The Influence of Rehabilitative and Punishment Ideology on Correctional Officers’ Perceptions of Informal Bases of Power

• Author: Jill A. Gordon,Amy J. Stichman
• Date: 01 October 2016
• Published date: 01 October 2016
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586414
• Subject Matter: Articles

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2016, Vol. 60(14) 1591 –1608

© The Author(s) 2015

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X15586414

ijo.sagepub.com

Article

The Influence of Rehabilitative

and Punishment Ideology

on Correctional Officers’

Perceptions of Informal

Bases of Power

Jill A. Gordon1 and Amy J. Stichman2

Abstract

Maintaining order is a key goal for prison managers. Much of the research on order

maintenance focuses, however, on disruptions of order, even when order is more

common. Examining factors related to perceptions on how officers get inmates to

comply is, therefore, an important consideration. Using a survey of correctional

officers from a Mid-Atlantic state, this study considers three dimensions of French

and Raven’s theory on the bases of power. The focus is to examine correctional

orientation and compliance regarding three dimensions of power that rely on informal

control and relationships. The results indicate that officers’ belief in rehabilitative

ideals is consistently related to the dimensions of legitimate, referent, and expert

control. Other individual and organizational factors are also related to dimensions of

power. Implications for policies and for future research are discussed.

Keywords

correctional officer, correctional ideology, bases of power

Introduction

The size of the imprisoned population in the United States is extraordinary, consider-

ing that today there are more than 1.4 million inmates being watched by half a million

1L. DouglasWilderSchool of Government and Public Affairs, Richmond, VA, USA

2North DakotaStateUniversity, Fargo, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jill A. Gordon, L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, 923 W. Franklin Street,

Richmond, VA 23284, USA.

Email: jagordon@vcu.edu

586414IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X15586414International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyGordon and Stichman

research-article2015

1592 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 60(14)

employees across thousands of prisons (Maguire, 2012). The control of the prison

environment ultimately lies in the hands of the officers, administrators, and staff.

Maintaining order in prison is essential for the safety of all, yet we know little about

compliance in prison. The primary focus has been on the breakdown of order rather

than the maintenance of it, as illustrated with literature emphasizing collective action

by prisoners (e.g., Colvin, 1992, 2007; Steiner, 2009; Useem & Goldstone, 2002;

Useem & Kimball, 1989; Useem & Piehl, 2006; Useem & Reisig, 1999); individuals’

violence, such as inmates’ rule breaking, disciplinary infractions; inmate on inmate

violence (e.g., Camp, Gaes, Logan, & Saylor, 2003; S. A. French & Gendreau, 2006;

Huebner, 2003; Steiner, 2009; Steiner & Wooldredge, 2008); or inmate on staff vio-

lence (e.g., Huebner, 2003). Given this, a shift in focus examining efforts related to

maintaining order is warranted and suggested by Marquart (2008) who advises con-

centrating on “why don’t they [inmates] riot.” A facet of this equation lies within the

understanding of the officers’ perceptions and means of gaining control within the

prison environment.

One organizational theory used to explore how officers gain compliance is J. R. P.

French and Raven’s (1959) bases of power (Hepburn, 1985; Stichman & Gordon,

2014; Stojkovic, 1984, 1986). In prison, order can be achieved through five types of

power: coercive (e.g., physical force), reward (formal and informal benefits), expert

(skills), legitimate (respect for the officer’s position), and referent (respect for the

officer himself or herself). Although there has been criticism on the lack of clarity in

defining these power bases (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980; Rahim, 1989; Rahim &

Buntzman, 1991), this typology is the most widely used of all the power definitions

and applied to numerous organizations and situations (e.g., Aquinis, Nesler, Quigley,

Lee, & Tedeschi, 1996; Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1990, 1994; Raven, 1988). Among

correctional employees, research suggests that some types of power may be more

effective than others in changing behavior and leading to greater commitment to the

organization by employees (Rahim & Buntzman, 1991; Stichman & Gordon, 2014;

Stojkovic, Kalinich & Klofas, 2007).

Intuitively, correctional staff influence affects the day-to-day interactions and com-

pliance among inmates; as discussed in the literature, they play a pivotal role in the

daily environment. Therefore, considering officers’ perception of how they view the

characteristics, functions, and impact of their job on the environment is critical (Kifer,

Hemmens, & Stohr, 2003; Liebling, 2000; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2013). It is the

precise balance in the relationship between officers and inmates that upholds harmony

through the use of legitimacy and power (Liebling, 2004; Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay,

1996). Research indicates positive staff to prisoner relationships and use of informal

interactions are more likely to exist when the existence of rehabilitative ideals are

present or held by officers (Crewe, Liebling, & Hulley, 2011). And while some infor-

mation exists, to date, examining the perceived means of gaining compliance of

inmates among correctional staff has not considered correctional orientation. Given

this, the present study examined officer orientation to predict perceptions toward the

base of power that rely on building a culture of legitimacy, informal control, respect,

and understanding rather than the use of physical or incentives to gain compliance.