Abstract
In Stress and the Correctional Officer, Dr. Dial expands on her previous research by demonstrating correlations between demographics and sources of stress as well as the connections between work stress, life stress, job satisfaction, institutional structure, and support systems (both supervisory and peer-based). This book appears to be written with either the practitioner or the undergraduate in mind, as each chapter includes a review of key terms, a list of potential discussion questions, and suggestions for further reading.
After a brief overview of corrections, Dr. Dial goes into detail about the roles and challenges faced by correctional officers. She notes that officers are expected to supervise inmates under a wide variety of circumstances and in many cases are expected to work varied shifts, including weekends and holidays, which can cause stress. She also briefly touches on the conflict between the supervisory power of correctional employees and the stresses of supervising a group of people who do not want to be supervised. Dr. Dial accomplishes this by introducing the reader to Sykes' (1958) The Society of Captives, Goffman’s (1961) On the Characteristics of Total Institutions, and Hepburn’s (1985) article on the exercise of power in coercive organizations in Criminology. What could be expanded from this important but short section of the book is the discussion of discretion. Sykes' explanation of overlooking minor infractions in favor of compliance with more serious concerns overlooks the fact that formal discipline is not necessarily required for all instances of misconduct. Many correctional agencies have discretion built into the discipline system, but that discretion can sometimes be tendered by supervisory expectations, which can be inconsistent and may be a partial explanation for the responses received in her study regarding the existence of role conflict and the perceptions of lack of supervisory support. Often, role conflict is characterized in criminological literature as the push and pull of coercive versus rehabilitative ideals (Hemmens & Stohr, 2000), but as the author noted, one of Brodsky’s (1982) primary sources of officer stress was the perception of not being “backed” when attacked or goaded by inmates. When this is combined with the findings by Wright, Saylor, Gilman, and Camp (1997) that autonomy (the ability to use discretion to make decisions) is a key contributor to job satisfaction, it becomes apparent that autonomy, role conflict, and supervisory support are all closely related.
Role ambiguity and conflict do not necessarily stem from the lack of discretion but rather a lack of direction. When policies change without explanation or reason, when officers do not feel their concerns are taken seriously, or when they feel their decisions are being not supported, staff begin to feel conflicted and perceive a lack of support from their supervisors. The author herself noted this when she wrote that changes came from the administration too quickly and resulted in confusion among the line staff about what they should be looking for and what they should be enforcing on a daily basis (pp. 129–130). The stress comes from a lack of consistency.
Dr. Dial devotes a considerable amount of time to discussing the correctional officer subculture and its relationship to stress, noting its positive as well as its negative points. She notes that the correctional officer subculture is similar to the police subculture in that it fosters distance and mistrust between officer and supervisor. Common experiences with dangerousness, coupled with role ambiguity and conflict can cause officers to seek each other’s company and solace, giving rise to a subcultural identity. Dr. Dial believes subcultures can be positive in the form of increased peer support but can also cause stress when the norms of the individual conflict with the norms of the group, such as when an officer has knowledge of another staff member engaging in unethical behavior but the norms of the group prevent giving the officer up to administration officials.
Dr. Dial’s principle contribution to the body of work on correctional officer stress comes from her own research into sources of stress and satisfaction. Using a purposive survey of 501 staff members in the Texas Department of Corrections, Dr. Dial created scales to measure role conflict, job dangerousness, supervisory support, peer support, family support, work stress, life stress, job pay, and job satisfaction. One noteworthy result was the observation that staff members reporting supervisory support also reported peer support (r = .452), were less likely to report work stress (r = −.435), and reported less overall life stress (r = −.249). When predicting supervisory support using multiple linear regressions, the most significant predictor was role conflict—those who reported conflict were less likely to report supervisory support (B = −.340).
In addition to the data and related discussion on supervisory support and individual stress, Dr. Dial delves into other areas of stress, such as the unique stressors experienced by females. She notes in her original data that females are less likely to feel peer support (B = −.762) and reported higher levels of work stress (B = 1.023). She also observed through her own experiences that females and minorities tended to create their own support networks, often to the exclusion of others.
The focus of the book, however, is on the impact support systems have on stress. Dr. Dial believes supervisors who engage in unidirectional communications increase stress among line staff, and briefly touches on relevant leadership literature, such as McGregor's (1960) X and Y theory. Although structure is deemed necessary and discretion is available but limited, Dr. Dial asserts that role ambiguity and stress are related to officer perceptions of leadership shortcomings, particularly a lack of consistency exacerbated by minimal engagement. Dr. Dial then advocates for a correctional management style based on a human resources perspective, using the principles of mutual respect and open communication. This may not relieve all the sources of stress, but consistent messages on the roles staff are expected to fulfill can reduce the stress inherent in this difficult but essential aspect of the criminal justice system.