Correlates of Correctional Orientation in a Treatment-Oriented Prison

• Date: 01 May 2011
• Published date: 01 May 2011
• DOI: 10.1177/0093854811400716
• Author: Irshad Altheimer,Eric G. Lambert,Nancy L. Hogan,Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa
• Subject Matter: Articles

453

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2011 453-470

DOI: 10.1177/0093854811400716

© 2011 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

AUTHORS’ NOTE: The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors

also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions to improve the article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Eric Lambert, Department of Criminal Justice,

3281 Faculty Administration Building, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: dz9258@wayne.edu.

CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL

ORIENTATION IN A TREATMENT-

ORIENTED PRISON

A Partial Test of Person–Environment Fit Theory

ERIC G. LAMBERT

IRSHAD ALTHEIMER

Wayne State University

NANCY L. HOGAN

Ferris State University

SHANNON M. BARTON-BELLESSA

Indiana State University

This exploratory study examined several propositions of person–environment fit theory in an adult midwestern correctional

facility oriented toward treatment. Special attention was given to the manner that person–organization fit influenced correctional

staff outcomes. Drawing from the need–supply fit framework of person–environment fit theory, the authors predicted that

correctional staff whose values and objectives were congruent with those of the institution would experience better outcomes

than staff whose values and objectives were not congruent. The results generally supported these propositions. Staff who sup-

ported punishment had higher levels of role stress and work–family conflict, had lower levels of life satisfaction and moral

commitment, and were more likely to perceive the organization as unfair. Conversely, correctional staff who were supportive

of treatment perceived higher levels of integration and had higher moral commitment. These results suggest that efforts to

increase value congruence between staff and the institution will improve outcomes among correctional staff.

Keywords: correctional staff; person–environment fit theory; support for treatment; support for punishment; role stress;

organizational fairness; integration; life satisfaction; moral commitment

At the end of 2008, the United States housed more than 1.6 million adults in more than

1,200 correctional facilities, which collectively employed 350,000 people (Pastore &

Maguire, 2009; Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). The sheer magnitude of these figures establishes

corrections as a major social institution. The government allocates a sizable portion of its

budget to fund institutional corrections. Pastore and Maguire (2009) estimated that the annual

cost of corrections was more than $35 billion, and Camp and Gaes (2002) estimated that staff

expenditures accounted for 70% to 80% of a prison’s operating budget. The labor-intensive

nature of corrections means that the success or failure of an institution may well be based on

the quality of its staff.

454 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

Armstrong and Griffin (2004) were correct when they pointed out that “correctional

institutions are unique work environments in both context and purpose” (p. 577). Staff must

supervise and manage an unwilling group of adults who pose a potential risk of violence.

The myriad tasks, duties, and responsibilities that staff perform help ensure the detention of

offenders in a safe, secure, and humane environment. Furthermore, the reciprocal nature of

the work (i.e., the staff affect the prison and the prison affects the staff) highlights the need

to understand this relationship for the success of both staff and the institution.

The person–environment fit (P-E fit) theory (Lewin, 1938; Parsons, 1909) lays a founda-

tion for the relationship between a worker and the employing organization and helps explain

the perceptions, attitudes, views, intentions, and behaviors of correctional staff (Cable &

Edwards, 2004). Essentially, the P-E fit theory is defined as the match between a person and

his or her environment (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). There needs

to be congruence between the attributes of the person and the environment (Cable & Edwards,

2004). If there is congruence, there is fit; if not, there is misfit. In this study, we examined

the relationship between support for punishment and support for treatment with various

outcome areas with staff at a treatment-oriented prison. The outcome areas observed were

role stress, organizational fairness, the impact of work-family conflict (hereafter referred to

as work-on-family conflict), integration (i.e., perception of group cohesion and cooperation

within an organization), life satisfaction, and moral commitment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

P-E FIT THEORY

The P-E fit theory traces its roots back to the vocational congruence idea proposed by

Parsons (1909), and it took shape with the work of Lewin (1938). The P-E fit theory is,

therefore, based on an interactional perspective, which states that an interaction between an

individual and his or her environment helps shape various outcomes (Sekiguchi, 2004a,

2004b). Most of the research on this theory has focused on the work environment (Cable &

Edwards, 2004). A good fit usually results in positive outcomes for the employee and the

organization, whereas a poor fit generally results in negative outcomes (Kristof, 1996).

There are four major aspects of the P-E fit theory (Judge & Ferris, 1992; Kristof, 1996;

Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). First, the person–vocation or person–occupation fit

is the broadest aspect of the theory. This area focuses on the vocational or occupational selec-

tions made by an individual and whether the selection fits the person. Holland (1959)

proposed that people should obtain employment in fields that fit them best; therefore, if a

person elects to work in a field that does not meet his or her needs, the person will likely be

disappointed. The second aspect of the P-E fit theory, person–group fit, focuses on how an

employee fits in with work teams and other groups of people, including coworkers, and the

compatibility between individual employees and their work groups, including skills, person-

alities, and personal relationships (Higgins & Sekiguchi, 2006; Kristof, 1996). The third area

of the P-E fit theory, person–job fit, centers on the fit between an individual with his or her

job, essentially the fit between what the person expects and wants from the job and what

actually occurs (i.e., the demands placed on the worker and the ability of the worker to man-

age these demands; Dawis, 1992; Edwards, 1991). The person–job fit refers to the congruence