collective efficacy and perceived neighborhood property crime in Guangzhou, China. Asian Journal of Criminology, 8, 207-223.

35.

Jiang

Sun

Wang

(2012). Citizens’ satisfaction with police in Guangzhou, China. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 35, 801-821.

36.

Jiang

(2015). Chinese people’s intended and actual use of the court to resolve grievance/dispute. Social Science Research, 49, 42-52.

37.

Jiang

Wang

(2013). Citizens’ obligation to obey the law: An empirical study of Guangzhou, China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 495-518.

38.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Goodlin-Fahncke

Huang

Yang

. . . Zhao

(2015). Public support for community corrections in China. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 59, 772-789.

39.

Jiang

Xiang

Chen

Huang

Yang

Zhang

Zhao

(2014). Community corrections in China: Development and challenges. The Prison Journal, 94, 75-96.

40.

Jiang

Zhang

Jin

Xiang

Greenleaf

Liu

(2015). Semiformal crime control and semiformal organizations in China: An empirical demonstration from Chinese community corrections. Asian Journal of Criminology, 10, 287-302.

41.

Jurik

Winn

(1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25.

42.

Kerce

Magnusson

Rudolph

(1994). The attitudes of navy corrections staff members: What they think about confinees and their jobs. San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.

43.

Kristof

(1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

44.

Lambert

(2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.

45.

Lambert

(2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff members. Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.

46.

Lambert

Barton

Hogan

(1999). The missing link between job satisfaction and correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 95-116.

47.

Lambert

Barton

Hogan

Clarke

(2002). The impact of instrumental communication and integration on correctional staff. The Justice Professional, 15, 181-193.

48.

Lambert

Edwards

Camp

Saylor

(2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back again the next day: Absenteeism and its antecedents among federal correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 165-175.

49.

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.

50.

Lambert

Hogan

Barton

(2001). The impact of job satisfaction on turnover intent: A test of a structural measurement model using a national sample of workers. Social Science Journal, 38, 233-250.

51.

Lambert

Hogan

Barton

(2002a). Building commitment among correctional staff: The issue of feedback, promotional opportunities, and organizational fairness. Corrections Compendium, 27(3), 1-5, 24-28.

52.

Lambert

Hogan

Barton

(2002b). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on the correlates of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 115-143.

53.

Lambert

Hogan

Cheeseman

Barton-Bellessa

(2013). The relationship between job stressors and job involvement among correctional staff: A test of the job strain model. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 19-38.

54.

Lambert

Hogan

Griffin

(2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 644-656.

55.

Lambert

Hogan

Jiang

(2008). Exploring antecedents of five types of organizational commitment among correctional staff: It matters what you measure. Criminal Justice Police Review, 19, 466-490.

56.

Lambert

Hogan

Jiang

(2010). A preliminary examination of the relationship between organizational structure and emotional burnout among correctional staff. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 125-146.

57.

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 & Justice, 18, 1-26.

58.

Lambert

Hogan

Paoline

Clarke

(2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18, 33-50.

59.

Lambert

Minor

Wells

Hogan

(2015). Leave your job at work: The possible antecedents of work-family conflict among correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 95, 114-134.

60.

Lambert

Paoline

(2005). The impact of jail medical issues on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail staff: An exploratory study. Punishment and Society: The International Journal of Penology, 7, 259-275.

61.

Lambert

Paoline

(2008). The influence of individual, job, and organizational characteristics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 541-564.

62.

Lambert

Paoline

(2012). Exploring the possible antecedents of job involvement: An exploratory study among jail staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 264-286.

63.

Lambert

Paoline

Hogan

(2006). The impact of centralization and formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society, 19, 23-44.

64.

Lambert

Reynolds

Paoline

Watkins

(2004). The effects of occupational stressors on jail staff job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 1-32.

65.

Landy

Barnes-Farrell

Cleveland

(1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356.

66.

Lee

Joo

Johnson

(2009). The effect of participatory management on internal stress, overall job satisfaction, and turnover intention among federal probation officers. Federal Probation, 73(1), 33-40.

67.

S. D.

(2014). Toward a cost-effective correctional system: New developments in community-based corrections in China. Victims and Offender, 9, 120-125.

68.

Liang

Miethe

T. D.

Zhang

(2006). Sources of variation in pro-death penalty attitudes in China. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 119-130.

69.

Lincoln

Kalleberg

(1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organization and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press.

70.

Snape

(2005). Lawyers in the People’s Republic of China: A study of commitment and professionalization. American Journal of Comparative Law, 53, 433-455.

71.

Locke

(1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In Dunnell

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

72.

Liang

(2014). Professional commitment and job satisfaction: An analysis of the Chinese judicial reforms from the perspective of the criminal defense. The China Review, 14, 159-181.

73.

Matz

Woo

Kim

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

74.

Millan

Hessels

Thurik

Aguado

(2013). Determinants of job satisfaction: A European comparison of self-employed and paid employees. Small Business Economics, 40, 651-670.

75.

Muchinsky

(1987). Psychology applied to work: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Dorsey Press.

76.

Mueller

Boyer

Price

Iverson

(1994). Employee attachment and noncoercive conditions of work: The case of dental hygienists. Work and Occupations, 21, 179-212.

77.

Ngo

Foley

Loi

(2014). Work satisfaction of Chinese employees: A social exchange and gender-based view. Social Indicators Research, 116, 457-473.

78.

Oldham

Hackman

(1981). Relationships between organizational structure and employee reactions: Comparing alternative frameworks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 66-83.

79.

Pandey

S. K.

Scott

P. G.

(2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12, 553-580.

80.

Paoline

Lambert

Hogan

(2006). A calm and happy keeper of the keys: The impact of ACA views, relations with coworkers, and policy views on the job stress and job satisfaction of correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 86, 182-205.

81.

Price

Mueller

(1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

82.

Rizzo

House

Lirtzman

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

83.

Robinson

Porporino

Simourd

(1997). The influence of educational attainment on the attitudes and job performance of correctional officers. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 60-77.

84.

Sekiguchi

(2004a). Person-organization fit and person-job fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 54, 179-196.

85.

Sekiguchi

(2004b). Toward a dynamic perspective of person-environment fit. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 55, 177-190.

86.

Shao

Rupp

Skarlicki

Jones

(2013). Employee justice across cultures: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 39, 263-301.

87.

Simmons

Cochran

Blount

(1997). The effects of job-related stress and job satisfaction on probation officers’ inclinations to quit. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 213-229.

88.

Slate

Vogel

(1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decision-making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts about quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397-408.

89.

Spector

(1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York, NY: John Wiley.

90.

Stohr

Lovrich

Monke

Zupan

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

91.

Stohr

Self

Lovrich

(1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478.

92.

Tabachnick

Fidell

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

93.

Taxman

Gordon

(2009). Do fairness and equity matter? An examination of organizational justice among correctional officers in adult prisons. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 695-711.

94.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

95.

Tian

(2015, June 5). A survey of social workers in community corrections in Wuhan. The paper was presented at the International Conference on Community Corrections, The Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China.

96.

Tyler

T. R.

(2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117-125.

97.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

98.

Tyler

T. R.

Wakslak

C. J.

(2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive and acceptance of policy authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281.

99.

Van Voorhis

Cullen

Link

Wolfe

. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472-500.

100.

Walters

(1993). Gender, job satisfaction, and correctional officers: A comparative analysis. Justice Professional, 7, 23-33.

101.

Whiteacre

(2006). Measuring job satisfaction and stress at a community corrections center: An evidence-based study. Corrections Today, 68(3), 70-73.

102.

Whitehead

Lindquist

(1986). Correctional officer burnout: A path model. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 23, 23-42.

103.

Wolfe

Piquero

(2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 332-353.

104.

Wright

Saylor

Gilman

Camp

(1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 524-546.

105.

Wright

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

106.

Sun

(2009). Citizen trust in police: The case of China. Police Quarterly, 12, 170-191.

107.

Sun

(2010). Perceptions of police: An empirical study of Chinese college students. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33, 93-113.

108.

(2004). Procedural justice. Shandong, China: Shandong People’s Press.

109.

Yang

Zhang

(2004). Procedural and distributive justice in criminal justice. Law Science Journal, 25, 47-48.

110.

Zhang

Zhou

Messner

S. F.

Liska

A. E.

Krohn

. . . Zhou

L. D.

(1996). Crime prevention in a communitarian society: Bang-jiao and tiao-jie in the People’s Republic of China. Justice Quarterly, 13, 199-222.