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

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: [email protected]
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
Lambert et al. / CORRELATES OF CORRECTIONAL
ORIENTATION 455
between an employee and his or her job and not the entire
organization; therefore, a person
can have a poor fit on one position but have a better fit in a
different job within the same

organization (Kristof, 1996). The person–organization fit, the
fourth area, refers to the com-
patibility between the employee and the organization, including
the fit between the individual’s
values and views with the culture, values, goals, and norms of
the organization (Kristof,
1996). This area deals with the extent to which the employee
and the organization share
similar values, views, and goals (Kristof, 1996). The current
study is derived from this last
aspect of the P-E theory, that there needs to be a fit between the
personal values of the
employee and the goals and objectives of the organization
(Adkins, Russell, & Werbel, 1994).
Additionally, the P-E fit theory has two major frameworks: the
demand–abilities fit and
the needs–supply fit. The demand–abilities fit focuses on the
demands of the job and the orga-
nization as compared to the abilities of the worker (Sekiguchi,
2004a, 2004b). The needs–supply
fit focuses on the needs of the worker versus what is provided
by the organization (Kristof,
1996; Sekiguchi, 2004b). That is, needs–supply fit is the fit
between the needs, preferences,
and wants of the employee with the structure and function of the
organization (Cable & Judge,
1994). The current study used the needs–supply framework.
CORRECTIONAL STAFF RESEARCH
Even without realizing it, many correctional researchers have
either directly or indirectly
tested the P-E fit theory, with many focusing on the person–job
fit aspect. For example, role
conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload all cause too many

demands, eventually resulting
in reduced job satisfaction and increased job stress (Triplett,
Mullings, & Scarborough, 1996;
Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991). In the end,
imbalanced job demands lead to poor
fit between the worker and the job, which ultimately results in
negative outcomes for the
employee and possibly the organization as well. When there is a
better fit between the
employee and his or her job, positive outcomes are more likely.
There is indirect evidence
to support the contention that the person–group fit is important
in the field of institutional
corrections. The job characteristics of job variety and job
autonomy have been positively
linked with job satisfaction among correctional staff (Jurik &
Winn, 1987; Wright, Saylor,
Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Supervisory support has been
positively associated with job satis-
faction and inversely related to job stress (Lambert, 2004; Van
Voorhis et al., 1991). Positive
relations with coworkers were observed to be positively related
to job satisfaction and
inversely related to job stress (Paoline, Lambert, & Hogan,
2006).
Other research has provided indirect support for the needs–
supply part of the person–job
fit aspect of the P-E fit theory. The research to date strongly
suggests that organizational
fairness, instrumental communication, and participation in
decision making lead to decreased
job stress and increased job satisfaction (Dowden & Tellier,
2004; Lambert, Barton, Hogan,
& Clarke, 2002; Lambert, Hogan, & Allen, 2006; Wright et al.,
1997). These studies suggest

that if the needs of employees are met, there are positive
outcomes for the employee and the
organization as well.
As part of the attraction-selection-attrition framework proposed
by Schneider (1987),
turnover is a function of P-E fit (Sekiguchi, 2004b). Those who
fit tend to stay with the orga-
nization, and those who do not fit tend to leave. Research has
found support for this aspect
of the P-E fit theory among correctional staff. Among prison
staff, perceptions of the various
dimensions of the work environment were linked to job
satisfaction and organizational
commitment, and in turn, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment were significant
predictors of turnover intent (Lambert & Hogan, 2009b; Stohr,
Self, & Lovrich, 1992).
RESEARCH FOCUS
Overall, the correctional staff literature supports P-E fit theory;
however, not all the aspects
of this theory have been explored. Most of the research to date
has focused on the person–job
fit. There has been little research on the person–organization
part of the P-E fit theory among
correctional staff; therefore, this exploratory study examined
the relationship between cor-
rectional orientation with various outcome areas among staff at
a treatment-oriented state

prison, which included correctional officers, counselors, case
managers, medical staff, edu-
cational staff, food service workers, and so forth.
The state had designated the surveyed prison as one that should
focus on treatment inter-
ventions for offenders and had assigned it a warden who
strongly supported treatment. The
warden and top administrators at the prison indicated that the
facility was treatment oriented
and that it was a testing ground for new treatment programs in
the state. For the 5 years prior
to data collection, financial resources had been provided to the
prison to fund many different
treatment interventions. During this time, new treatment
interventions were implemented,
which resulted in new treatment positions being created,
including the voluntary and invol-
untary cognitive self-change programs based on the model
developed by Bush and Bilodeau
(1993). Housing correctional officers, case managers,
counselors, and educational staff were
offered training for various treatment interventions.
Furthermore, the warden stated that
the treatment efforts operated on the best-practices and
evidence-based principles. In fact, the
data from this study came from a larger study examining the
effectiveness of several of the
treatment programs at the prison. Several of the authors had the
opportunity to examine
the cognitive treatment programs for a year and half. It
appeared that the importance of
providing treatment programs to inmates was stressed by the
administration to the staff of
the prison, and efforts were made to ensure that quality
treatment efforts were undertaken

(Goggin & Gendreau, 2006). Organizational values represent
the goals of the organization
and dictate how resources are allocated (Cable & Edwards,
2004).
Correctional orientation refers to the views of individual staff
on the functions of prisons.
The two major dimensions of correctional orientation are
support for punishment and support
for treatment (Robinson, Porporino, & Simourd, 1993).
Correctional orientation is an individual
value. Individual values are what a person views as important
and influence the person’s deci-
sions, behaviors, and other outcomes. They are general views
that transcend specific situations
(Cable & Edwards, 2004).
According to the person–organization fit aspect of the P-E fit
theory, the fit between
personal views and organizational goals is important (Adkins,
Ravlin, & Meglino, 1996).
According to Kristof (1996), optimum fit occurs when the
employee and the employing
organization meet each other’s needs and share fundamental
values in terms of the purpose
of the organization. The value fit is theoretically important in
influencing various outcomes
for both the employee and the employing organization
(Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996). Cor-
rectional staff members should find it more positive to work for
an organization that shares
their views. Conversely, incongruence between the views of the
worker and the value of the
organization can lead to dissonance for the worker (O’Reilly,
Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991).

ORIENTATION 457
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES
This study examined the relationship between correctional
orientation and the outcome areas
of role stress, organizational fairness, work-on-family conflict,
integration (i.e., perception of
group cohesion and cooperation within an organization), life
satisfaction, and moral commit-
ment. Role stress refers to the degree that work roles cause
problems for an employee (Kahn,
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Furthermore, role
stress occurs when the individual’s
role causes strain and conflict, which can arise for a variety of
reasons, including role conflict
and role ambiguity (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993). Strain and
conflict can arise if an individual
feels that his or her role is to ensure the control and punishment
of inmates when the organiza-
tion feels that the role of the employee is to support treatment
interventions. In a study of southern
correctional officers, role stress and support for treatment were
inversely related to one another
(Cullen, Link, Wolfe, & Frank, 1985). Support for punishment
was hypothesized, therefore, to
be negatively associated with role stress and support for
treatment positively associated.
Organizational fairness refers to employee perceptions that
organizational decisions are
fair and that the process by which the decisions are made is fair
(Greenberg, 1990). In a study

of private correctional staff at a facility housing youthful
offenders (i.e., younger than 20 years
old), support for treatment was positively associated with
organizational fairness (Lambert,
Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa, 2010). Support for punishment was
hypothesized to be negatively
associated with perceptions of organizational fairness and
support for treatment positively
related.
There are two dimensions of work–family conflict, work-on-
family conflict and family-
on-work conflict. Work-on-family conflict occurs when work
conflict spills over and affects
the quality of home life (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). In a study
of staff working with juvenile
offenders, support for treatment and work-on-family conflict
were negatively related with
one another (Lambert, Hogan, & Cheeseman Dial, 2010). If
there is a poor fit in correctional
orientation between an employee and the correctional
organization, there is a good chance
that the employee will experience problems at work. In turn,
these problems can follow the
employee home and disrupt his or her home life. On the other
hand, if there is a good fit,
then the chances of work problems decrease, as well as the
likelihood that these problems
will cause strain at home. Thus, support for punishment was
hypothesized to be positively
associated with work-on-family conflict and support for
treatment negatively related.
Integration deals with employee perceptions of the degree that
there is group cohesion and
cooperation within an organization (Miller & Droge, 1986).

Integration may be less successful
for those staff members who do not share the vision of the
major efforts of the organization.
They could be left outside the communication network and may
not be invited to be active
members of meetings and task forces to meet the goals and
objectives of the organization
(Schneider, 1987). Integration and support for treatment were
positively related among staff
at a private correctional facility housing juvenile inmates
(Lambert & Hogan, 2009a). Hence,
support for treatment was hypothesized to be positively
associated with perceptions of inte-
gration and support for punishment negatively associated.
Organizational commitment is the bond between the employee
and the organization. There
are three different types of organizational commitment bonds
that are theorized to occur (Jaros,
Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993). The first is continuance
commitment. This form of com-
mitment refers to the bond that is formed by the investments an
employee has made with the
organization (e.g., pension, friendships, etc.), and these
investments tie the employee with
the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The second type is
affective commitment, which is
the psychological attachment to an organization (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982). With this
type of commitment, a psychological desire to belong to the
organization develops and ties

the worker to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Mowday
et al., 1982). Affective organi-
zational commitment has been positively associated with
support for treatment (Lambert, Hogan,
Barton, Jiang, & Baker, 2008). The third type of organizational
commitment is moral commit-
ment. Moral commitment is the acceptance of the norms of the
organization and a moral sense
to be loyal to employers (Allen & Meyer, 1990). It derives from
a sense of duty or obligation
(Jaros et al., 1993). According to Weiner (1982), “committed
individuals may exhibit certain
behaviors not because they have figured that doing so is to their
personal benefit, but because
they believe that it is the ‘right’ and moral thing to do” (p.
421). Moral commitment was used
in the current study. When the employee and organization share
common values, it is easier for
the staff member to bond with the organization. When there is
incongruence between the worker’s
views and one of the goals of the organization, it is less likely
that a bond will form between
the two. Staff members who support treatment express moral
commitment because they prob-
ably view the prison more favorably, given the importance of
rehabilitation that is shared between
the two entities. Conversely, staff members who support
punishment are less likely to express
moral commitment for the prison because they do not agree on
the approach in dealing with
inmates. Thus, support for punishment was hypothesized to be
inversely linked with moral
commitment, whereas support for treatment would be positively
related.
METHOD

PARTICIPANTS
The survey site was a state high-security prison that had been in
operation for many decades
and housed approximately 1,000 male offenders, who were
typically serving sentences of 12
or more years. All prison staff were provided a survey and were
informed that participation was
strictly voluntary and responses would remain anonymous. A
total of 400 staff members received
the survey, and 272 returned a completed survey (i.e., 68%
response rate). The demographic
characteristics of those who responded are presented in Table 1.
Of the overall staff population
(i.e., all the staff at the prison), approximately 77% were male,
86% were White, and 53% were
correctional officers. As presented in Table 1, among the
participants, 76% were male, 81%
were White, and 50% were correctional officers. Thus in terms
of the demographic character-
istics of gender, race, and position, the participants were similar
to the overall staff at the prison.
MEASURES
Criterion variables. Summed indexes for role stress,
organizational fairness, work-on-
family conflict, perceptions of integration, life satisfaction, and
moral organizational com-
mitment were the criterion variables. Nine items from
Ivancevich and Matteson (1980) were
used to measure role stress (Cronbach’s α = .79; see appendix
for the items). An index for
organizational fairness was created using 5 items from Lambert
(2003; α = .79; see appendix).

Work-on-family conflict was measured using 12 items adapted
from studies of work–family
conflict outside the field of corrections (Bohen & Viveros-
Long, 1981; Higgins & Duxbury,
ORIENTATION 459
1992) and were reworded to reflect that the respondent was
working in a correctional facility
(α = .81; see appendix). Perceptions of integration at work were
measured by 5 items from
Miller and Droge (1986; α = .73; see appendix). Life
satisfaction was measured using two
questions from Quinn and Staines (1979; α = .87; see appendix).
Moral commitment was
measured using 3 items from Jaros et al. (1993; α = .65; see
appendix).
Predictor variables. The two predictor variables of interest in
this study were support for
treatment and support for punishment. Adapted from Cullen et
al. (1985), support for reha-
bilitation was measured by summing eight items (α = .84; see
appendix). An additive index
measuring support for punishment was created using nine items
from Cullen et al. (α = .84;
see appendix).
The personal characteristics of gender, age, position, tenure,
educational level, and race
were included, as the literature indicates that these
characteristics can shape the perceptions
of the work environment and attitudes of correctional staff (e.g.,

Armstrong & Griffin, 2004;
Cullen et al., 1985; Triplett et al., 1996; Van Voorhis et al.,
1991). As these personal charac-
teristics have been found to be predictors on the outcomes of
role stress, organizational
fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction,
and moral commitment, they
were included in the analyses to determine the relationship
correctional orientation had with
the outcome areas independent of the personal characteristics.
RESULTS
See Table 1 for the descriptive statistics of the variables and
how they were coded. The median
and mean were similar to one another for the variables,
suggesting that the variables were
TABLE 1: Descriptive Statistics of Variables in Study
Variable Statistics
Predictor/Control variables
Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) 24% female, 76% male
Position (0 = noncustody, 1 = custody) 50% noncustody, 50%
custody
Educational level (0 = no college
degree, 1 = college degree)
59% had no college degree, 41% had some type of college
degree
Race (0 = non-White, 1 = White) 19% non-White, 81% White
Min. Max. Median M SD

Age (in years) 20 61 44 42.54 8.32
Tenure (years at the prison) 0 26 9 9.64 6.82
Predictor variables of interest
Support for treatment (α = .84) 8 36 25 24.39 5.64
Support for punishment (α = .84) 10 45 27 27.26 6.49
Criterion variables of interest
Role stress (α = .79) 9 40 22 22.92 5.00
Organizational fairness (α = .79) 5 25 15 15.10 3.89
Work-on-family conflict (α = .81) 14 49 30 30.47 6.623
Integration (α = .73) 5 22 14 13.44 3.04
Life satisfaction (α = .87) 2 6 4 4.11 1.09
Moral commitment (α = .65) 3 15 10 9.23 2.41
Note. N = 272.
normally distributed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was also
run, indicating that the variables
were normally distributed. The skewness and kurtosis statistics
indicated no problems with
the distribution of the variables. Except for the index for moral
commitment, the Cronbach’s
alpha values for the indexes were above .70. For the moral
commitment index, the Cronbach’s
alpha was .65. Overall, the Cronbach’s alpha values are similar
to those found in past studies and
indicate that the indexes had acceptable internal reliability. A
principal component factor
analysis was conducted for each latent variable (i.e., support for
treatment, support for punish-
ment, role stress, organizational fairness, work-on-family

conflict, integration, life satisfaction,
and moral commitment). Specifically, the items for each index
were entered into factor analysis
with no rotation to determine whether they would load on the
predicted factor. From the
eigenvalues and the scree plot, a single factor was extracted for
each latent index. All the items
for a particular latent concept had factor loadings above .40.
The results from factor analysis
indicated the items loaded on the predicted factors, which
indicated that each of the latent
variables was unidimensional and the items had convergent
validity.
The correlations between the variables are presented in Table 2.
As hypothesized, support
for treatment had a statistically significant positive correlation
with organizational fairness,
integration, and moral commitment and a negative correlation
with role stress and work-on-
family conflict. Contrary to our hypothesis, support for
treatment had a nonsignificant cor-
relation with the life satisfaction variable. All the hypotheses
for support for punishment
were supported by the correlations. Support for punishment had
statistically significant nega-
tive correlations with organizational fairness, integration, life
satisfaction, and moral com-
mitment and significant positive correlations with role stress
and work-on-family conflict.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression equations were
estimated with role stress, orga-
nizational fairness, work-on-family conflict, integration, life
satisfaction, and moral com-
mitment as the criterion variables. The predictor variables were

support for treatment, support
for punishment, and the personal characteristic variables (i.e.,
gender, age, position, tenure,
educational level, and race). None of the correlations presented
in Table 2 were above .80,
which suggested that there was no issue with collinearity. For
each of the OLS regression
equations, the tolerance values ranged from .49 to .98, and the
variance inflation factor scores
ranged from 1.01 to 2.05. On the basis of the variation inflation
factor statistics and the toler-
ance statistics, there appeared to be no issue with
multicollinearity. In addition, the issues of
outliers, influential cases, normality, linearity and
homoscedasticity of residuals, and indepen-
dence of errors in the regression analyses were tested. The OLS
regression results are pre-
sented in Table 3. The predictor variables accounted for 22%,
16%, 23%, 16%, 8%, and 23%
of the observed variances of the criterion variables of role
stress, organizational fairness, work-
on-family conflict, integration, life satisfaction, and moral
commitment, respectively.
For the role stress equation, the hypothesis that support for
punishment would be positively
related to role stress was supported, whereas the hypothesis that
support for treatment would
be negatively associated to role stress was not. Among the
personal characteristics, only tenure
had a significant association with role stress. As tenure
increased, so did the level of reported
role stress. The surprising finding that role stress increased as
tenure increased suggested that
as the roles of staff became more complex as a result of the
prison’s focus both on custody and

treatment, this produced heightened levels of role confusion.
Staff who had been at the prison
for a significant period of time probably experienced the
transformation from a more control-
oriented facility to one that increased emphasize on treatment of
inmates. This can lead to role
stress among staff who had adapted to the previous roles but not
to the new ones.
461
TA
B
L
E
2
:
C
o
rr
e
la
ti
o
n
M
a

tr
ix
V
a
ri
a
b
le
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
4

1
.
G
e
n
d
e
r
—
2
.
P
o
si
tio
n
.
2
3
**
—
3
.
E
d
u

ca
tio
n
a
l
le
ve
l
-.
1
0
-.
2
0
**
—
4
.
R
a
ce
- .
0
1
.
0
7

-.
0
6
—
5
.
A
g
e
.
0
9
.
1
9
**
-.
0
1
.
0
6
—
6
.
Te

n
u
re
.
2
3
**
.
0
6
-.
2
5
**
.
0
4
.
4
0
**
—
7
.
S
u
p

p
o
r t
f
o
r
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
-.
1
0
-.
2
5
**
.
2
9
**
.
0
0
.

1
6
**
-.
0
1
—
8
.
S
u
p
p
o
rt
f
o
r
p
u
n
is
h
m
e
n
t

.
1
2
*
.
3
1
**
-.
2
4
**
-.
0
7
-.
1
4
**
.
0
1
-.
6
0
**
—
9

.
R
o
le
s
tr
e
ss
.
1
2
*
.
1
0
-.
0
7
-.
1
6
**
.
1
0
.

1
7
**
-.
3
4
**
.
4
0
**
—
1
0
.
O
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio
n
a
l
fa
ir
n

e
ss
-.
0
5
-.
1
9
**
.
0
2
.
0
9
-.
0
6
-.
0
8
.
3
1
**
-.
3
6

**
-.
6
6
**
—
1
1
.
W
o
rk
-o
n
-f
a
m
ily
c
o
n
fli
ct
.
1
0

.
2
9
**
-.
0
9
-.
0
9
-.
1
2
-.
0
6
-.
2
4
**
.
4
4
**
.
4
2
**

-.
4
1
**
—
1
2
.
In
te
g
ra
tio
n
-.
1
2
-.
1
6
**
.
1
7
**
.
0

5
-.
0
3
-.
1
5
*
.
3
6
**
-.
3
3
**
-.
5
9
**
.
5
0
**
-.
3
2
**

—
1
3
.
L
ife
s
a
tis
fa
ct
io
n
-.
0
7
.
0
0
.
0
9
-.
0
6
-.

1
4
*
-.
0
3
.
0
6
-.
1
4
*
-.
2
1
**
.
2
5
**
.
4
1
**
.
1
1

—
1
4
.
M
o
ra
l
co
m
m
itm
e
n
t
-.
0
5
-.
2
1
**
.
0
7
.
1
3

*
.
0
8
-.
0
2
.
4
2
**
-.
4
3
**
-.
3
8
**
.
4
4
**
-.
2
9
**
.3

9
**
.
1
1
N
o
te
. G
e
n
d
e
r
co
d
e
d
a
s
0
=
fe
m
a
le
a
n

d
1
=
m
a
le
. P
o
si
tio
n
c
o
d
e
d
a
s
0
=
n
o
n
cu
st
o
d

y
a
n
d
1
=
c
u
st
o
d
y.
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
a
l l
e
ve
l w
a
s
co
d

e
d
a
s
0
=
n
o
c
o
lle
g
e
d
e
g
re
e
a
n
d
1
=
c
o
lle

g
e
d
e
g
re
e
. R
a
ce
w
a
s
co
d
e
d
a
s
0
=
n
o
n
-W

h
ite
a
n
d
1
=
W
h
ite
. T
e
n
u
re
a
t
th
e
p
ri
so
n
a
n
d
a

g
e
w
e
re
m
e
a
su
re
d
in
c
o
n
tin
u
o
u
s
ye
a
rs
.
*p
≤
.

0
5
. *
*p
≤
.
0
1
.
462
TA
B
L
E
3
:
R
e
g
re
s
s
io
n

R
e
s
u
lt
s
o
f
th
e
A
s
s
o
c
ia
ti
o
n
o
f
C
o
rr
e
c

ti
o
n
a
l
O
ri
e
n
ta
ti
o
n
w
it
h
R
o
le
S
tr
e
s
s
, O

rg
a
n
iz
a
ti
o
n
a
l
F
a
ir
n
e
s
s
, W
o
rk
o
n
F
a
m
il
y

C
o
n
fl
ic
t,
I
n
te
g
ra
ti
o
n
,
L
if
e
S
a
ti
s
fa
c
ti

o
n
,
a
n
d
M
o
ra
l
C
o
m
m
it
m
e
n
t
R
o
le
S
tr

e
ss
O
rg
a
n
iz
a
tio
n
a
l
F
a
ir
n
e
ss
W
o
rk
-o
n
-F
a
m

ily
C
o
n
fli
ct
In
te
g
ra
tio
n
L
ife
S
a
tis
fa
ct
io
n
M
o
ra
l

C
o
m
m
itm
e
n
t
V
a
ri
a
b
le
b
β
b
β
b
β
b
β
b
β
b

β
P
re
d
ic
to
r
va
ri
a
b
le
s
G
e
n
d
e
r
(1
=
m
a
le
)
.5

4
.0
5
.2
6
.0
3
.5
7
.0
4
-.
1
8
-.
0
2
-.
2
0
-.
0
8
.0
7

.0
1
A
g
e
.0
6
.1
0
-.
0
6
-.
1
2
-.
0
1
-.
0
2
-.
0
2
-.
0

5
-.
0
2
-.
1
6
*
-.
0
1
-.
0
1
P
o
si
tio
n
(
1
=
c
o
rr
e
ct

io
n
a
l
o
ff
ic
e
r)
-.
0
5
-.
0
1
-1
.0
9
-.
1
4
*
2
.3
2
.1

8
**
-.
3
5
-.
0
6
.1
4
.0
6
-.
5
2
-.
1
1
Te
n
u
re
.1
0
.1
5
**

-.
0
3
-.
0
6
-.
0
7
-.
0
7
-.
0
5
-.
1
2
.0
1
.0
9
-.
0
1
-.

0
2
E
d
u
ca
tio
n
a
l
le
ve
l
(1
=
d
e
g
re
e
)
.7
6
.0
8
-.
9

8
-.
1
3
*
.0
0
.0
0
.2
2
.0
4
.2
2
.1
0
-.
3
8
-.
0
8
R
a
ce

(
1
=
W
h
ite
)
-1
.3
6
-.
1
0
.7
2
.0
7
-1
.0
9
-.
0
6
.3
4

.0
4
-.
3
1
-.
1
1
.6
0
.0
9
P
re
d
ic
to
r
va
ri
a
b
le
s
o

n
i
n
te
re
st
S
u
p
p
o
rt
f
o
r
tr
e
a
tm
e
n
t
-.
1
2
-.
1
4

.0
8
.1
2
.1
8
.1
4
.1
3
.2
3
**
-.
0
2
-.
0
8
.1
1
.2
5
**
S

u
p
p
o
rt
f
o
r
p
u
n
is
h
m
e
n
t
.2
4
.3
1
**
-.
1
6
-.
2
6

**
.4
8
.4
7
**
-.
0
6
-.
1
3
-.
0
4
-.
2
3
**
-.
0
9
-.
2
4
**
R

2
.2
2
**
.1
6
**
.2
3
**
.1
6
**
.0
8
**
.2
3
**
N
o
te
.
S
e
e
T

a
b
le
1
fo
r
a
d
e
sc
ri
p
tio
n
o
f
th
e
v
a
ri
a
b
le
s.

T
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
ca
se
s
w
a
s
2
7
2
. b
r
e
p
re
se
n

ts
t
h
e
u
n
st
a
n
d
a
rd
iz
e
d
r
e
g
re
ss
io
n
c
o
e
ff
ic

ie
n
t,
a
n
d
β
r
e
p
re
se
n
ts
t
h
e
s
ta
n
d
a
rd
-
iz
e
d
r

e
g
re
ss
io
n
c
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t.
*p
≤
.
0
5
. *
*p
≤
.
0
1
.

ORIENTATION 463
For the organizational fairness equation, support for punishment
had a negative association
as predicted, whereas contrary to our prediction, support for
treatment had no significant rela-
tionship with organizational fairness. For the work-on-family-
conflict equation, only one of
the two hypotheses was supported. Support for punishment had
a significant positive associa-
tion with work-on-family conflict, whereas support for
treatment had a nonsignificant relation-
ship. The results from the regression equation with integration
as the criterion variable only
supported the hypothesis that support for treatment would be
positively related; support for
punishment had no significant association. Likewise, the results
only partially supported the
hypotheses for life satisfaction. As postulated, increases in the
support-for-punishment variable
were negatively related to overall satisfaction with life, but
there was no significant association
between support for treatment and life satisfaction, as was
originally predicted. Finally, for the
moral commitment regression equation, both hypotheses were
supported. Increases in support
for treatment were associated with increased levels of moral
commitment, whereas increases
in support for punishment were associated with decreased levels
of moral commitment.
Thus, in summary, increases in support for punishment were
associated with increased role
stress, decreased perceptions of organizational fairness,

increased work-on-family conflict,
and decreased satisfaction with life. Conversely, increases in
support for treatment were asso-
ciated with increased perceptions of integration. Finally, both
support for treatment and support
for punishment had significant relationships with moral
commitment. An increase in support
for treatment was associated with an increase in the moral
commitment measure, whereas
increases in support for punishment were associated with a
decrease in moral commitment.
As correctional officers compose the largest occupational group
in most prisons, the
multivariate analyses were repeated using only respondents who
were correctional officers
(n = 136). Although not reported in tabular format, similar
results were observed in terms of
statistical significance of the associations of support for
treatment and support for punish-
ment with the criterion variables. For example, support of
punishment, but not support for
treatment, had a significant positive relationship with role
stress. Similarly, support for treat-
ment had a significant positive relationship with moral
commitment, and support for punish-
ment had a significant negative association.
Finally, it should be noted that in general, correctional officers
were higher in their support
for punishment than noncustody staff (mean = 22.29 vs. 25.27, t
= -5.30, p ≤ .01). Likewise,
correctional officers were on average lower in their support for
treatment than were their
noncustody counterparts (mean = 22.99 vs. 25.79, t = 4.23, p ≤
.01).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
This study examined the relationship between person–
organization fit and outcomes for
correctional staff in a midwestern adult correctional facility.
Relationships between the person-
organization fit and role stress, organizational fairness, work–
family conflict, integration,
life satisfaction, and moral commitment were examined. The
underlying theme of the study
was that correctional staff supportive of punishment would find
their values and attitudes
incongruent with the culture of the prison under study and
would therefore experience nega-
tive outcomes. Conversely, because the facility was oriented
toward treatment, staff supportive
of treatment would see their values as congruent with those of
the organization and, as a result,
fit well with the institution.
The analyses performed in this study largely provided support
to the propositions offered
above, including when a subset of only correctional officers was
examined. Support for
punishment was significantly associated with five of the six
outcomes tested here. Addition-
ally, all of the relationships were in the expected directions.
Less support was provided for
the proposition that support for treatment influenced
correctional staff outcomes, but two of
the six relationships tested were statistically significant and in

the expected directions. Taken
together, the findings reported here suggest that employees
whose values and views are
incongruent with those of the organization have negative
outcomes. Correctional staff who
were supportive of punishment experienced higher levels of role
stress and work-on-family
conflict while also reporting lower levels of life satisfaction,
moral commitment, and orga-
nizational fairness. For respondents supportive of punishment,
the thought that convicted
felons were receiving treatment may have been perceived as
unfair and unjust. Importantly,
this value incongruence between correctional staff values and
organizational values also
increased the likelihood that employees would experience
conflict at home.
Correctional staff who were supportive of treatment appeared to
perceive more integration
within the prison and also reported more moral commitment to
the organization. Perhaps cor-
rectional staff who share values similar to those of the
organization are more likely to approve
of the objectives of the organization and more likely to be
included in those activities designed
to meet those goals and objectives. It could be that these
employees find the job to be in line
with their values, which accounts for the strong commitment
and integration experienced by
these employees.
One question that emerges from the findings reported here is
why was support for punish-
ment associated with more of the correctional staff outcomes
than support for treatment?

One possible explanation for this is provided by Resick, Baltes,
and Shantz (2007), who
argued that person–job fit is more important in explaining
employee outcomes than person–
organization fit when the person feels that the job is a good fit
for him or her. Thus, for those
workers in our sample who were supportive of treatment, levels
of role stress, work–family
conflict, and integration, as well as perceptions of
organizational fairness, were likely dictated
by the nature of their job duties and their satisfaction with those
duties. Another possible
explanation for these results concerns the methodology of the
study. Participants were not
asked how important it was that their correctional orientation
matched the objectives of the
prison. It is plausible that this issue could matter more for some
employees than others.
These findings suggest that efforts should be made to increase
the likelihood that employee
values and objectives are congruent with those of the
organization. Perhaps more effort should
be made to recruit, select, and socialize new employees to
ensure that the fit will be good in the
long run. Consideration of such issues during the recruitment
and selection process may benefit
both the employee and the correctional organization. This may
prove difficult, however, because
many correctional facilities experience substantial correctional
staff turnover, and adding more
selective recruitment criteria may complicate attempts to
maintain adequate staffing levels. An
alternative option would be to provide training to existing
correctional staff. For the sample

examined here, this would mean resocializing correctional staff
supportive of punishment. This
resocialization process might involve activities that apprise
correctional staff of the value and
efficacy of correctional interventions. This, of course, assumes
that correctional staff are ame-
nable to such change. Additionally, attempts to resocialize
correctional staff may be undermined
by inmate attitudes or behaviors that substantiate the idea that
they are undeserving of treatment.
ORIENTATION 465
The findings from this study suggest only that such training
would be useful for correctional
staff who support punishment but work in treatment-oriented
facilities. It is unclear whether
similar results would be found with correctional staff who
support treatment but work in facili-
ties that focus on punishment. It is interesting to note that
support for treatment was the highest
among those who occupied positions aimed at providing
treatment interventions to inmates,
such as case managers, counselors, vocational instructors,
teachers, medical staff, and mental
health staff. Conversely, support for treatment was the lowest
among those who were correctional
officers. Similarly, support for punishment was greatest among
correctional officers and the
lowest among counselors, case managers, teachers, vocational
instructors, medical staff, and
mental health employees. This suggests that the correctional
orientation is not uniform across

a prison and may vary by the roles held by the staff members.
Efforts to ensure that correctional staff values are congruent
with organizational objec-
tives must also take into consideration that good P-E fit may not
always be good for an
organization. One such scenario where good P-E fit could be a
detriment is in a punishment-
oriented prison transitioning to a more rehabilitative or
treatment approach. Under such cir-
cumstances, good P-E fit could lead to homogeneity among
employees and thus limit the
innovation within an organization necessary to adapt to changes
and new demands (Chatman,
1989). On the other hand, high P-E fit in an organization can
lead to greater efforts by
employees to ensure the success and survival of the
organization (Ryan & Kristof-Brown,
2003; Sekiguchi, 2004b).
Although this study contributes to the existing body of
literature on this topic, it also has
limitations. The representativeness of participants is always an
issue when there is less than
100% participation in the study and when there is no means to
determine why some employees
participated and others declined. This may be an issue, on the
basis of the fact that 32% of the
surveyed prison staff did not respond. In a related fashion, it is
important to point out that the
data were cross-sectional. Although it was theorized that
correctional orientation would cause
the various criterion outcomes, this cannot be empirically
demonstrated. Subjective measures
of P-E fit were used in this study. P-E fit can be measured
objectively or subjectively (Caplan,

1987; Roberts & Robins, 2004). Previous research has noted the
merits and limitations of both
objective and subjective indicators of fit (Cable & DeRue,
2002; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Resick
et al., 2007). The results could change if objective P-E fit
measures were used. The study did
not measure the importance of correctional orientation among
correctional staff or whether
employees desired a match between their correctional
orientation and the correctional orienta-
tion of the facility. As a result, there is no way to ascertain the
extent to which its importance
varies among staff and the implications that this has for the
results. Moreover, P-E fit was
measured indirectly and the organizational goal of treatment
was accepted on the basis of fund-
ing at the prison and from statements from the warden and other
administrators that treatment
was a highly salient goal in the prison. Employee perceptions of
organizational goals were not
measured to determine whether staff agreed that the primary
goals and objectives of the cor-
rectional facility were treatment. The importance of value
congruence for correctional staff
and the extent to which its associations for correctional staff
vary were not tested in this study.
Additional research is needed. Given that this was a single
study of staff at a single treatment-
oriented correctional facility, further studies are needed to
determine whether the results can be
replicated. Furthermore, this study examined the issue of
limited fit only in a treatment-oriented
prison. Results may differ by the type of correctional facility
examined. It is especially unclear

whether the relationships found in this study would also apply
to correctional staff who work
in strictly custody-oriented facilities, such as super-maximum-
security prisons. It is important
to note that support for punishment may not be the opposite of
support for treatment. Additional
studies are needed across a wide array of treatment- and
punishment-oriented institutions to
comprehend how the focus of the correctional facility affects
staff. As previously indicated,
the premise that this was a treatment-oriented facility was based
on the state-funded programs
started at the facility on a trial basis and discussions with top
correctional administrators. It is
unknown whether the staff actually perceived the facility to be
treatment oriented. The issue of
how staff perceive the focus of the facility needs to be
addressed in future research. Furthermore,
it is unclear how the staff perceived the quality of the treatment
being offered at the facility. It
could be that staff could have perceived the treatment being
provided as being of poor quality,
not effectively delivered, or meaningless to the problems
concerning inmates.
Future research should examine whether P-E fit varies across
different dimensions of the
work environment. The dominant approach taken by research on
this topic has been to examine
the fit between an individual and a single aspect of the work
environment. In reality, however,
people do not interact with only one part of their environment.

Rather, they are simultaneously
nested in multiple dimensions of the environment (Granovetter,
1985; Mitchell, Holtom, Lee,
Sablynski, & Erez, 2001). Likewise, steps must be taken to
explore the issues of selection and
socialization on P-E fit among correctional staff and whether
these factors influence the per-
ceptions that ultimately affect the P-E fit for correctional staff.
There is also a need to explore
the P-E fit both over time and in multiple correctional
institutions. Such dynamic, multisite
models would give insight into question about the stability of P-
E fit across space and time.
It could be that P-E fit is dynamic (i.e., both the views of
employees and goals of the organiza-
tion change over time); thus, what may be a good fit today may
be a poor fit many years down
the road. Moreover, longitudinal research is needed to explore
the causal ordering of the rela-
tionships observed in this study. Future research needs to
expand the scope of focus and explore
areas of fit other than those used in this study. Finally, studies
are needed to establish whether
supplementary fit or complementary fit is more important in the
field of institutional correc-
tions. Supplementary fit holds that the person brings similar
skills and needs that others in the
organization have and, as a result, supplements these in the
work environment. Here, employees
feel they fit because they share these common skills, needs, and
values with the other members
of the organization (Kristof, 1996; Sekiguchi, 2004a).
Muchinsky and Monahan (1987) referred
to this as the person–person fit. Complementary fit holds that
the employee brings character-
istics that are missing from the organization or that make the

organization complete (Kristof,
1996; Sekiguchi, 2004a). In the current study, the focus was on
supplementary fit. It is unclear
whether one type of fit is more beneficial to the employee or the
correctional organization.
Only future research can answer these and the other issues
raised by this study.
In closing, the P-E fit is a complex and multidimensional theory
(Sekiguchi, 2004a, 2004b),
and in this study, the fit between the person and the
organization was examined. Specifically, a
single dimension of fit perception (i.e., the compatibility
between an individual and specific
aspects of the work environment) was studied. It was found that
correctional orientations
are associated with the perceptions and attitudes of correctional
staff. There are many other
dimensions of the P-E fit theory that need to be explored among
correctional staff. It is hoped
that this study will spark interest in exploring the full spectrum
of the P-E fit theory within
the field of institutional corrections.
ORIENTATION 467
APPENDIX
Except for the life satisfaction items, the items below were
answered using a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
CRITERION VARIABLES

Role stress. (a) The rules and regulations are clear enough here
that I know specifically
what I can and cannot do on my job (reverse coded). (b) I
regularly receive conflicting requests
at work from two or more people. (c) When a problem comes up
here, people seldom agree
on how it should be handled. (d) The rules that we’re supposed
to follow seem to be very
clear (reverse coded). (e) There are clear, planned objectives
and goals for my job (reverse
coded). (f) I clearly know what my work responsibilities are
(reverse coded). (g) I am unclear
to whom I report and/or who reports to me. (h) I lack the
authority necessary for me to fully
carry out my job responsibilities. (i) I know what is exactly
expected of me (reverse coded).
Cronbach’s alpha = .79.
Organizational fairness. (a) My last annual performance rating
presented a fair and accu-
rate picture of my actual job performance. (b) The evaluation of
my performance at this
prison has been fair and objective. (c) Promotions are more
related to who [sic] you know
rather than the quality of work (reverse coded). (d) There is a
fair opportunity to be promoted
at this agency. (e) In this agency, promotions are seldom related
to employee performance
(reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha = .79.
Work-on-family conflict. (a) Work makes me too tired or
irritable to fully enjoy my family
and/or social life. (b) I frequently argue with my spouse/family
members about my job.
(c) I find that I frequently bring home problems from work. (d)

I find that my job has nega-
tively affected my home life. (e) My time off from work does
not really match other family
members schedules and/or my social needs. (f) I am frequently
required to work overtime
when I don’t want to. (g) The uncertainty of my work schedule
interferes with my family and/
or social life. (h) I have a good balance between my job and
family time (reverse coded). (i) My
job keeps me away from my family too much. (j) In my life, I
feel that I have more to do than
I can comfortably handle. (k) I feel that I need to work less and
spend more time at home.
(l) I wish that I had more time to do things in my personal life.
Integration. (a) At this prison, interdepartmental committees are
frequently setup to allow
for joint decision making. (b) At this prison, task forces are
frequently set up to help inter-
departmental collaboration on specific projects. (c) At this
prison, there is generally bargaining
among different department heads rather than competition. (d)
At this prison, there is a great
deal of departmental interaction on most decisions. (e) There is
bickering between the vari-
ous departments (reverse coded for the index). Cronbach’s alpha
= .73.
Life satisfaction. (a) Taking all things together, how happy
would you say you are with your
life? (response: 1 = very happy, 2 = happy, 3 = not too happy)
(b) In general, how satisfying
do you find the ways you’re spending your life these days?
(response: 1 = very satisfying, 2 =
satisfying, 3 = not too satisfying). Cronbach’s alpha = .87.

(continued)
APPENDIX (continued)
Moral commitment. (a) It is my duty to support this prison. (b) I
get upset when people
say negative things about this prison. (c) If you work for a
prison, you should be loyal that
prison. Cronbach’s alpha = .65.
PREDICTOR VARIABLES
Support for treatment. (a) Rehabilitating a criminal is just as
important as making a
criminal pay for his or her crime. (b) Inmates at this prison
should receive treatment and
rehabilitative services. (c) One of the reasons why rehabilitation
programs often fail with
prisoners is because they are underfunded. If enough money
were available, these pro-
grams would work. (d) I would support expanding offender
rehabilitation programs that
are currently in place in our prisons. (e) Treatment programs for
inmates are a good idea.
(f) The way to get respect and cooperation from inmates is to
take an interest in them.
(g) We need more educational and vocational programs for
inmates in prisons. (h) It is
important for prison staff to have compassion for inmates.

Support for punishment. (a) A criminal will only go straight
when he finds prison life
is hard. (b) All rehabilitation programs have done is allow
criminals who deserve to be
punished to get off. (c) Improving the life for inmates generally
makes it worse for staff.
(d) Counseling inmates is a job for counselors, not for general
prison staff. (e) My job
isn’t to help rehabilitate inmates; it’s only to keep them orderly
so that they don’t hurt
anyone in here or tear this place apart. (f) Many people don’t
realize it, but prisons today
are too soft on inmates. (g) If a staff member is lenient with
inmates, the inmates will
take advantage of that staff member. (h) So long as the inmates
I supervise stay quiet
and don’t cause trouble, I really don’t care if they are getting
rehabilitated while they are
in here. (i) We should stop viewing criminals as victims of
society who deserve to be
rehabilitated and start paying more attention to the victims of
these criminals. Cronbach’s
alpha = .84.
REFERENCES
Adkins, C., Ravlin, E., & Meglino, B. (1996). Value congruence
between co-workers and its relationship to work outcomes.
Group and Organization Management, 21, 439-460.
Adkins, C., Russell, C., & Werbel, J. (1994). Judgments of fit in
the selection process: The role of work value congruence.
Personnel Psychology, 47, 593-604.
Allen, N., & Meyer, J. (1990). The measurement and
antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative

commitment.
Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.
Armstrong, G., & Griffin, M. (2004). Does the job matter?
Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and
correctional
staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577-592.
Bohen, H., & Viveros-Long, A. (1981). Balancing jobs and
family life: Do flexible work schedules help? Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Bush, J., & Bilodeau, B. (1993). Options: A cognitive change
program. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Cable, D., & DeRue, D. (2002). The convergent and
discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 87, 875-884.
Cable, D., & Edwards, J. (2004). Complementary and
supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration.
Journal of
Applied Psychology, 89, 822-834.
Cable, D., & Judge, T. (1994). Pay preferences and job search
decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel
ORIENTATION 469
Cable, D., & Parsons, C. (2001). Socialization tactics and
person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1-23.

Camp, S., & Gaes, G. (2002). Growth and quality of U.S.
private prisons: Evidence from a national survey. Criminology
and
Public Policy, 1, 427-450.
Caplan, R. (1987). Person-environment fit theory and
organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives,
and mecha-
nisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248-267.
Chatman, J. (1989). Improving interactional organizational
research: A model of person-organization fit. Academy of
Management
Review, 14, 333-349.
Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations:
Selection and socialization in public accounting firms.
Administrative
Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484.
Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985). The social
dimensions of correctional officer stress. Justice Quarterly,
2, 505-533.
Dawis, R. (1992). Person-environment fit and job satisfaction.
In C. Cranny, P. Smith, & E. Stone (Eds.), Job satisfaction:
How people feel about their jobs and how it affects their
performance (pp. 69-88). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress
in correctional officers: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 32, 31-47.
Edwards, J. (1991). Person-job fit: A conceptual integration,
literature review, and methodological critique. C. Cooper &

I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 6., pp. 282-327).
London, UK: Wiley.
Edwards, J., Cable, D., Williamson, I., Lambert, L., & Shipp, A.
(2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and
environment to the subjective experience of person-environment
fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802-827.
Goggin, C., & Gendreau, P. (2006). The implementation and
maintenance of quality services in offender rehabilitation pro-
grammes. In C. Hollin & E. Palmer (Eds.), Offending behaviour
programmes: Development, application, and controversies
(pp. 209-246). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structures:
The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,
91, 481-510.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today,
and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenhaus, J., & Beutell, N. (1985). Sources of conflict
between work and family roles. Academy of Management
Review,
10, 76-88.
Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as
human service workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice
Quarterly, 10, 315-335.
Higgins, C., & Duxbury, L. (1992). Work-family conflict: A
comparison of dual-career and traditional-career men. Journal
of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 389-411.
Higgins, C., & Sekiguchi, T. (2006). To influence or adjust: A

dynamic model of person-group fit. In C. Schriesheim &
L. Neider, L. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: New
empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 129-154).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Holland, J. (1959). A theory of vocational choice. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 6, 35-45.
Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A
managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
Jaros, S., Jermier, J., Koehler, J., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects
of continuance, affective, and moral commitment on the with-
drawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation
models. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951-995.
Judge, T., & Ferris, G. (1992). The elusive criterion of fit in
human resource staffing decisions. Human Resource Planning,
15(4), 47-67.
Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security
dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile?
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25.
Kahn, R., Wolfe, D., Quinn, R., Snoek, J., Rosenthal, R. (1964).
Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Kristof, A. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative
review of its conceptualization, measurement, and implications.
Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study
of the impact of organizational justice on correctional staff.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.
Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on

correctional staff members. Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.
Lambert, E., Barton, S., Hogan, N., & Clarke, A. (2002). The
impact of instrumental communication and integration on cor-
rectional staff. Justice Professional, 15, 181-193.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009a). Exploring the predictors of
treatment views of correctional staff: A test of an integrated
work model. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 504-528.
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009b). The importance of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment in shaping turnover
intent: A test of a causal model. Criminal Justice Review, 34,
96-118.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Allen, R. (2006). Correlates of
correctional officer job stress: The impact of organizational
structure.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 227-246.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Barton, S., Jiang, S., & Baker, D.
(2008). The impact of punishment and rehabilitation views on
orga-
nizational commitment among correctional staff: A preliminary
study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 85-98.
Lambert, N., Hogan, N., & Barton-Bellessa, S. (2010). Research
note: The association between perceptions of distributive
justice and procedural justice with support of treatment and
support of punishment among correctional staff. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Cheeseman Dial, K. (2010). The
relationship perceptions of distributive and procedural justice
with
strain-based work-family conflict among correctional staff.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and
measurement of psychological forces. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Miller, D., & Droge, C. (1986). Psychological and traditional
determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,
539-560.
Mitchell, T., Holtom, B., Lee, T., Sablynski, C., & Erez, M.
(2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict
voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1102-
1121.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employee-
organization linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and
turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Muchinsky, P., & Monahan, C. (1987). What is person-
environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary
models
of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268-277.
O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to
assessing
person-organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34,
487-516.
Paoline, E., Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). A calm and
happy keeper of the keys: The impact of ACA views, relations

with
coworkers, and policy views on the job stress and job
satisfaction of jail staff. Prison Journal, 86, 182-205.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin.
Pastore, A., & Maguire, K. (2009). Sourcebook of criminal
justice statistics. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/
sourcebook/
Quinn, R., & Staines, G. (1979). The 1977 quality of
employment survey. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
Institute for Social
Research.
Resick, C., Baltes, B., & Shantz, C. (2007). Person-organization
fit and work-related attitudes and decisions: Examining
interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1446-1455.
Roberts, B., & Robins, R. (2004). Person-environment fit and
its implications for personality development: A longitudinal
study.
Journal of Personality, 72, 89-110.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1993). The
influence of career orientation on support for rehabilitation
among
correctional staff. Prison Journal, 73, 162-177.
Ryan, A., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2003). Focusing on personality
in person-organization fit research: Unaddressed issues. In
M. Barrick & A. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work:
Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 262-
288).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sabol, W., West, H., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008.
Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H., & Smith, D. (1995). The ASA
framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.
Sekiguchi, T. (2004a). Person-organization fit and person-job
fit in employee selection: A review of the literature. Osaka
Keidai
Ronshu, 54, 179-196.
Sekiguchi, T. (2004b). Toward a dynamic perspective of person-
environment fit. Osaka Keidai Ronshu, 55, 177-190.
Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new
generation jails: An investigation of its causes and preventions.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-
related stress and coping among correctional officers:
Implications
from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24,
291-308.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The
impact of race and gender on correctional officers’ orientation
to
the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 28, 472-500.
Weiner, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative
view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428.
Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job
control and occupational outcomes among prison workers.
Justice

Quarterly, 14, 524-546.
Eric G. Lambert is a professor of criminal justice at the Wayne
State University. His research interests include organizational
issues, the evaluation of correctional interventions, and death
penalty attitudes.
Irshad Altheimer is an assistant professor in the Department of
Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. His research
interests
include macrolevel theories of violence, correctional staff,
offender interventions, comparative criminology, and
neighborhood
processes and crime.
Nancy L. Hogan is a professor and graduate program
coordinator in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State
University.
Her research interests include health issues of inmates,
correctional staff, and the effectiveness of cognitive
correctional
interventions.
Shannon M. Barton-Bellessa is an associate professor in the
Department of Criminology at Indiana State University. Her
research interests include evaluative research, delinquency
prevention, and school violence.

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 453CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2011 .docx

Similar to 453CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 38 No. 5, May 2011 .docx (20)

More from alinainglis

More from alinainglis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

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