The Impact of Job Expectations,Workload,and Autonomy on Work-Related Stress Among Prison Wardens in the United States

Abstract

Prison wardens manage both external pressures and internal challenges that affect work-related stress. Using data from a national survey of prison wardens, we examined the impact of conflicting job expectations, workload, and job autonomy on work-related stress among prison wardens. The ordered logistic regression results showed a significant and positive relationship between conflicting job expectations and work-related stress. The results also showed a significant and positive relationship between unmanageable workloads and stress on the job. We found a negative and significant relationship between job autonomy and work-related stress, though the relationship was relatively weak. The importance of this study lies in its ability to help isolate factors that affect job stress among prison wardens, which in turn may produce better organizational support, management, and human resources policy to improve conditions for prison wardens, staff, and inmates.

Keywords

prison wardens work-related stress job expectations workload management job autonomy corrections

Introduction

Managing a prison is a high-stress occupation, where keeping a potentially violent and dense population of unwilling occupants safe is fraught with conflicting demands, shifting priorities, and limited resources (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004). Steiner and Wooldredge (2015) characterized workplace stress as “a distinctive relation between an employee and his or her work environment that is caused by exposure to job stressors, or occupational conditions that place demands on an employee that exceed their individual coping resources” (p. 801). Work-related stress has been connected to higher absentee rates, lower employee morale, and problems attracting and maintaining well-trained personnel (Auerbach, Quick, & Pegg, 2003; Waters, 1999). Job stress in prison environments has also been related to poor job performance, job dissatisfaction, and high turnover (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2013). In such a volatile job setting, these factors can have consequences for the safety and security of inmates and staff.

Prison wardens are charged with keeping their populations safe inside a harsh psycho-social and physical container that leaves little room for error. Internal stressors, such as conflicting job expectations, limited job autonomy, and overly heavy workloads (Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Wells, Minor, Angel, Matz, & Amato, 2009), sit alongside external job stressors, such as increasing judicial oversight, shifting public policies, and declining revenues (Ruddell & Norris, 2008; Simms, 2001). Moreover, the stresses of prison work are known to often wreak havoc on both personal and professional relationships (Armstrong, Atkin-Plunk, & Wells, 2015; Salami, Ojokuku, & Ilesanmi, 2010). Maintaining efficient operations while also minimizing work-related stress is imperative to the personal and institutional well-being (Finney, Stergiopoulos, Hensel, Bonato, & Dewa, 2013; Lambert, Kim, Keena, & Cheeseman, 2017). For these reasons, continuing to examine workplace stress for wardens is essential.

Extant correctional literature has insufficiently examined factors contributing to prison warden stress. First, most prior studies have not addressed the experiences of wardens as they have focused primarily on experiences of correctional officers, juvenile justice, or law enforcement personnel (e.g., Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Frank, Lambert, & Qureshi, 2017; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Second, limited literature has examined the causes of workplace stress inside prison institutions and none focused on the combined factors of conflicting job expectations, workload, and autonomy on warden stress (e.g., Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2013; Lambert, Minor, Wells, & Hogan, 2016). Third, identifying factors that contribute to warden stress is essential for creating organizational management policy that can help address staff burnout, turnover, and overall workplace satisfaction (e.g., Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007; Lambert et al., 2016; Owen, 2006).

Our study addressed these gaps in the literature by examining how job expectations, workload, and autonomy individually and collectively are associated with workplace stress for wardens. Using data gathered from a national survey of prison wardens, we addressed the following research questions. First, to what degree do perceptions of conflicting job expectations affect the likelihood of prison warden stress? We hypothesized a significant positive relationship. Second, to what degree do perceptions of job autonomy affect job-related stress? Here, we hypothesized a significant negative relationship—As job autonomy increased, we anticipated a decrease in the likelihood of work-related stress. Finally, to what degree does an unmanageable workload affect the likelihood of increased stress? We hypothesized a significant positive relationship. The following review of the literature provides the theoretical foundations for our hypotheses.

Literature Review

The experiences of prison wardens have generally been understudied in academic research (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011; Frank et al., 2017; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). While it is important to study correctional personnel, understanding management dilemmas as experienced by prison wardens has considerable implications for influencing organizational culture, climate, employee satisfaction, and inmate well-being (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2013; Dial, Downey, & Goodlin, 2010; Finn, 2000; Spinaris, Denhof, & Kellaway, 2012).

Previous literature about wardens pointed to various institutional and personal factors that contribute to warden stress. Some research found organizational elements of the prison environment, such as dangerousness and culture, as most important (Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015; Wells et al., 2009), while other work highlighted identified personal experiences of physical and emotional stress (Spinaris et al., 2012). Encouraging the research presented here, Tewksbury and Higgins (2006) concluded that primary influences on perceived work stress include role conflict and task control.

In this study, we examined several very specific, micro-level factors that contribute to wardens’ perceptions of workplace stress. Conceptually, we believe that analyzing the ways in which job expectations, autonomy, and workload are related to warden stress can help improve the institution. By better understanding the effects of these key elements, we can help to improve policy to decrease staff turnover, absenteeism, and other workplace disruptors.

Work-Related Stress

Work-related stress has been characterized as a negative result caused by an imbalance between stress-inducing demands of the job and the physiological, psychological, and/or social resources an individual has to manage those demands (Lambert et al., 2016; Selye, 1973). Previous correctional literature has referred to job stress as feelings of work-related tension, anxiety, and frustration (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985; Grossi, Keil, & Vito, 1996). Some work showed that job strain and psychological distress significantly increased the risk of job stress among correctional employees (Finney et al., 2013; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Other literature suggested that due to the demanding nature of the work, correctional officers may be more likely to experience work-related stress than police officers (Ma et al., 2015; Tyagi & Dhar, 2014). However, these factors have not been equally examined for prison wardens.

Researchers have found that negative personal and institutional outcomes can result from prolonged job stress, including health, social, marital and family problems, substance abuse, decreased job performance, turnover, absenteeism, and posttraumatic stress syndrome for correctional officers (Finn, 2000; Spinaris et al., 2012). Some studies also found that correctional officers who perceived their supervision to be good also tended to report lower levels of job stress (Armstrong & Griffin, 2004; Cullen et al., 1985; Waters, 1999). Other research has shown that prison staff high stress rates also resulted in negative organizational outcomes, suggesting that high stress levels of prison wardens can be potentially unhealthy for the institution (Lambert et al., 2016; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Potential negative outcomes included increased correctional officer turnover, disengagement, and absenteeism, all leading to lower productivity and higher organizational costs (Carlson, Anson, & Thomas, 2003; Dial et al., 2010).

Identifying factors associated with job-related stress for prison wardens may improve both individual and collective outcomes for institutional staff. Diminished stress would seem to result in better managerial and personal experiences for the individual warden as well as other staff. Understanding factors related to warden workplace stress is critical for operating effective institutions. By examining factors related to work-related stress, this study assessed the importance of several key factors identified in the literature to better explain the likelihood of increases or decreases in prison warden stress levels. The literature about the independent variables included in this study and their importance for understanding contributors to prison warden stress is examined in the following sections.

Conflicting Job Expectations

Previous correctional literature showed that unreasonable or conflicting job expectations were a significant factor contributing to prison warden stress (Lambert et al., 2017; Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006). This referred to the notion that a warden must be clear and knowledgeable about specific job expectations to be successful. Finney et al. (2013) found that unclear goals and policies, lack of decision-making ability, and lack of support from the organization contributed to workplace stress. Conflicting, vague, or competing expectations required a warden to make decisions in an environment where the expectations were unclear and thus the means to successfully meet those expectations were obscured (Finney et al., 2013; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). For wardens, such conflict would suggest that making decisions is not only stressful for the warden him/herself but can also result in misdirection for the organization, potentially risking institutional security.

Previous literature has suggested that successfully meeting job expectations required an environment where trust is high, the quality of supervision is perceived to be good, and the relationship between supervisors and subordinates is positive (Carleton & Clain, 2012; Diskiene & Gostautas, 2013; Finney et al., 2013; Griffin, 2006). Taxman and Gordon (2009) found that consistency, equity, and fairness in employee relations contributed to trust in decision-making processes and, to some degree, trust in the decision maker as well. Aspects of the job, such as variety, role conflict, job identity, and overall job knowledge, tended to considerably influence the work environment (Dial et al., 2010). Some research on correctional officers suggested that “older officers” may be more likely to experience role conflict and feel a lack of support from supervisors resulting in higher levels of work-related illnesses (Toch & Klofas, 1982).

Primary sources of correctional employee stress and dissatisfaction are not necessarily associated with troublesome inmate relationships, but rather reflect discontent with supervision strategies, lack of participation in the decision-making process, and limited job independence (Castle & Martin, 2006; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). While Steiner and Wooldredge (2015) found that perceived control over inmates was related to lower stress, other literature found that stress is more likely related to perceptions of support and clarity from supervisors and subordinates (Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2007). Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong (2013) reported that prison wardens may be affected both by the attitudes of their superiors as well as the degree of support and trust received from subordinates. Moreover, other researchers consistently found that correctional officers who believe the quality of their supervision is high are also likely to report lower levels of job stress (Cullen et al., 1985; Lambert et al., 2017; Waters, 1999). It is hard to provide effective supervision when the expectations of the job are vague or conflicting, and wardens who perceive role conflict would seem unlikely to be able to offer such clear supervision to subordinates, resulting in both higher stress for themselves as well as those under their charge.

However, some ambiguity remains in available research. For example, one study about juvenile correctional workers showed role problems were significantly associated with job stress (Blevins, Cullen, Frank, Sundt, & Holmes, 2006), while others found the opposite when examining data on jail correctional officers (Castle, 2008). To that end, Lambert et al. (2017) called for research to better understand issues related to institutional roles by exploring how

role conflict (i.e., receiving conflicting orders or balancing conflicting organizational objectives), role ambiguity (i.e., receiving unclear direction and guidance) [and] role overload (i.e., being asked to handle too many tasks in a given timeframe) . . . are related, but conceptually distinct dimensions of role problems. (p. 200)

Our study aimed to address some of the ambiguity of previous studies by providing further clarification of conflicting job expectations and overload (discussed in the following section).

While the impact of conflicting job expectations and work-related stress was addressed in previous literature, at the time of this study, there was no comprehensive national research that addressed this relationship for prison wardens specifically, nor that examined this in concert with job autonomy and workload. Pursuant to our inquiry about the impact of role conflict on prison warden stress, we specifically examined whether prison wardens “. . . feel caught between conflicting expectations on the job.” We explored the extent to which this corresponded with self-reports of also experiencing higher stress. As such, we hypothesized that conflicting job expectations are positively associated with workplace stress.

Job Autonomy/Authority to Carry Out Responsibilities

Most people want some control over what they do at work and how they do it (Bruce & Blackburn, 1992), and wardens are no exception. For wardens, increased oversight by courts has presented a new set of challenges resulting in prison administrators losing “a great deal of autonomy in running their institutions” (Simms, 2001, p. 4). Job autonomy is the degree to which workers perceive having freedom in making job-related decisions, suggesting that their input and capacity to make effective decisions are valued by the organization (Agho, Mueller, & Price, 1993). Past research suggested that greater job autonomy leads to a sense of feeling valued and trusted, resulting in greater pride about being able to produce organizational outcomes that reflect their own decision-making abilities (Lambert, 2004).

A previous study showed a correlation between job autonomy and job satisfaction among correctional employees (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002), though such data are limited for prison wardens. Correspondingly, a sense of low job autonomy can leave staff feeling undervalued, experiencing themselves as merely cogs in a larger machine where they have little or no control over tasks or outcomes. For wardens, the impact of feeling undervalued has consequences for personal esteem and for how they are perceived by both subordinates and superiors, potentially affecting their capacity for effective leadership. Understanding the impact of autonomy on workplace stressors is important because decreasing work-related stress may have relevance for increasing productivity, minimizing burnout, and supporting more positive work–life balance (Lambert, Altheimer, & Hogan, 2010).

Based on the literature, the role of job autonomy appeared to be an important element in understanding the stress felt by wardens. We explored the relationship between job autonomy and workplace stress, hypothesizing a significant negative relationship between the two. Based on the literature, we hypothesized that increased authority to do one’s work will reduce the likelihood of work-related stress, though this may have both positive and negative consequences.

Workload

Correctional staff perceptions of unmanageable workloads have increased with the exponential growth in prison populations, exacerbated by insufficient resources to meet demand (Lambert et al., 2007; Schaufeli & Peeters, 2000; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2015). Along with having to manage larger inmate populations, wardens are doubly burdened by also having to supervise more staff (Blau, Light, & Chamlin, 1986). Irrespective of population growth, some literature suggested multiple explanations for perceiving workload to be unmanageable. Correctional officers may experience a quantitative challenge of having too many tasks and too little time, or face qualitative difficulties when tasks grow beyond the capacity of the individual. In addition, workload stress may be caused by feeling underutilized, such as when an employee’s capacity is underestimated by the organization (Triplett, Mullings, & Scarborough, 1996).

Correctional staff workload has been characterized differently, and the literature conflicts on the degree to which it impacts workplace stress. Some research on correctional officers found that internal organizational stress increased relative to the difficulty and complexity of the duties (Finney et al., 2013). Another study examined quantitative and qualitative aspects of workload, including number of assignments, types of tasks, and work expectations, and found all were significantly related to job stress of correctional officers (Moon & Maxwell, 2004). Cullen et al. (1985) showed that working overtime was related to organizational stress for correctional officers, while Castle (2008) found that working overtime did not have a significant relationship with occupational stress for jail correctional officers. After examining 21 articles on factors related to job-related stress in correctional institutions, Schaufeli and Peeters (2000) concluded that the key stressors for correctional officers included work overload. These outcomes suggest that the impact of workload on correctional employee stress has yet to be firmly established.

In this study, we anticipated a positive relationship between workload and workplace stress, though the data did not allow us to distinguish between quantitative and qualitative dimensions, and only focused on whether or not the warden perceived his or her workload to be unmanageable. We hypothesized that perceptions of an unmanageable workload would be positively related to workplace stress.

Control Variables

Research conducted on correctional staff has continually suggested that conditions of the work environment are far stronger predictors of workplace stress than individual demographic factors, but it is still important to consider how demographic variations may influence feelings of stress (Castle & Martin, 2006; Dowden & Tellier, 2004; Lambert, Paoline, & Hogan, 2006). While the significance of demographic variables (e.g., gender, education, age, race, job tenure, size of institution) varies from study to study, most research has found only limited associations between individual demographic variables and workplace stress (e.g., Armstrong et al., 2015; Lambert et al., 2017; Lambert & Paoline, 2010). Some researchers have found that demographic factors had no predictive utility when accounting for contributors to workplace stress in corrections (Lambert et al., 2016; Owen, 2006; Wells et al., 2009), while others have found that gender (Auerbach et al., 2003; Cheeseman & Downey, 2012; Cullen et al., 1985), race (Auerbach et al., 2003; Wright & Saylor, 1992), age (Cheeseman & Downey, 2012), or job tenure (Auerbach et al., 2003) were associated with workplace stress. Steiner and Wooldredge (2015) examined institution size as a possible correlate of workplaces stress, but they found no relationship. We think it is important to include the size of the institution (as measured by the number of employees in the prison) as a control variable here because we anticipate that wardens managing larger institutions may be more likely to experience higher levels of stress. While literature is conflicting on the importance and significance of demographic variables and workplace stress, the importance of measuring and accounting for them in this and other studies is uncontestable. We therefore include key demographic indicators, though we do not expect to find significant associations with work-related stress.

Method

Survey Design

For this study, we used data collected in a nationwide survey of prison wardens funded by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC). There were two purposes for developing and administering the survey. One purpose was to gather information about the necessary knowledge/ability/skills required to be a successful prison warden. This information was used to update a NIC manual for U.S. prison wardens to use. The second purpose was to gather information about job stress and burnout, job expectations, workload, job autonomy, and job satisfaction from a previously unexplored national sample of prison wardens to add to the scholarly research in this important, yet understudied, area.

The first draft of the survey was created after an extensive review of the appropriate literature and numerous discussions about the challenges of managing a prison with 24 NIC selected wardens, with whom a paper version of the survey was then pretested. Most of them recommended that we reduce the number of questions by asking only “straight-forward” and “specific” questions. For example, a five-item measure of work-related stress was originally included, and most of wardens suggested that we simply ask whether they feel stress on the job. As such, we decreased the number of survey questions by changing many of the multiitem measures to single-item measures, even though most of the research in this area used multiitem measures. Using single-item measures for these complex concepts is a limitation of this study.

The revised survey was put online using SurveyMonkey and it was pretested again by wardens from seven states. The feedback was mostly positive, but most respondents again suggested shortening the survey. Because the 105 questions about knowledge/ability/skills were required by NIC to remain on the survey and the multiitem measures were already reduced to single-item measures, we decided to keep all of the survey questions.

Survey Administration

While developing the survey, we created a comprehensive list of prison wardens in the United States. In the absence of an existing national list of contact information for prison wardens, pertinent information from the websites of each state’s Department of Corrections was collected. This arduous process generated a list of 898 prison warden names and email addresses. A test email was sent to everyone on the list, explaining the project and providing them with a notice about the upcoming survey.

After adjusting our email list based on the test emails, the SurveyMonkey link was sent to a total of 877 validated email addresses in 2013. A total of 313 surveys were completed, for a 36% response rate. It is important to note that some of the wardens did not respond to the survey question about the state in which they currently work and no other state identifiers were included in the survey to maintain anonymity. As such, it was not clear whether the following states were represented in our sample: Illinois, Washington, Georgia, Maine, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire.

Variable Measurement

Dependent Variable

We included one question on the survey that specifically and directly measured the dependent variable, work-related stress. This single-item measure for worked-related stress was, “I feel stressed on the job.” The prison wardens rated how often they felt stress on the job using a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = everyday). See Table 1 for questions/coding of the dependent, independent, and control variables.

Table 1:

Survey Items, Scales, and Descriptive Statistics of Variables ( n = 313)

Variable and survey item	Scale	Descriptive statistics
Work-related stress I feel stressed on the job.	1 = Never	9%
	2 = A few times a year	41%
	3 = Once a month or less	13%
	4 = A few times a month	15%
	5 = Once a week	6%
	6 = A few times a week	11%
	7 = Everyday	5%
Conflicting job expectations I feel caught between conflicting expectations on the job.	1 = Never	18%
	2 = A few times a year	32%
	3 = Once a month or less	11%
	4 = A few times a month	14%
	5 = Once a week	8%
	6 = A few times a week	11%
	7 = Everyday	6%
Job Autonomy I have the authority needed to carry out my job responsibilities	1 = Never	1%
	2 = A few times a year	2%
	3 = Once a month or less	1%
	4 = A few times a month	5%
	5 = Once a week	2%
	6 = A few times a week	19%
	7 = Everyday	70%
and
I feel in control of what decisions I make on the job.	1 = Never	1%
	2 = A few times a year	0%
	3 = Once a month or less	1%
	4 = A few times a month	1%
	5 = Once a week	1%
	6 = A few times a week	21%
	7 = Everyday	75%
Workload I am responsible for an unmanageable workload.	1 = Never	32%
	2 = A few times a year	27%
	3 = Once a month or less	8%
	4 = A few times a month	12%
	5 = Once a week	5%
	6 = A few times a week	8%
	7 = Everyday	8%
Years worked as prison warden	Number of years	M = 6 years;SD = 6 years
Age of prison warden	Actual age	M = 52 years;SD = 6 years
Size of institution	Number of employees who work in the prison	M = 381 employeesSD = 445 employees
Education	1 = Less than high school	0%
	2 = High school/equivalent	16%
	3 = Associate’s degree	11%
	4 = Bachelor’s degree	50%
	5 = Master’s degree	22%
	6 = Doctoral degree	1%
Gender	0 = male	78%
Gender	1 = female	22%
Race	0 = non-Caucasian	23%
Race	1 = Caucasian	77%

Independent Variables

The first independent variable, conflicting job expectations, was measured using a single-item measure. The specific survey question was, “I feel caught between conflicting expectations on the job.” Prison wardens indicated how often they feel caught between conflicting job expectations using a 7-point Likert-type scale (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = everyday).

For the second independent variable, job autonomy, a two-item measure was used. Prison wardens answered these questions using the same 7-point Likert-type scale used for the other variables (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = everyday): (a) “I have the authority needed to carry out my job responsibilities”; and (b) “I feel in control of what decisions I make on the job.” The correlation coefficient for these two questions was .58, indicating a strong correlation and a reliability analysis was also computed for these two survey questions (Cronbach’s α = .71). As such, we used the average/mean rating for the two questions to create the measure for job autonomy.

The final independent variable was measured by asking prison wardens to rate how often they were responsible for an unmanageable workload. The survey question was, “I am responsible for an unmanageable workload,” and wardens used the same 7-point Likert-type scale for their responses (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = everyday).

Control Variables

Based on previous literature, six control variables were included in the model. The number of years served as a prison warden, age of the prison warden, and size of the institution were measured as interval-level variables. Education was measured as an ordinal-level variable, and gender and race were measured as dummy variables (see Table 1 for coding).

Analysis Plan

For this analysis, the dependent variable, work-related stress, has meaningful order and has more than two categories, so ordered logistic regression was an appropriate statistical technique to utilize. No multicollinearity was detected between the independent variables on the correlation matrix, so this assumption for the ordered logistic regression was met. In addition, a full likelihood ratio test was run and the proportional odds assumption was also met.

We used ordered logistic regression to analyze the effect all of the independent variables and control variables on work-related stress, but we also examined whether any of the independent variables explained a greater degree of variance when run separately rather than as part of an overall likelihood model. Hence, we analyzed four models using ordered logistic regression: (a) one model including all independent variables and the control variables, (b) one model with just the independent variable “conflicting job expectations” and the control variables; (c) one model with just the independent “job autonomy” variable and the control variables; and (d) one model with the independent “workload” and the control variables.

Findings

Descriptive Results

The descriptive statistics for the variables are listed in Table 1. For work-related stress, the percentages are fairly dispersed, but the majority of prison wardens experienced work-related stress a few times a month or less. The majority of respondents experienced conflicting job expectations a few times a month or less. The majority of prison wardens felt they have the authority to carry out their job responsibilities and control to make decisions almost daily. For the unmanageable workload variable, the prison wardens indicated that they experienced an unmanageable workload a few times a year or less.

In terms of the control variables, survey respondents have served in the position of warden ranging from .5 to 39 years, with a mean of 6 years. The size of the institution ranged from 21 to 6,000 employees, with a mean of 381 employees. Demographically, respondents’ ages ranged from 32 to 75, with an average age of 52. The majority were males (78%) and Caucasian (77%), and most have at least a bachelor’s degree (73%).

Correlation Results

The results of the correlation analysis are listed in Table 2. As expected, there were strong and positive relationships between work-related stress and conflicting job expectations (.50) and unmanageable workloads (.41), and both relationships are statistically significant at the .01 level. The correlation between the work-related stress and job autonomy was negative and significant (–.14), but the relationship was weak.

Table 2:

Correlation Matrix for Work-Related Stress, Conflicting Job Expectations, Job Autonomy, Unmanageable Workload, Education, Age, Years Worked as Prison Warden, Size of Institution, Gender, and Race ( n = 313)

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Work-related stress	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
2. Conflicting expectations	.50**	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
3. Job autonomy	−.14*	−.24**	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
4. Unmanageable workload	.41**	.44**	−.20**	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
5. Education	−.04	.06	.01	−.05	—	—	—	—	—	—
6. Age	−.09	−.05	.03	−.13*	.18**	—	—	—	—	—
7. Years worked as warden	−.04	−.07	−.04	−.01	.21**	.42**	—	—	—	—
8. Size of institution	.15**	.14*	.02	.05	−.0	−.03	−.10	—	—	—
9. Gender	−.01	−.07	−.03	−.08	.17*	−.08	.42**	−.06	—	—
10. Race	−.02	−.02	−.07	−.08	−.08	−.06	.03	.01	−.07	—

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

The findings showed no significant relationships between work-related stress and age, gender, education level, or number of years served as a prison warden, but there was a positive and significant correlation between work-related stress and the size of the institution (.15). None of the correlation coefficients between the independent and control variables was greater than .70, so multicollinearity was not detected.

Ordered Logistic Regression Results

Model With All Independent Variables and Control Variables

The results of the ordered logistic regression analysis showed a positive and statistically significant relationship between work-related stress and conflicting job expectations (β = .52; see Table 3). As hypothesized, increased conflicting job expectations increased the likelihood of work-related stress. There was a positive and statistically significant relationship between work-related stress and having an unmanageable workload (β = .34), which also supports our hypothesis. The relationship between work-related stress and job autonomy was negative and significant, so a one unit increase in the job autonomy index would result in a .22 unit decrease in the ordered log-odds of work-related stress. This result also empirically supports our hypothesis that less job autonomy increased the likelihood of work-related stress.

Table 3:

Summary of Ordered Logistic Regression Analysis for Work-Related Stress, Conflicting Job Expectations, Job Autonomy, Unmanageable Workload, Education, Age, Years Worked as Prison Warden, Size of Institution, Gender, and Race ( n = 313)

Variable	Estimated value (β)	SE	Odds ratio	95% confidence interval
Variable	Estimated value (β)	SE	Odds ratio	Lower limit	Upper limit
Conflicting job expectations	.52***	.12	4.58	.31	.80
Job autonomy	−.22*	.06	2.25	−.32	−.02
Unmanageable workload	.34***	.09	3.17	.19	.41
Age	−.02	.01	0.06	−.01	.01
Years worked as prison warden	−.001	.01	0.11	−.005	.02
Size of institution	.11*	.03	1.33	.01	.22
Education (Associate)	.66	.14	0.72	.42	.84
Education (Bachelor)	.79	.17	0.81	.52	.99
Education (Master)	.54	.10	0.52	.46	.73
Education (Doctoral)	.42	.09	0.51	.28	.60
Gender (Male)	−.16	.04	0.40	−.18	.02
Race (Caucasian)	−.02	.01	0.33	−.007	−.05
χ² = 72.6***
Cox and Snell pseudo R² = .44

p < .05. ***p < .001.

The size of the institution (β = .11) had a positive and statistically significant relationship with work-related stress, but the beta value was weak. The findings showed no significant relationships between work-related stress and age, gender, education level, or number of years served as a prison warden. The Cox and Snell pseudo R² of .44 indicated that 44% of the variance was explained by the variables included in the ordered logistic regression model. The likelihood ratio chi-square test was statistically significant at the .001 level.

Model With Individual Independent Variables and Control Variables

Table 4 lists the ordered logistic regression results for the three models in which single independent variables and the control variables were regressed on work-related stress. For the first independent variable model, there was a positive and statistically significant relationship between conflicting job expectations (β = .59) and work-related stress, but no other variables were statistically significant. The Cox and Snell pseudo R² was .18 for this model.

Table 4:

Summary of Ordered Logistic Regression Analyses for Work-Related Stress (Dependent Variable) and Individual Independent Variables (Conflicting Job Expectations, Job Autonomy, Unmanageable Workload), With Education, Age, Years Worked as Prison Warden, Size of Institution, Gender, and Race ( n = 313)

Variable	Estimated value (β)	SE	Odds ratio	Estimated value (β)	SE	Odds ratio	Estimated value (β)	SE	Odds ratio
Conflicting job expectations	.59***	.18	5.01
Job autonomy				−.24*	.06	2.02
Unmanageable workload							.48**	.12	4.58
Age	.09	.02	0.05	−.01	.001	0.01	.14	.07	0.06
Years worked as warden	−.03	.01	0.10	−.14*	.02	0.98	−.09	.03	0.11
Size of institution	.08	.02	0.93	.02	.03	0.93	.19*	.03	1.33
Education (Associate)	.41	.12	0.45	.32	.09	0.52	.33	.17	0.72
Education (Bachelor)	.37	.13	0.66	.41	.11	0.47	.42	.16	0.81
Education (Master)	.40	.07	0.42	.42	.05	0.55	.45	.09	0.52
Education (Doctoral)	.32	.12	0.48	.24	.15	0.52	.24	.11	0.51
Gender (Male)	−.04	.02	0.38	.07	.01	0.22	−.06	.03	0.40
Race (Caucasian)	.03	.01	0.24	.01	.001	0.04	−.10	.01	0.33
	χ² = 54.7**			χ² = 37.3*			χ² = 61.2**
	Cox and Snell pseudo R² = .18			Cox and Snell pseudo R² = .12			Cox and Snell pseudo R² = .20

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For the second single independent variable model, the relationship between job autonomy and work-related stress was negative and statistically significant (β = −.24). Hence, for this analysis of prison wardens, more job autonomy decreased the likelihood of work-related stress. The relationship between the years worked as a prison warden and work-related stress was also negative and significant in this model (β = −.14), so those who have worked more years as a prison warden have a decreased likelihood of work-related stress. The Cox and Snell pseudo R² was .12 for this model.

Finally, the results showed a positive and statistically significant relationship between unmanageable workload and work-related stress (β = .48). For this analysis, prison wardens who experienced unmanageable workloads had an increased likelihood of work-related stress. The size of the institution (β = .19) had a positive and statistically significant relationship with work-related stress in this model, but there were no significant relationships. The Cox and Snell pseudo R² was .20 in this model.

For these three models, the Cox and Snell pseudo R² for the unmanageable workload model exhibited the most explanatory power, but the beta for conflicting job expectations was the largest of the three independent variables. Overall, the results from the collective and individual models empirically supported our hypotheses. First, increased conflicting job expectations increased the likelihood of work-related stress. Second, an unmanageable workload increased the likelihood of work-related stress. Third, the results showed that less job autonomy increased the likelihood of work-related stress.

Discussion

Workplace stress can cause various personal and institutional distress, including excessive turnover, absenteeism, decreased productivity, and negative personal and social outcomes (Dial et al., 2010; Spinaris et al., 2012). The importance of the present study lies in its ability to help isolate important factors that affect job stress among prison wardens, and we found that conflicting job expectations, unmanageable workloads, and job autonomy were significantly related to job stress irrespective of variations in other independent variables. This finding gives valuable insight for creating prison policies and procedures that may result in more effective prison management and more satisfied employees.

The results showed that conflicting job expectations and having an unmanageable workload were positively and significantly related to work-related stress. This finding occurred, whether examined as separate independent variables or analyzed in conjunction with the other workplace stressors studied here. In addition, we found that job autonomy was negatively associated with work-related stress, whether analyzed alone or alongside the study’s other key independent variables. Findings here are consistent with past research suggesting significant relationships between job expectations, job autonomy, and work-related stress among prison officials (Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2017; Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006). That is, wardens who experience clear role expectations and increased autonomy are less likely to experience high work-related stress (Lambert et al., 2010).

We hypothesized that lower levels of perceived job autonomy would be associated with increased job stress, which was supported by the analyses. Finding that job autonomy was negatively related to work-related stress implies that wardens want independence to do what they think is best for the institution and its inmates. The decreased association to stress may suggest that wardens believe autonomy signifies being trusted and valued by superiors to do their job, which is consistent with findings from other literature (Lambert, 2004; Lambert et al., 2010).

That said, warden autonomy can also lead to various and significant negative outcomes. If a warden values humanity and shows respect toward staff and inmates, such autonomy may result in an institution where employees and inmates generally feel well-cared for and fairly treated. If, on the contrary, a warden is malicious, autocratic, and/or vengeful, the institution may become inhumane, chaotic, or violent without sufficient oversight to prevent warden overreach. The finding that autonomy was negatively related to workplace stress does not illuminate the benefits or costs of such autonomy, nor does such autonomy necessarily advance institutional health and well-being. Further research should consider the impact of increased warden autonomy on institutional as well as personal stress, considering the extent to which this results in more humane and secure institutions, or ones more likely to operate through fear, chaos, and inappropriate warden behavior.

As hypothesized, our results also showed that perceived role conflict was positively related to workplace stress. It is not surprising that a warden who feels burdened by conflicting job expectations will likely feel more stressed when trying to effectively manage the institution. The combined effect of both job autonomy and role conflict may imply that role conflict is exacerbated by autonomy—that is, when autonomy and role conflict are both high, the warden may not only be left without clear direction, but also without a clear organizational mandate to meet job expectations, resulting in higher stress. On the contrary, higher autonomy might also mediate the impact of conflicting role expectations as the warden is empowered to act in whatever way he or she feels is best for the institution when direction and support from superiors is lacking. While this was not within the purview of this study, it suggests an important avenue for future research to examine the relationship between conflicting role expectations and job autonomy and its impact on institutional health.

Finding that an unmanageable workload was significantly related to increased stress is not surprising. However, whether perceptions of workload challenges were related to quantitative or qualitative factors remains unclear. That is, do wardens perceive that they have too many tasks to accomplish, or is it that the tasks are qualitatively too difficult? Either of these might result in a sense of overwhelm, but where the former may reflect just feeling inundated by not enough time or staff to get it all done, the latter may evoke feelings of insecurity or incompetence that feel more like a personal shortcoming. While the quantitative aspects of an unmanageable workload can, to some degree, be objectively assessed (there either is or is not too much work to accomplish given limited time and staff resources), the more nuanced aspects of employee stress are better found when examining more subjective variables, such as role conflict and job autonomy for which objective measures are limited and more difficult to assess. Again, though not within the scope of the current study, an avenue for subsequent research might explore not simply the fact of a relationship between an unmanageable workload and stress, but rather should better dissect its more subjective nature.

Overall, conflicting job expectations, perceived job autonomy, and having an unmanageable workload are all important elements in better understanding job-related stress for prison wardens. When considering the relevance of these findings for policymaking, the value of this study is in helping isolate factors that can decrease warden job-related stress. Understanding the specific factors that contribute to prison warden job-related stress may help correctional policy makers to run institutions that better attend to inmate and staff well-being, thus suggesting better overall organizational health. These factors are important elements in producing effective carceral institutions and upper management would be well-served by taking advantage of data that identify causes of warden stress, using it to produce policy that encourages more productive, healthier, and less volatile prison environments with less burnout, absenteeism, and higher morale.

Limitations of the Study

This research also has limitations in both scope and measurement. While the prison wardens’ survey was distributed on a national scale, we were not clear whether seven states were represented in the final outcome and response rate was not ideal. For a national survey of a traditionally untapped population for whom there is no easily-accessible contact information, that rate is not without merit, but its generalizability may be limited. Because findings tend to be consistent with such prior research, issues of generalizability may be less significant than the imperfect response rates might suggest. In fact, it may be that the limited range of research related to prison wardens is linked to the difficulty in contacting and encouraging responses among this target population, as was experienced in the present study.

There were some important variables that could not be measured in the current study and some of our variables are limited measures of the concept under study. A meta-analysis of 20 studies found that attitudes toward work and work-specific problems were the strongest predictors of job stress (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Specifically, the current study does not address work-related attitudes, specific leadership approach (either by or above the warden), job characteristics, institution security or dangerousness levels, and the number of offenders, all of which some previous literature has identified as important contributors to work-related stress in the prison environment (Atkin-Plunk & Armstrong, 2013; Blevins et al., 2006). Addressing these variables was beyond the scope of this study, but all deserve further research. Moreover, some of the variables do not provide sufficient detail to draw clear conclusions. For example, the data do not consider specific reasons that wardens feel their workload is unmanageable (e.g., too much work or too difficult work) or that their roles conflict (e.g., competing, vague, unclear, or unreasonable priorities). In addition, other than job expectations, our independent variables were each based on a single-item measure, which is a limitation for measuring complex, latent variables. Using multiitem measures could have provided more insight into each measure.

The information uncovered in this study adds to the relatively sparse knowledge about how prison wardens view the impact of conflicting role expectations, job autonomy, and workload on their experience of work-related stress. This research generally concurs with conclusions of past studies, while adding further data to cumulative research. Of considerable value, however, is that these findings derive from the only national survey of this population throughout the U.S. in recent years, and thus these results reflect some of the most comprehensive data on these topics.

Conclusion

The finding that job-related stress was associated with perceived job expectations, autonomy, and workload are not only important elements in understanding the causes of organizational stress in carceral institutions, but we assert that this has important implications for a prison warden’s ability to do his or her job well while supporting both the staff and inmates of the institution. The outcomes presented here are also consistent with previous findings that work conditions are far more important in understanding stress than personal characteristics, and corroborates the greater importance of work environment factors relative to personal factors regarding job attitudes and behaviors (Matz, Wells, Minor, & Angel, 2013).

One of the important contributions of this study is that while it provides clear indicators related to prison warden stress, it also opens avenues for future research. Specifically, future research should examine more precise factors that constitute unmanageable workloads and role conflict, as well as deeper analysis of the relationships between workload, role conflict, autonomy, and stress. Finally, future research should examine the impact of warden stress on organizational relationships and job satisfaction. Correctional administrative, managerial, and human resources policy can benefit from understanding the degree to which clear job expectations, manageable workloads, and increased job autonomy are important factors in decreasing stress and thus enhancing overall job satisfaction and institutional health.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note:

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this study are solely those of the authors. The authors wish to thank the anonymous peer reviewers of this paper whose thoughtful comments helped improve the quality of this article.

Mara Schiff is an associate professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University. Her work focuses on restorative justice research, evaluation, training and teaching, and the intersection of racial and restorative justice. She has coauthored three books, as well as articles in Criminal Justice Review, Contemporary Justice Review, Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, The Justice System Journal, and others.

Leslie Leip is the associate director of the School of Public Administration at Florida Atlantic University. Her research focuses on employee recruitment, retention, and organizational culture, as well as public sector program evaluation. She has published articles in Criminal Justice Studies, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, The Justice System Journal, and Public Administration Review.

References

Agho

A. O.

Mueller

C. W.

Price

J. L.

(1993). Determinants of employee job satisfaction: An empirical test of a causal model. Human Relations, 46, 1007-1027.

Armstrong

G. S.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Wells

(2015). The relationship between work–family conflict, correctional officer job stress, and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 1066-1082.

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, 577-592.

Atkin-Plunk

C. A.

Armstrong

G. S.

(2013). Transformational leadership skills and correlates of prison warden job stress. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 551-568.

Auerbach

S. M.

Quick

B. G.

Pegg

P. O.

(2003). General job stress and job-specific stress in juvenile correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 25-36.

Blau

J. R.

Light

S. C.

Chamlin

(1986). Individual and contextual effects on stress and job satisfaction: A study of prison staff. Work and Occupations, 13, 131-156.

Blevins

K. R.

Cullen

F. T.

Frank

Sundt

J. L.

Holmes

S. T.

(2006). Stress and satisfaction among juvenile correctional workers: A test of competing models. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44(2-3), 55-79.

Bruce

W. M.

Blackburn

J. W.

(1992). Balancing job satisfaction and performance. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Carleton

C. J.

Clain

S. H.

(2012). Women, men, and job satisfaction. Eastern Economic Journal, 38, 331-355.

10.

Carlson

J. R.

Anson

R. H.

Thomas

(2003). Correctional officer burnout and stress: Does gender matter? The Prison Journal, 83, 277-288.

11.

Castle

T. L.

(2008). Satisfied in the jail? Exploring the predictors of job satisfaction among jail officers. Criminal Justice Review, 33, 48-63.

12.

Castle

T. L.

Martin

J. S.

(2006). Occupational hazard: Predictors of stress among jail correctional officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 65-80.

13.

Cheeseman

K. A.

Downey

R. A.

(2012). Talking “bout my generation”: The effect of “generation” on correctional employee perceptions of work stress and job satisfaction. The Prison Journal, 92, 24-44.

14.

Cullen

F. T.

Link

B. G.

Wolfe

N. T.

Frank

(1985). The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly, 2, 505-528.

15.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

(2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37, 1-9.

16.

Dial

K. C.

Downey

R. A.

Goodlin

W. E.

(2010). The job in the joint: The impact of generation and gender on work stress in prison. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 609-615.

17.

Diskiene

Gostautas

(2013). A fit between individual and organizational values and its implications for employees’ job satisfaction and performance. Ekonomika, 92, 93-107.

18.

Dowden

Tellier

(2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31-47.

19.

Finn

(2000). Addressing correctional officer stress: Programs and strategies. Issues and practices. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

20.

Finney

Stergiopoulos

Hensel

Bonato

Dewa

C. S.

(2013). Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, Article 82.

21.

Frank

Lambert

E. G.

Qureshi

(2017). Examining police officer work stress using the job demands–resources model. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33, 348-367.

22.

Griffin

M. L.

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

23.

Grossi

E. L.

Keil

T. J.

Vito

G. F.

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

24.

Hepburn

J. R.

Knepper

P. E.

(1993). Correctional officers as human services workers: The effect on job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-337.

25.

Lambert

E. G.

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

26.

Lambert

E. G.

Altheimer

Hogan

N. L.

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

27.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Barton

S. M.

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

28.

Lambert

E. G.

Hogan

N. L.

Griffin

M. L.

(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.

29.

Lambert

E. G.

Kim

Keena

L. D.

Cheeseman

(2017). Testing a gendered models of job satisfaction and work stress among correctional officers. Journal of Crime & Justice, 40, 188-203.

30.

Lambert

E. G.

Minor

K. I.

Wells

J. B.

Hogan

N. L.

(2016). Social support’s relationship to correctional staff job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. The Social Science Journal, 53, 22-32.

31.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

III . (2010). Take this job and shove it: An exploratory study of turnover intent among jail staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 139-148.

32.

Lambert

E. G.

Paoline

E. A.

III Hogan

N. L.

(2006). The impact of centralization and formalization on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 23-44.

33.

C. C.

Andrew

M. E.

Fekedulegn

J. K.

Hartley

T. A.

Charles

L. E.

. . . Burchfiel

C. M.

(2015). Shift work and occupational stress in police officers. Safety and Health at Work, 6, 25-29.

34.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

35.

Matz

A. K.

Wells

J. B.

Minor

K. I.

Angel

(2013). Predictors of turnover intention among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 115-131.

36.

Moon

Maxwell

S. R.

(2004). The sources and consequences of corrections officers’ stress: A South Korean example. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 359-370.

37.

Owen

(2006). Occupational stress among correctional supervisors. The Prison Journal, 86, 164-181.

38.

Ruddell

Norris

(2008, October). The changing role of wardens: A focus on safety and security. Corrections Today, pp. 36-39.

39.

Salami

A. O.

Ojokuku

R. M.

Ilesanmi

O. A.

(2010). Impact of job stress on managers’ performance. European Journal of Scientific Research, 45, 249-260.

40.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Peeters

M. C.

(2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7, 19-48.

41.

Selye

(1973). The evolution of the stress concept: The originator of the concept traces its development from the discovery in 1936 of the alarm reaction to modern therapeutic applications of syntoxic and catatoxic hormones. American Scientist, 61, 692-699.

42.

Simms

(2001). Surveying the correctional environment: A review of the literature. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(2), 1-12.

43.

Spinaris

C. G.

Denhof

M. D.

Kellaway

J. A.

(2012). Posttraumatic stress disorder in United States corrections professionals: Prevalence and impact on health and functioning. Florence, CO: Desert Waters Correctional Outreach.

44.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2015). Individual and environmental sources of work stress among prison officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 800-818.

45.

Taxman

F. S.

Gordon

J. A.

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

46.

Tewksbury

Higgins

G. E.

(2006). Prison staff and work stress: The role of organizational and emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 247-266.

47.

Toch

Klofas

(1982). Alienation and desire for job enrichment among correction officers. Federal Probation, 46, 35-44.

48.

Triplett

Mullings

J. L.

Scarborough

K. E.

(1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 291-308.

49.

Tyagi

Dhar

R. L.

(2014). Factors affecting health of the police officials: Mediating role of job stress. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37, 649-664.

50.

Waters

J. E.

(1999). The impact of work resources on job stress among correctional treatment staff. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 20, 26-34.

51.

Wells

J. B.

Minor

K. I.

Angel

Matz

A. K.

Amato

(2009). Predictors of job stress among staff in juvenile correctional facilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 245-258.

52.

Wright

K. N.

Saylor

W. G.

(1992). A comparison of perceptions of the work environment between minority and nonminority employees of the federal prison system. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 63-71.