Correctional Officer Culture in Canada: Proving Oneself for In-Group Acceptance

• Published date: 01 December 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00328855231208014
• Author: Marina Carbonell,Rosemary Ricciardelli
• Date: 01 December 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Correctional Off‌icer

Culture in Canada:

Proving Oneself for

In-Group Acceptance

Marina Carbonell

1

and Rosemary Ricciardelli

1

Abstract

Correctional off‌icers (COs) work in a unique climate of continual carceral

care, balancing interpersonal relationships, prison dynamics, with organiza-

tional and occupational duties. Drawing on semi-structured interviews

with COs (n=72) employed in federal penitentiaries in Canada, we explore

factors inf‌luencing CO culture and peer acceptance. Using a constructed

semi-grounded approach, we analyze how CO behaviors and values shape

CO culture and illustrate how proving oneself is fundamental to in-group

acceptance. Findings support the importance of proving oneself to CO

acceptance, through developing trust, putting in time, performance, work

ethic, showing respect, and by having each other’s backs on the job.

Keywords

occupational work culture, correctional off‌icer culture, prison studies

Introduction

Correctional off‌icers (COs) perform their occupational responsibilities within

a climate of continual carceral care, balancing relationships with colleagues

1

Memorial University of Newfoundland Marine Institute, St. John’s, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Rosemary Ricciardelli, Ocean and Public Safety Laboratory, School of Maritime Studies,

Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Fisheries and Marine Institute, 155 Ridge Road, St.

John’s, NL A1C 5R3, Canada.

Email: rricciardell@mun.ca; rose.ricciardelli@mi.mun.ca

Article

The Prison Journal

2023, Vol. 103(6) 791–811

© 2023 SAGE Publications

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00328855231208014

journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj

and people whoare incarcerated (PWAI),with other organizationaland occupa-

tional duties (Ricciardelli & McKendy, 2020; Ricciardelli & Perry, 2016).Their

work cultures are shaped by formal and informal processes (Ricciardelli &

McKendy, 2020), each informed by shared meanings (Klofas & Toch, 1982;

Lombardo, 1985; Rudes & Magnuson, 2019). Occupational culture, as

def‌ined by Farkas and Manning (1997), refers to “the values, beliefs, material

objects and taken-for-granted knowledge associated with a full-time occupa-

tional role”that “serves to mediate, buffer, and otherwise pattern the conf‌licts”

members of an occupational group face (p. 57). Culture, however, varies by

institution, “pod,”and unit, and is constructed at diverse levels of occupational

responsibility and duties (front line, supervisors, management, CO, health pro-

vision, etc.) with different social norms presenting within each group (Farkas &

Manning, 1997). Even within CO subgroups, attitudes, informed by and resul-

tant from culture, vary with the diversity in social norms (Duffee, 1974). Also

inf‌luencing occupational culture are internal (e.g., PWAI, policies) and external

(e.g., policies, government) factors (Farkas & Manning, 1997)—each making

the CO workspace increasingly diverse. However, how COs navigate correc-

tional culture and how culture shapes the CO workplace is unders tudied, repre-

senting a lacuna in knowledge. In response, we draw on analyses of transcripts

from semi-structured interviews with COs (n=72) employed in federal

Canadian penitentiaries to discern the factors inf‌luencing CO culture and,

ultimately, how these factors relate to peer acceptance (i.e., creating an

in- and out-group). We analyze how CO behaviors and values shape their

culture and illustrate the foundational role of “proving oneself”for in-group

acceptance, which is critical for occupational safety.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

Work groups are vital to organizations; having a central role in employee sat-

isfaction (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Social groups change systems (Packer,

2014) and evolve systems as group membership changes over time (Cini,

2001; Moreland, 1985; Moreland & Levine, 2002), where introducing new

workers (new group members) facilitate the evolution (Cini, 2001). In any

f‌ield, work team changes can negatively or positively affect work operations,

inf‌luencing relationships between experienced colleagues and how experi-

enced employees see each other (McCarter & Sheremeta, 2013). Thus, new

employees can create stress for established workers, with new and experi-

enced workers inf‌luencing each other (Cini, 2001; McCarter & Sheremeta,

2013). The labelling of groups shapes how people perceive, and even stereo-

type, groups (Yzerbyt et al., 1997), which can lead to in-group/out-group

classif‌ication.

792 The Prison Journal 103(6)