To Be Involved or Not to Be Involved: Testing Prison Staff Job Involvement Using the Job Demands–Job Resources Model

• Published date: 01 October 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231184136
• Author: David C. May,Eric G. Lambert,Monica Solinas-Saunders,Linda D. Keena,Matthew Leone,Stacy H. Haynes
• Date: 01 October 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034231184136

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2023, Vol. 34(5) 438 –461

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/08874034231184136

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

To Be Involved or Not to Be

Involved: Testing Prison Staff

Job Involvement Using the

Job Demands–Job Resources

Model

David C. May1, Eric G. Lambert2,

Monica Solinas-Saunders2, Linda D. Keena3,

Matthew Leone4, and Stacy H. Haynes1

Abstract

In this study, data were used from 322 employees at a large medium- and maximum-

security prison in the Southern United States to examine the influence of job

demands (dangerousness of the job, role overload, role ambiguity) and job resources

(employee input into decision-making, instrumental communication, job variety)

on employee job involvement. We also controlled for demographic characteristics

(gender, age, position, tenure, and educational attainment). Drawing on the job

demands–job resources model, four separate equations were estimated to assess

the influence of job demands and job resources both separately and jointly. Overall,

job resources (specifically, employee input into decision-making and job variety) have

a stronger influence on job involvement than do job demands. The findings indicate

that to boost employee job involvement in correctional settings, employers must

implement policies and practices that facilitate the sharing of job resources in the

work environment. Implications for policy and future research are also discussed.

Keywords

job demands–resources model, prison staff, job involvement, job demands, job

resources

1Mississippi State University, MS, USA

2Indiana University Northwest, Gary, USA

3The University of Mississippi, University, USA

4The University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Corresponding Author:

David C. May, Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University, 287 Bowen Hall, P.O. Box C,

Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.

Email: dmay@soc.msstate.edu

1184136CJPXXX10.1177/08874034231184136Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMay et al.

research-article2023

May et al. 439

There are approximately 758,000 correctional staff in the United States (Buehler,

2021). Roughly 392,600 of these staff are correctional officers in prisons and jails

(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021) who are responsible for ensuring the control, super-

vision, and safety of incarcerated persons. Correctional staff include all those who

work in a correctional facility, both custodial staff (e.g., correctional officers) and non-

custodial staff (e.g., counselors, teachers, medical staff, food service workers, industry

personnel, supervisors, managers, and administrators) (Lambert, Hogan, Barton, &

Clarke, 2002). Collectively, correctional staff supervise over two million incarcerated

individuals (Kluckow & Zeng, 2022). Correctional staff across the United States have

demanding jobs, making sure that incarcerated individuals and the community are safe

by operating safe, secure, and humane correctional institutions. Correction employees

are a valuable and expensive resource. According to data from a national survey in

2015, U.S. state prisons in the 45 participating states cost taxpayers almost $43 billion,

and most (68%) of these expenditures pertained to employees—that is, training, pay,

overtime, and benefits (Mai & Subramanian, 2017). In fact, states allocated roughly

$30 billion for correctional staff (Mai & Subramanian, 2017).

Ensuring correctional staff are motivated by (and involved in) their work is impor-

tant (Griffin et al., 2010; Moon & Maxwell, 2004; Ricciardelli & Martin, 2017; Sorge

et al., 2021). Job involvement refers to one’s emotional and cognitive state in relation

to their job (Kanungo, 1982; Otu et al., 2022), and measures of job involvement exam-

ine the level of bond (i.e., connection) an employee has to their job (Lambert, Hogan,

et al., 2020). In general, job involvement might be the result of either intrinsic motiva-

tion, such as ego, self-esteem, or other personal interest (Vroom, 1962), or extrinsic

motivation, such as money, job security, or success (Seeman, 1971). Because of the

nature of correctional work, lack of job involvement among correctional employees

could lead to dangerous patterns for both the employees themselves and those they are

meant to protect (Griffin et al., 2010), as uninvolved officers may be less likely to

focus on those parts of the job most important to the safety and security of inmates.

Identifying antecedents of job involvement is thus important in the field of corrections

research (Lambert & Paoline, 2012).

Extant research has focused on job involvement as either a positive or negative

outcome. For instance, studies have examined the role of employee job involvement

in the form of job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Brown, 1996; Cooper-

Hakim & Viswesvaran, 2005). Studies have also investigated how job involvement

may lead to work–family conflict (Brown, 1996). In general, however, studies found

that job involvement has a positive influence on both motivation (Brown, 1996; Kahn,

1992; Lawler & Hall, 1970) and employee performance (Rotenberry & Moberg,

2007). Based on a meta-analysis of 212 studies of job involvement, Brown (1996)

concluded that when employees were engaged in their work, they tend to have more

meaningful and fulfilling experiences, leading to improved work outcomes.

In the field of corrections, job involvement has been explored as an outcome

(Lambert et al., 2013; Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021;

Lambert & Paoline, 2012) and as an antecedent (Griffin et al., 2020). As an outcome,

studies found that employee trust in the organization, in the form of administrator trust