Criminal Justice Studies

A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

To be committed or not: a systematic review of the

empirical literature on organizational commitment
among correctional staff

Eric G. Lambert, Matthew Leone, Nancy L. Hogan, Zachary Buckner, Robert

Worley & Vidisha Barua Worley

To cite this article: Eric G. Lambert, Matthew Leone, Nancy L. Hogan, Zachary Buckner, Robert
Worley & Vidisha Barua Worley (2021) To be committed or not: a systematic review of the
empirical literature on organizational commitment among correctional staff, Criminal Justice
Studies, 34:1, 88-114, DOI: 10.1080/1478601X.2020.1762082

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 25 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 605

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES
2021, VOL. 34, NO. 1, 88–114
[Link]

ARTICLE

To be committed or not: a systematic review of the empirical

literature on organizational commitment among correctional
staff
Eric G. Lamberta, Matthew Leonea, Nancy L. Hoganb, Zachary Bucknerc, Robert Worleyd
and Vidisha Barua Worleyd
a
Department of Criminal Justice, The University of Nevada, Reno, USA; bSchool of Criminal Justice, Ferris
State University, Big Rapids, MI, USA; cDepartment of Legal Studies, The University of Mississippi, MS, USA;
d
Lamar University, Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice, Beaumont, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Staff are the most vital resource for any correctional facility. As Received 13 December 2019
corrections is a very expensive budget item in the U.S., finding Accepted 25 April 2020
and keeping dedicated employees is essential. Organizational KEYWORDS
commitment refers the bond between correctional staff and Correctional staff;
their institution. A strong bond is essential for the safety and organizational commitment;
security of both employees and inmates, as well as ensuring systematic review; affective
that the institution runs effectively. This review explores past commitment; continuance
research on three different types of organizational commitment commitment; moral
(affective, moral, and continuance), in order to summarize past commitment
results and to reveal areas remaining unexplored. This paper
examines both the antecedents and outcomes of organizational
commitment. Through a systematic review of past studies, we
have identified both positive and negative workplace factors
that influence organizational commitment. In addition, we report
how organizational commitment affects various outcomes, such
as burnout and turnover intent. Understanding how to increase
staff commitment can provide a blueprint for administrators to
enhance correctional operations and employee satisfaction.

Introduction
Immense resources are allocated to institutional corrections in the United States of
America (hereafter, the U.S.). More than 70 USD billion is spent annually on
U.S. correctional facilities, an amount larger than the gross national product of
more than 100 countries (Kincade, 2018). Approximately 1.5 million adults are incar-
cerated in U.S. prisons – an imprisonment rate of 655 inmates per 100,000 – the
highest incarceration rates in the world (Carson, 2019; World Prison Brief, 2019). In
order to supervise and care for inmates, more than 430,000 people in the U.S. are
employed as correctional staff (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018). Correctional staff are
a vital resource for correctional organizations. Staff are responsible for a myriad of
duties to ensure an orderly, secure, safe, and humane operation of the correctional

CONTACT Eric G. Lambert ericlambert@[Link] Department of Criminal Justice, The University of Nevada,
AB601D, Mail Stop 0214, 1664 North Virginia Street, Reno, 89557 USA
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 89

facility, and they are a critical element in the success (or failure) of an institution.
Correctional staff are not only an important resource for a correctional institution,
they are also an expensive one. Between 70% and 80% of a typical correctional
organization’s operating budget is estimated to be for staff (Camp & Gaes, 2002;
Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006).
Working in institutional corrections is a unique occupation. Staff must interact with
inmates who are being held against their will and ensure they comply with the rules.
Armstrong and Griffin (2004) contended that ‘few other organizations are charged with
the central task of supervising and securing an unwilling and potentially violent popula-
tion’ (p. 577). In light of the demands placed from working in institutional corrections,
there has been a growing body of research that has examined how workplace factors
affect staff, such as in terms of job stress, job satisfaction, job involvement, and organiza-
tional commitment (Lambert, 2004, 2008a; Tewksbury & Higgins, 2006; Vickovic & Griffin,
2014). While all these areas are important, organizational commitment (i.e. the strength of
a staff member’s bond to the employing organization) is an important goal for correc-
tional organizations (Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan, 2013a). Lincoln and
Kalleberg (1990) pointed out that ‘the committed employee’s involvement in the organi-
zation takes on moral overtones, and his stake extends beyond the satisfaction of merely
personal interest in employment, income, and intrinsically rewarding work’ (p. 22). Griffin
and Hepburn (2005) noted that ‘understanding and promoting commitment to the
organization is essential to the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization’ (p. 612).
In an era where rising costs, shrinking budgets, and personnel shortages are common,
ensuring that correctional staff are committed and put forth effort on behalf of the
organization is imperative. Over the past two decades, there has been increased research
focused on organizational commitment. A systematic review of published articles on
correctional staff organizational commitment is necessary to provide an overview of
what has been studied and what has been found. Compiling and evaluating past research
allows administrators to make informed changes to increase the organizational commit-
ment of staff and can also guide future scholars concerning what is known and what still
needs to be explored; therefore, we conducted a review of published studies dealing with
both the antecedents and outcomes of correctional staff organizational commitment.

Review of the literature

Organizational commitment
Commitment is a multi-foci concept (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1993). People can
commit to numerous areas, such as a partner, a social club, a religious organization,
a union, and the employing organization (Lambert et al., 2013aa). Organizational commit-
ment refers to a commitment to the overall employing organization and not to a section,
department, or specific work group (Ford, Weissbein, & Plamondon, 2003; Lambert,
Hogan, & Jiang, 2008). Organizational commitment refers to the bond formed between
the worker and the employing organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Lambert, Barton, &
Hogan, 1999; Stazyk, Pandey, & Wright, 2011). There are different forms of commitment
depending how the bond is defined and how the bond is formed (Meyer, Stanley,
90 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Meyer and Allen (1984) theorized three different forms
of organizational commitment: continuance, moral, and affective.

Continuance commitment
The side bet theory is at the root of continuance commitment (Becker, 1960; Griffin &
Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, Kelley, & Hogan, 2013b). Under this theory, investments in the
employing organization over time become ‘sunken costs’ that bind workers to the organiza-
tion, resulting in continuance commitment (Becker, 1960; Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999). These
investments include time with the organization, effort, job skills (particularly nontransferable
ones), social connections, benefits (especially pension plans), and salary, and these invest-
ments would be reduced or lost if the person left the organization or the organization failed
(Hrebiniak & Alutto, 1972; Lambert, Kim, Kelley, & Hogan, 2013; McElroy, Morrow, & Wardlow,
1999). The ‘sunken costs’ compel the person to remain with the organization (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Becker, 1960). Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, and Sincich (1993) saw continuance commitment
as ‘the degree which an individual experiences a sense of being locked in a place because of
the high costs of leaving . . . and the employee feels compelled to commit to the organiza-
tion because monetary, social, psychological, and other costs associated with leaving are
high’ (p. 953). Continuance commitment is also labeled as calculative commitment because
workers must calculate the benefits and costs of staying versus leaving the current employ-
ing organization (Lambert et al., 2008; Meyer & Allen, 1984, 1997).

Moral commitment
Moral commitment bonds form due to socialization and social pressure both prior to and
after joining the organization (Lambert et al., 2008; Meyer & Allen, 1991). Moral commit-
ment is also referred to as normative commitment, because this type of bond represents
a normative obligation to repay the organization by committing to it (Allen & Meyer,
1990). Penley and Gould (1998) contended that individuals become committed to the
employing organization due to socialization they receive both before and after joining the
organization. Wiener (1982) noted that this form of commitment is the ‘totality of inter-
nalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets the organizational goals and
interests. The stronger the commitment, the stronger is the person’s predisposition to be
guided in his or her actions by such internalized standards rather than by a consideration
of the consequences of these actions. Thus, 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). Socialization to
commit and be loyal to an organization occurs prior to joining the organization and after
becoming a member of the organization (Wiener & Vardi, 1980). The socialization of moral
commitment is illustrated in the adage ‘do not bite the hand that feeds you’ (Meyer &
Allen, 1991). After being hired, there is often socialization that there is a moral duty to be
loyal to the organization, and there is a message that a new hire is part of the organiza-
tional family (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Powell & Meyer, 2004). This form of socialization is
represented in the adage of ‘toe the company line’ (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Under this form
of commitment, people act not necessarily in their own interest, but in the best interest of
the organization because of normative obligations and a sense of moral duty to repay the
organization though commitment (Jaros et al., 1993; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001).
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 91

Affective commitment
Affective commitment is a voluntary psychological bond that is formed by an individual to
the employing organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Lambert et al., 2008). Affective commit-
ment is seen as having the elements of identification with the organization (i.e. pride in
the organization and internalization of organizational goals) and involvement in the
organization (i.e. personal effort made for the sake of the organization) (Meyer & Allen,
1991; Mowday, 1998; Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). The affective bond takes time to
develop, but once developed, it tends to be strong (Jaros et al., 1993; Lambert, Keena,
May, Haynes, & Buckner, 2017). One of the reasons for this is because this bond tends to
form because of positive treatment by the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Lambert
et al., 2013a, 2013b). Under the reciprocity principle of the social exchange theory,
positive treatment results in a positive viewpoint of the organization and allows for
a person to willingly bond with the organization (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Lambert
et al., 2013a, 2013b). As such, if a person is treated with dignity, in a fair manner, and with
respect by the organization, a stronger psychological bond is likely to develop.
Conversely, if treated poorly, unfairly, and/or unethically, a weak affective bond will be
formed, if at all (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Overview of the three forms of organizational commitment

The three forms of organizational commitment differ from one another in the reason why
the bond is formed. For continuance commitment the bond forms because of self-
interests to protect investments (i.e. sunken costs), which represents reciprocity of neces-
sity. For moral commitment, the bond forms because of sense of duty and obligation
resulting from social pressures and socialization, which represents reciprocity of obliga-
tion. For affective commitment, the bond forms because of positive treatment by the
organization leading to a psychological attachment, which represents reciprocity by
desire (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Using intent to remain as an illustration, Meyer, Allen, and
Smith (1993) noted that ‘employees with strong affective commitment remain because
they want to, those with strong continuance commitment remain because they need to,
and those with strong moral commitment remain because they feel they ought to do so’
(p. 539). Lambert, Hogan, and Keena (2015) used marriage as a metaphor to illustrate the
different commitment bonds. They noted that for continuance commitment, a spouse
remains married because of the investments made in the marriage and the high costs of
ending the union. For moral commitment, they indicated that a person remains married
because of social, familial, and/or religious pressures to honor the union, and socialization
concerning the sacrament of marriage. For affective commitment, the person remains
married due to emotional and psychological bonds with the other spouse, with whom he/
she shares interests and values, and identification as one part of a marital unit, and there
are overall positive interactions in the relationship.
Mowday et al. (1982) contended that the three forms of organizational commitment
could be placed on a behavioral – attitudinal continuum, with affective commitment
falling on the attitudinal end, and continuance commitment falling on the behavioral end.
Affective commitment is placed at the attitudinal side of the continuum because it
represents a willing psychological connection with the organization. Continuance com-
mitment is placed on the behavioral side of the continuum because the investments
influence the actions of the person for or against the organization in order to protect her/
92 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

his investments. Moral commitment is placed in the middle of the continuum because it
represents both a behavioral and attitudinal bond with the organization based on a sense
of obligation.
Further, research has empirically demonstrated that continuance, moral, and affective
commitment are empirically distinct constructs based on factor analysis results and that
each form of commitment has different predictors (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Dunham, Grube, &
Castaneda, 1994; Jaros et al., 1993; Lambert et al., 2008). Finally, the vast majority of
reviewed correctional staff studies used an affective form of organizational commitment.
This is probably for two major reasons. First, as noted in the next section, affective
commitment tends to be related to many positive outcomes for staff and correctional
organizations, while moral commitment tends not to have any many positive outcomes,
and continuance commitment has been found to be associated with some negative
consequences. Second, affective commitment is more within the control of the organiza-
tion by making improvements and changes that tend to be less costly than the other forms.

Method of review
The present study sought to examine all works which pertain to the topic of correc-
tional staff organizational commitment. For the purposes of this systematic review, we
were interested in examining correctional staff organization studies for both security
and non-security correctional employees. As (Lambert, Hogan, et al., 2002a) con-
tended, the term ‘correctional staff,’ in its broadest sense, includes anyone who
works for a correctional agency, such as those who work in administration, correc-
tional officers, and non-custody employees. Anyone who works within a correctional
facility works within a bureaucracy and is subjected to a workplace culture which
emphasizes stability and predictability. These actors are all part of the same organiza-
tional team and are all worthy of our attention, regardless of the specific role they
play.
As in any systematic review, the first step was to cast a wide net and conduct
a preliminary review of all relevant articles. We searched Criminal Justice Abstracts,
Criminal Justice Periodicals Index, Google Scholar, National Criminal Justice Reference
Service, National Institute of Corrections, Psychological Abstracts, Social Services
Abstracts, Social Work Abstracts, and Sociological Abstracts, for all articles that included
any of the following key words: ‘correctional staff’, ‘correctional officers’, ‘custody
officers’, ‘custody staff’, ‘prison staff’, ‘prison officer’, ‘prison’, ‘correctional organizational
commitment’, ‘correctional staff organizational commitment’, ‘prison organizational
commitment’, ‘correctional affective commitment’, ‘correctional staff affective commit-
ment’, ‘prison affective commitment’, ‘correctional continuance commitment’, ‘correc-
tional staff continuance commitment’, ‘prison continuance commitment’, ‘correctional
calculative commitment’, ‘correctional staff calculative commitment’, ‘prison calculative
commitment’, ‘correctional normative commitment’, ‘correctional staff normative com-
mitment’, ‘prison normative commitment’, ‘correctional moral commitment’, ‘correc-
tional staff moral commitment’, ‘prison moral commitment.’
For this study, we collected articles published between January 1981 and
December 2018 located in database searches and within references cited in those articles.
All of the above studies were published during the beginning, middle, or current stage of
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 93

the mass incarceration movement. A time frame of almost 40 years was sufficiently
comprehensive yet also relevant and timely. Organizational commitment was measured
by each reviewed study using indexes (scales) and the vast majority of these scales were
from Mowday et al. (1982) or Meyer and Allen (1991).
For the purposes of this review, we also opted to examine studies that were conducted
in the United States. This was done so that the present study would provide information
useful to the management of correctional facilities in the United States, which has the
largest prison system in the world. Given that the United States incarcerates 25% of the
world’s prisoners, there was a sufficient body of literature to examine (World Prison Brief,
2019). Also, as the studies examined in this article pertain primarily to the prison work-
place within the United States, definitions of correctional commitment are more likely to
be constant and reliable and are less subject to variations from country to country.
A total of 60 studies were located; 56 were empirical studies, three were theoretical
papers, and one was a meta-analysis on job stress that also included organizational
commitment. All of the empirical studies employed surveys and were cross-sectional;
none were longitudinal. After all of the articles were collected and read, citations and
references were checked. Although we tried to be as thorough as possible, we recognize
that not all correctional staff organizational studies may have been included in the current
systematic review (Gough, Oliver, & Thomas, 2017). The past studies examined correc-
tional staff across a wide array of locations and types of correctional institutions, such as
public adult prisons, private prisons, jails, public juvenile facilities, and private juvenile
facilities. A table of the reviewed studies, type of organizational commitment measured,
correctional staff studied, and the study’s findings, is available upon request. The ante-
cedents and the outcomes for the same form of organizational commitment (e.g., affec-
tive commitment) were similar across the different forms of correctional facilities.

Antecedents of organizational commitment

Although there are a variety of possible antecedents and different ways to group them,
we used the method from Wells, Minor, Angel, Matz, and Amato (2009) and Lambert et al.
(2017) for the grouping of the antecedents into the two broad groups of personal
characteristic variables and workplace variables. Personal characteristics typically
included in past studies include gender, age, position, tenure (either with the agency or
in the current position), educational level, race/ethnicity, supervisory status, and marital
status. Personal characteristics were included more as control variables than explanatory
variables, especially when workplace variables were included in the multivariate analysis
(Butler, Tasca, Zhang, & Carpenter, 2019; Griffin, Armstrong, & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert,
2004; Lambert et al., 2017). For example, Griffin (2007) conducted a study where female
correctional officers were statistically more likely than their male colleagues to stay
committed to the prison organization (often due to family and financial obligations),
while in another study, older officers, as well as those with significant job tenure were
more likely than others to remain with the organization until they retired (Griffin &
Hepburn, 2005).
While some personal characteristics had significant bivariate correlations, they gener-
ally failed to reach significance once multivariate regression was conducted; however,
a few personal characteristics did have significant associations with commitment in at
94 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

least some multivariate analyses. While most multivariate analyses found supervisory
status was not a significant predictor of organizational commitment, seven studies
found supervisors had higher commitment compared to nonsupervisory staff (Camp,
Saylor, & Harer, 1997; Hogan, Lambert, Jenkins, & Wambold, 2006; Lambert, 2003, 2004;
Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Clarke, 2002; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014).
This makes sense because supervisors were promoted by the organization, represent the
organization, and tend to have greater input than line staff. Additionally, Vickovic and
Griffin (2014) study of a Western state correctional system reported that supervisors had
higher levels of commitment; however, the workplace variables of organizational support
(positive association), quality of supervision (positive association), and hostile work envir-
onment (negative association) were significant predictors of affective commitment for
both line staff and supervisors, suggesting that workplace variables play a role regardless
of supervisory status.
While the majority of multivariate analyses reported no association between position
and commitment, five studies found that position had significant effects (Hogan, Lambert,
& Griffin, 2013; Lambert, 2003; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, Jiang, & Baker, 2008; Lambert,
Hogan, Camp, & Ventura, 2006; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). All but one of the above-cited
studies reported that correctional officers had lower organizational commitment than
noncustody staff. Holding a custody position can be a demanding and trying experience,
and these negative experiences may weaken the bond with the correctional organization.
Age was related to commitment in six studies. Five studies reported a positive associa-
tion with affective commitment among all correctional staff or just correctional officers
(Camp et al., 1997; Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert et al., 2017; Paoline & Lambert, 2012a;
Vickovic & Griffin, 2014), and one study involving correctional teachers reported
a negative association (Garland, McCarty, & Zhao, 2009). Overall, if age has a connection
with affective commitment, it appears to be positive. Whether the association with
becoming more bonded to the organization is due to aging itself and or whether is the
result of a cohort effect is unclear.
Interestingly, the findings for tenure are more mixed than for age. While the majority of
research observed no effects of tenure on commitment in multivariate analyses, six
articles reported a negative relationship between tenure and commitment (Camp et al.,
1997; Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2008; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Melnick, Ulaszek, Lin, &
Wexler, 2009; Paoline & Lambert, 2012a; Paoline, Lambert, Hogan, & Keena, 2018), and
four studies reported a negative association (Garland et al., 2009; Griffin & Hepburn, 2005;
Lambert et al., 2008; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014 for nonsupervisory correctional officers but
not for supervisory correctional officers).
For educational level, the vast majority of empirical research reported no significant
connection with affective commitment in multivariate analyses; however, six studies
found a significant negative relationship (Camp et al., 1997; Lambert et al., 2017;
Paoline & Lambert, 2012a; Paoline et al., 2018; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014 for nonsupervisory
correctional officers but not for supervisory correctional officers). College educated
employees may feel that their experiences and skills are not being fully utilized by the
correctional organization, resulting in negative feelings that decreases the strength of the
bond to the organization.
Only four studies reported that race/ethnicity had significant effects in regression
models, with White staff reporting lower affective commitment than Nonwhite staff
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 95

(Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2018; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014), but White staff
reporting higher moral/normative commitment (Hogan et al., 2013). It is important to
note that Vickovic and Griffin (2014) only observed a link between race/ethnicity and
commitment among nonsupervisory staff, while there was a nonsignificant association
between these two variables for supervisory officers, again supporting the contention
that supervisory status may be the most important personal characteristic in explaining
the level of commitment.
Only one multivariate study reported that gender had a positive effect on affective
comment: male supervisory custody staff reported higher commitment, and female non-
supervisory correctional officers also reported higher commitment, suggesting that the
effects of gender may vary by supervisory status (Vickovic & Griffin, 2014).
Again, the significance of the associations and the effects of personal variables are
greatly reduced when workplace variables are included in the analysis (Butler et al., 2019;
Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert, 2004; Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Stevenson, 2008). This
is good news for correctional administrators interested in raising the organizational
commitment of staff, particularly the affective form. Many personal characteristics, such
as gender and age, are beyond their control, nor should they be manipulated. Workplace
variables are more under the control of administrators. As such, we focus on the past
findings of how workplace variables are linked with correctional staff organizational
commitment rather than personal characteristics.
Workplace variables involve how a staff member perceives different aspects of the
correctional work environment (Griffin, 2001; Lambert, 2004). Work does not occur in
a vacuum; it occurs in what is known as the workplace or work environment (Lambert
et al., 2002a). As noted by Dawson (1996), the workplace comprises a myriad of factors
(variables), both tangible and intangible, that affect the staff member. Further, most of the
research on how workplace variables are connected with organizational commitment has
focused on the affective form and far fewer studies have measured either continuance or
moral commitment. In fact, about 90% of the reviewed studies focused on how workplace
variables were linked to affective organizational commitment. Workplace variables can be
further divided into those with negative effects and those with positive effects on
organizational commitment.

Workplace variables with negative effects

Role stressors
Workplace stressors (i.e. workplace variables which cause strain for correctional staff) have
a negative association with affective commitment. There are different types of stressors.
Role ambiguity (i.e. not being given clear orders and directions) is negatively related to
the affective commitment of correctional staff (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert, Hogan,
Paoline, & Clarke, 2005). Similarly, role conflict (i.e. being given contradictory directions
or competing goals) also appears to reduce affective commitment to the organization
(Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Lambert et al., 2005). Role strain, a combined
measure of role ambiguity and role conflict, reduces the affective bond with the organiza-
tion (Lambert et al., 2008, 2017; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). Work pressure (i.e. feeling
pressured to do the work done without sufficient time) has a negative relationship with
organizational commitment among correctional staff (Savicki, Cooley, & Gjvesvold, 2003).
96 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

A stressor more unique to criminal justice occupations is perceived dangerousness of the

job (i.e. fear of being hurt or injured on the job or being victimized), which has been
observed to reduce affective commitment among correctional staff (Lambert & Hogan,
2010; Lambert et al., 2013a; Paoline et al., 2018). That the role stressors of ambiguity,
conflict, strain, and dangerousness are negatively associated with the affective form of
organizational commitment makes sense. These workplace variables often result in
psychological frustration and strain, and it is unlikely staff will commit to an organization
being identified with these negative effects.

Other stressors
Other workplace variables have been reported to result in lower commitment.
Perceptions that the job requires learning nontransferable skills were reported to reduce
affective commitment (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). The organization could be blamed for
creating positions that do not lead to skills in demand in other occupations. Curiously,
perceptions of having nontransferable job skills had a negative relationship with con-
tinuance commitment, while a perception that no alternative jobs were available had
a positive effect (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). A perceived hostile work environment (i.e.
discrimination, sexual harassment, and unfair treatment of women and minorities)
appears to reduce affective commitment (Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Likewise, harassment
was reported to reduce affective commitment (Savicki et al., 2003). Working in a hostile
work environment is not a pleasant experience, and it appears the organization experi-
ences a reduced bond for allowing this to occur. Supporting punishment of inmates (as
opposed to rehabilitating them) was found to reduce both affective and moral commit-
ment of correctional staff (Lambert, Altheimer, Hogan, & Barton-Bellessa, 2011; Lambert
et al., 2008). A conflict between a staff member and the goals of the correctional
organization to provide rehabilitation to inmates, results in a poor person-to-
organization fit and a negative association with affective commitment to the organization
(Lambert et al., 2011).

Work-family conflict
Research to date supports the contention that the stressor of work-family conflict
diminishes the voluntary bond with the organization. In an ideal world, the two major
life domains of work and home should be balanced with one another. For some correc-
tional staff, however, this is not the case. These domains spill into one another, causing
conflict and problems for both domains. This is referred to as work-family conflict. Work-
family conflict can be divided into the areas of time-based conflict (i.e. work schedules and
shifts do not match home life), strain-based conflict (i.e. strains from work, such as being in
a fight with an inmate that follows the staff member home, resulting in tensions,
irritability, and arguments), behavior-based conflict (work roles, such as being questioning
and forceful, and home roles, such as being supportive and not being suspicious, are
incompatible with one another, causing conflict), and family-on-work work-family conflict
(i.e. when home problems, such as an argument with a spouse or worrying about a sick
child, follow the person to work, resulting in distractions and tension on the job) (Lambert
et al., 2006). Time-based conflict, behavior-based conflict, and family-based work-family
conflict were all observed to decrease the level of affective commitment for correctional
staff (Lambert et al., 2006). Two other studies used a composite measure of time-based,
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 97

behavior-based, and strain-based conflict (labeled work-on-family conflict), and they

found reduced affective commitment (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2008).
Mohamed, Taylor, and Hassan (2006) observed that staff who perceived the organization
as providing help to staff to balance work-family domains had positive effects on affective
commitment. It appears domain spillover reduces the voluntary commitment of staff to
the correctional organization.

Job stress
Finally, job stress, defined as feelings of work-related psychological tension, frustration,
and distress, is often the result of exposure to workplace stressors over time (Higgins,
Tewksbury, & Denney, 2013). Job stress has been found in different research studies to
have a negative effect on affective commitment for staff at different types of correctional
institutions (Hogan et al., 2013; Lambert, 2004, 2008b; Lambert et al., 2008; Lambert &
Paoline, 2008; Wells et al., 2009). In a meta-analysis, job stress was reported to have
a significant negative correlation with organizational commitment (type or types of
commitment not provided) (Dowden & Tellier, 2004). Feeling tense and distressed from
work is likely to weaken the voluntary bond to the organization, as the organization may
be blamed, consciously or unconsciously, for this suffering. On the other hand, job stress
had a positive association with continuance commitment, and this finding was explained
by arguing this form of commitment increases stress because staff with high levels of
continuance commitment may feel trapped in their jobs (Lambert et al., 2008).

Workplace variables with positive effects

Job variety, perceived promotional opportunity, instrumental communication, and
formalization
Far more research has explored how various workplace variables have a positive effect on
organizational commitment, again with most of the previous studies focusing on the
affective form of commitment. While these variables have positive effects when they
increase, their absence or low levels can become a stressor in themselves (Schaufeli &
Taris, 2014). Job variety, or the amount of different opportunities for growth on a job
compared to repetitive positions, has been reported to increase affective commitment in
seven studies (Lambert & Hogan, 2010; Lambert et al., 2008, 2009, 2009, 2017; Lambert &
Paoline, 2008; Paoline et al., 2018). Variety has been described as the spice of life, and the
findings suggest that work-related variety can also form a stronger voluntary bond
between the staff member and the organization. Job variety likely makes the job more
interesting and stimulating, resulting in a more pleasant work experience, and the
organization is repaid for creating these positive experiences with increased affective
commitment.
Perceived promotional opportunity in the correctional organization can also raise the
level of affective commitment (Lambert, 2008b; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Clarke, 2002;
Lambert, Jiang, & Hogan, 2008; Lambert & Paoline, 2008). The opportunity for possible
promotion represents an opportunity for growth and new opportunities in the organiza-
tion, which raises the chances of connecting with the organization. In other words, if there
is a perceived future in the organization, the likelihood of voluntarily bonding increases.
Instrumental communication (i.e. formal information/communication by the organization
98 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

to help staff to do their jobs) can help build the affective commitment of staff (Lambert
et al., 2002, 2017; Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Matz, Wells, Minor, & Angel, 2012).
Formalization (i.e. the extent of and the use of written manuals and rules) also can build
voluntary commitment (Lambert & Paoline, 2008; Lambert, Paoline, & Hogan, 2006).
Instrumental communication and formalization likely help staff to be more productive
and successful in their work, giving them a sense of accomplishment and positive feelings
about themselves. In their appreciation to the organization, they willingly bond with the
organization.

Supervision
Supervisors play a critical role in correctional organizations by guiding, directing, and
assisting staff. The research suggests that supervisors are seen as representatives of the
organization and when quality supervision is perceived, the organization is paid back with
higher affective commitment (Garland et al., 2009; Lambert, 2004, 2008b; Lambert et al.,
2008; Matz et al., 2012; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). In addition, supervisor consideration (i.e.
treating staff with dignity and looking out for their well-being), supervisor rewards (i.e.
supervisors rewarding staff to motivate them), and supervisor structure (i.e. ensuring
duties are done in a consistent manner and ensuring all supervised staff are held to
similar expectations) have been reported to raise the level of the affective bond among
correctional staff (Lambert, Hogan, Altheimer, & Wareham, 2010; Lambert et al., 2009,
2009; Savicki et al., 2003). For female, but not male, correctional staff, referent power (i.e.
seeing the supervisor as a role model to emulate) also had a positive effect on affective
commitment (Savicki et al., 2003).

Social support
Social support is also a salient workplace variable, with the major forms being supervisor
support, administrative/management support, and coworker support. Supervisor support
has been observed to raise affective commitment across different correctional settings
(Lambert & Hogan, 2009b; Lambert et al., 2010; Lambert, Minor, Wells, & Hogan, 2016).
Administrative support (also called management or organizational support) likewise helps
build affective commitment (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005; Lambert & Hogan, 2009b; Lambert
et al., 2016; Paoline & Lambert, 2012a; Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Organizational support
also is positively associated with continuance commitment (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). Far
less research has been conducted on the role coworker support has with commitment.
Coworker support had positive effects on affective commitment among Midwestern
prison staff (Lambert et al., 2016), but this form of support only had positive effects on
affective commitment among Arizona line correctional officers but not among super-
visory officers (Vickovic & Griffin, 2014). Relatedly, Mohamed et al. (2006) found that
providing a perceived caring and supportive work environment for correctional staff
resulted in a positive relationship with the affective form of commitment. Social support
generally provides help for staff in dealing with the demands of working in institutional
corrections and for ideas of how to overcome problems, as well as making them feel part
of the group and organization. In the end, the organization benefits with a stronger
voluntary connection from staff. Management and supervisor support can be improved
by efforts on the part of the organization. Training and rewards can be instituted to
increase the support of staff by managers and supervisors (Lambert et al., 2016).
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 99

Organizational justice
Justice is a common theme in society and the media. It is also an important force in
organizations. Organizational justice (also called organizational fairness) is the perception
that the organization is fair in its salient processes and outcomes that affect staff (Lambert,
2003). Distributive justice (i.e. the perceptions of salient outcomes being fair, such as
promotions, shift, posts, evaluations, and discipline) and procedural justice (i.e. the
processes and procedures used to decide distributive outcomes are fair and transparent)
are two major dimensions of organizational justice (Lambert, Hogan, & Griffin, 2007).
Lambert (2003) in a study of state prison staff found procedural but not distributive justice
had a significant positive effect on affective commitment. Among private prison staff,
both distributive and procedural justice had positive effects on affective commitment,
with procedural justice having a greater effect (Lambert et al., 2007). Composite measures
of organizational justice (i.e. distributive and procedural justice combined) have been
reported to result in a stronger voluntary bond to the correctional organization (Lambert,
2008b; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Lambert et al., 2002a, 2008). Pay fairness was found to
increase affective commitment as well (Paoline et al., 2018). A composite measure of
organizational justice had a positive relationship with moral commitment, but not con-
tinuance commitment (Lambert et al., 2008). Overall, there is support for the contention
that organizational fairness shapes the affective commitment of correctional staff.
Organizational justice goes to the heart of the organization (Lambert, 2003). If an orga-
nization is perceived to be fair, it is more likely that staff will identify and bond with it
(Lambert et al., 2007). What is not fully clear from the research is the role distributive
justice plays, because results are mixed. It is clearer that procedural justice helps shape
voluntary commitment and appears to have the largest sized effect as compared to
distributive justice. This is good news for correctional administrators because they have
more control of being procedurally just, and changes in procedural justice tend to be less
costly than changes to distributive justice, such as pay (Lambert, 2003). Martin and
Bennett (1996) pointed out that ‘the economic costs of acting in a procedurally fair
manner – treating individuals with respect, providing advance notice of and justification
for actions – are minimal’ (p. 100).

Input
Allowing input into decision-making also can help build organizational commitment.
Among staff at a variety of correctional facilities, input into decision-making has consis-
tently been found to raise affective commitment (Lambert, 2008b; Lambert & Hogan,
2009a, 2009c; Lambert et al., 2008, 2017, 2006; Paoline et al., 2018; Stohr, Lovrich, Menke,
& Zupan, 1994; Wright, Saylor, Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Input into decision-making also had
positive effects on moral commitment but not for continuance commitment (Lambert
et al., 2008). Input may have a strong effect, as noted by Lambert et al. (2006), because it
represents the organization trusting and valuing staff’s ideas. In addition, it is likely that
staff will be more committed to an organization they help shape. It is important to note
that input into decision-making does not mean correctional administrators are bound by
every idea suggested. Rather, it means allowing the opportunity for a voice in the
organization and for a dialogue of why some input was accepted and other input was
not (Lambert et al., 2017).
100 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Organizational trust
The research to date suggests that organizational trust may influence commitment.
There are different forms of organizational trust, with management trust (also known
as an administrative or organizational trust), supervisor trust, and coworker trust
being the major areas (Lambert et al., 2008; Matz et al., 2012). Trust in management
has been associated with affective commitment (Kane, Saylor, & Nacci, 1983; Lambert
& Hogan, 2009c; Lambert et al., 2008). Likewise, supervisor trust has been reported to
have a positive association with commitment (Lambert et al., 2008). Coworker trust
was reported to raise affective commitment as well (Matz et al., 2012). Similarly,
having positive coworker relations can also raise this form of commitment (Paoline,
Lambert, & Hogan, 2006). Building management and supervisor trust are under the
control of the correctional organization. It means providing training and incentives to
administrators, managers, and supervisors on the importance of building trust with
staff, which includes keeping one’s word, explaining when promises cannot be kept,
being benevolent, having integrity, and being competent (Lambert et al., 2008). More
research is needed on how to build coworker trust before further recommendations
can be made.

Other workplace variables

The effects of other workplace variables have been researched to a lesser extent.
Perceptions that quality training is provided has been linked to higher affective commit-
ment (Lambert et al., 2009, 2009, 2017). Providing quality training should result in being
more productive and successful at work, raising positive psychological feelings, and, in
the end, in a reciprocal exchange, a stronger voluntary bond with the organization is
formed. Job autonomy, which is having a say in the order of job tasks and how they are
done, has been observed to raise affective commitment (Lambert & Hogan, 2010;
Lambert et al., 2006). Allowing job autonomy can send a message by the organization
that it values and trusts staff, which allows the organization to be seen in a more
favorable light, making commitment easier and more likely. Perceptions of innovation
at the organization (i.e. willingness to try new ideas) (Lambert & Hogan, 2010) and
perceptions of organizational integration (i.e., stressing cooperation and working
together between units, such as custody and treatment, rather than competition) are
positively associated with this form of commitment (Lambert et al., 2002). Job perfor-
mance feedback (Lambert et al., 2002b) has also been reported to be related to higher
commitment (Garland et al., 2009). Integration, innovation, and job feedback often
results in a more successful work experience, allowing staff to feel better about them-
selves, and ultimately the organization. Staff with higher levels of work ethic had greater
affective commitment as well (Lambert & Hogan, 2009c). Support for rehabilitation and
treatment of inmates has been reported to raise both affective (Lambert et al., 2008) and
moral commitment (Lambert et al., 2011). These studies noted that the treatment of
inmates was a major objective of the surveyed prisons, which suggests that alignment
of views can strengthen the bond between the staff member and the correctional
organization. Finally, perceptions of professionalism in the workplace and proper detai-
nee control have been reported to have positive effects on affective commitment
(Paoline & Lambert, 2012a).
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 101

Work attitudes
The work attitudes of job involvement and job satisfaction appear to raise affective
commitment among correctional staff. Job involvement is the psychological connection
with the job (i.e. the degree of importance working in corrections plays in the life of the
person) (Lambert, 2008a). Research has revealed that this work attitude is positively
associated with affective organizational commitment among correctional staff (Hogan
et al., 2013; Lambert, 2008a; Paoline & Lambert, 2012b). It makes sense that having
a connection with the job would result in a greater willingness to bond with the
organization, since the organization provided the job. Job satisfaction is the affective
(i.e. emotional) feeling a person has towards the job (i.e. the level at which a person likes
or dislikes the job) (Spector, 1997). Findings from empirical research indicate that job
satisfaction is a strong predictor of affective commitment among U.S. institutional correc-
tional staff (Hogan et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2007). The work attitude or job satisfaction
appears to be positively linked with affective commitment for a variety of correctional
staff (Hogan et al., 2013; Lambert, 2004, 2008b; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Lambert et al.,
2007). In fact, it seems to be the strongest predictor of affective commitment (Lambert,
2004). A study on the relationship of job stress, job involvement, and job satisfaction with
the three forms of organizational commitment found that there were different effects
depending on the form of the bond being examined. Specifically, job involvement and
job satisfaction had positive relations with affective commitment while job stress had
a negative relationship. For moral commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction had
positive relationships and job stress had a nonsignificant association. For continuance
commitment, only job stress was a significant predictor, having a positive association, and
it was theorized that high levels of continuance commitment may result in some correc-
tional staff feeling trapped, leading to increased stress levels (Hogan et al., 2013).

Consequences of organizational commitment

There is a small but growing body of studies that support the contention that organiza-
tional commitment affects both staff and the correctional organization. Affective commit-
ment had a positive relationship with organizational citizenship behavior (i.e. a prosocial
behavior of going beyond what is expected at work), and, in fact, it had a larger sized
effect than did either of the two other workplace variables of job stress or job involvement
included in the study (Lambert et al., 2008). In another study, Culliver, Sigler, and McNeely
(1991) found that affective commitment was associated with a general measure of
prosocial behaviors and higher job performance. Affective commitment appears to aid
in staff engaging in going above and beyond what is expected at work. Further, affective
commitment was found to have positive effects on life satisfaction, and continuance
commitment had negative effects (Lambert et al., 2013).
While some studies treated correctional orientation (i.e. support for punishment and
support for treatment) as antecedent variables, other studies have examined different
forms of commitment as the antecedents of correctional orientation. In general, affective
commitment has been linked to greater support for inmate treatment and support for
rehabilitation among correctional staff (Lambert, Griffin, Hogan, & Kelley, 2015; Lambert &
Hogan, 2009d; Lambert, Hogan, Barton, & Elechi, 2009). Melnick et al. (2009), however,
observed affective commitment had a negative association with belief in rehabilitation.
102 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Affective commitment has been reported in two studies to be negatively related to the
support of punishment of inmates and offenders (Lambert et al., 2009, 2015). Moral
commitment was found to be positively associated with support for treatment of inmates
and negatively related to support for punishment of inmates and continuance commit-
ment had nonsignificant effects on either form of correctional orientation (Lambert et al.,
2015). Moore and Sales (2005) examined the association between affective, continuance,
and moral commitment and the working alliance among juvenile program staff. They
defined working alliance as a collaborative relationship between an institutionalized
juvenile client and a program staff member. Moral commitment had a positive relation-
ship with the working alliance, while continuance and affective commitment had non-
significant effects.
The effects of organizational commitment on correctional staff turnover intent (i.e.
desire to quit) and actual voluntary turnover has been studied. Continuance commitment
had a negative effect on turnover intent, and moral commitment had nonsignificant
effects (Lambert et al., 2015). Affective commitment appears to reduce correctional staff
turnover intent (Lambert, 2006, 2008b; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Lambert & Paoline, 2010;
Matz et al., 2012; Mohamed et al., 2006; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992). This form of
commitment is also linked to lower actual turnover (Camp, 1994). In fact, affective
commitment has been reported as having the largest sized effect on turnover intent of
all the variables in the analysis (Lambert, 2008b; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a; Mohamed et al.,
2006). The research suggests that affective commitment can also reduce work absentee-
ism (Lambert, Edwards, Camp, & Saylor, 2005). Additionally, affective and moral commit-
ment had negative effects on viewing sick leave as something an employee has a right to
use whenever they want, even if they are not sick, while continuance commitment had
nonsignificant effects on views on sick leave (Lambert et al., 2015).
Lambert, Hogan, Kelley, Kim, and Garland (2014) examined the connection between
affective and continuance commitment and work-family conflict. They reported that
affective commitment had negative effects on time-based work-family conflict, strain-
based work-family conflict, and behavior-based conflict but nonsignificant effects on
family-based conflict. Continuance commitment had positive effects on time-based
work-family conflict, strain-based work-family conflict, and behavior-based conflict but
nonsignificant for family-based conflict. Lambert et al. (2014) attributed the negative
association between affective commitment and work-family conflict to affective com-
mitment because affective commitment results in a positive psychological state of mind
so staff do not concentrate on the negative aspects of the job, which result in work-
family conflict. They argued that continuance commitment results in feelings of being
trapped, thereby resulting in higher negative psychological feelings, which increased
the level of domain conflict. Lambert et al. (2013b) found that affective commitment had
negative effects on emotional burnout and continuance commitment had positive
effects. Finally, Garland, Lambert, Hogan, Kim, and Kelley (2014) found that affective
and continuance commitment had different effects on the three dimensions of burnout.
Affective commitment had negative effects on the three burnout dimensions of emo-
tional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of work accomplishment.
Continuance commitment, conversely, had positive effects on all three burnout
dimensions.
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 103

Discussion and conclusion

Scholars and correctional administrators require timely information regarding ‘what we
know’ about staff commitment, as well as the importance of identifying existing gaps in
the literature. As such, we provided a systematic examination of the past studies. There
has been more research on the antecedents of organizational commitment and less on
the consequences of commitment. Additionally, the vast majority of research on the
antecedents of organizational commitment has focused on the affective form. This
research supports the contention that affective commitment is linked to positive
treatment by the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Lambert et al., 2013a, 2013b).
Further, the research supports the point that affective commitment tends to have
positive outcomes and continuance commitment tends to have negative outcomes.
Based on past findings, affective commitment is not a staff work attitude that should be
overlooked by correctional administrators or by correctional scholars. It is important to
aid and develop staff, who are a critical and expensive resource.
Past findings indicate that workplace variables play a greater role in shaping
commitment, particularly the affective form, than personal characteristics (e.g. age,
gender, and race/ethnicity). Again, this is good news, as workplace variables are more
controllable by correctional administrators than personal characteristics. As noted in
this review, there are many workplace variables that can be changed to raise the
commitment of staff. Stressors, which cause strain for staff, need to be reduced. While
there are many stressors, three which have been consistently found to reduce com-
mitment are role ambiguity, role conflict (Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert & Hogan, 2009a;
Lambert et al., 2008, 2005, 2017; Lambert & Paoline, 2008), and work-family conflict
(Hogan et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2008, 2006, 2014; Mohamed et al., 2006).
Staff responsibilities should be clearly defined and should not be in conflict with one
another. In addition, analysis of job duties and directions should be analyzed to see how
job duties can be clarified. Supervisors need to be made aware of the need to address role
ambiguity and conflict and need to ensure that conflicting directions and orders are not
given. Correctional scholars need to focus more research efforts on how to best reduce
these role stressors for staff. Interventions are needed to help staff deal with work-family
conflicts, including how to deal with time conflicts, work problems, and tensions effec-
tively so that they do not spill over into their home life, as well as how to balance
conflicting work and home behavior roles. In addition, correctional scholars need to
explore how work-family conflicts develop and what interventions are most effective
and efficient at reducing work-family-conflict and the harm it causes.
There is a good deal of empirical research, which indicates positive workplace variables
increase commitment, particularly affective commitment. This makes sense because
affective commitment is theorized to occur because of positive treatment by the organi-
zation, resulting in seeing the organization in a more favorable light, and ultimately
forming a willing bond with the organization. While there are many workplace variables
that could be improved to raise commitment, possible areas to enhance would include
job variety, instrumental communication, supervision, procedural justice, input into deci-
sion-making, and management/supervisory support. These variables have the ability to
instill a sense of fairness and empowerment among the officers and are most likely to
boost their affective commitment as tangible steps toward these goals are taken by the
104 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

organization. An analysis of positions should be done to see how they can be enlarged
and enriched. Efforts could be undertaken to have job enlargement (i.e. varying job duties
and experiences to make the job more stimulating and rewarding) (Lambert et al., 2017).
An analysis of instrumental communication within a correctional facility, including seek-
ing feedback from line staff, should be done to determine how to improve salient
communication so staff can be more successful in their jobs (Lambert & Paoline, 2008).
Further, quality supervision is critical. Seeking feedback from staff on what they believe
constitutes quality supervision is essential. Administrators should ensure that managers
and supervisors are aware of the importance of quality supervision by providing training
on how to engage in quality supervision, but also adding this area to the evaluation
process where supervisors and managers are rewarded for their performance (Lambert,
2004). Scholars also need to study how to raise perceptions of quality supervision and
improve the knowledge of what works and what does not work. According to the
literature, organizational justice is also important to staff. While the research is not as
clear on the role distributive justice plays in shaping affective commitment, it tends to be
more expensive to change (e.g. raising pay, increasing benefits, and enhancing retire-
ment); efforts to raise perceptions of procedural justice are recommended instead. As
noted earlier, this form of organizational justice appears to raise affective commitment
and is generally not expensive to improve (Lambert, 2003). Efforts need to be undertaken
to ensure the processes and procedures are transparent. In addition, staff should have
a voice in the matter. A voice does not mean that it binds the organization to their
suggestions, but it means that there needs to be a dialogue to answer questions and to
explain procedures (Lambert et al., 2007). Scholars need to examine how perceptions of
justice are formed and how other workplace variables play a role in the justice perceptions
of staff.
Additionally, efforts need to be undertaken to raise the level of management and
supervisor support. Managers need to get out and interact with staff, listen to them, and
seek their ideas on how to improve management support (Lambert & Hogan, 2009b). Staff
needs to be treated with respect and dignity, even when there are disagreements.
Disagreements occur; what matters is that they are handled in a professional manner
(Lambert, 2003). Open discussion about issues raised and questions asked is one way to
enhance support. Feedback from staff can help raise this workplace variable. Supervisor
and manager training should focus on how to raise the level of workplace support.
Further, support needs to be part of the regular evaluation of supervisors and managers,
as well as providing rewards to those who go above and beyond what is expected in this
area. Scholars need to not only examine how to raise the level of supervisory and
management support, but also explore how these variables affect staff in other areas,
such as job performance, organizational citizenship, and turnover intent. Finally, greater
input into decision-making by staff should be encouraged. As previously noted, input
sends a message to staff that they are valued and trusted. Input allows staff to commit to
the organization because they helped shape it. As indicated earlier, allowing input does
not bind administrators to make the decisions based on what staff say. Administrators
sometimes have information (often unknown to staff) that prevents the suggested
change (Lambert et al., 2017). When possible, though, administrators must be willing to
discuss why staff suggestions can or cannot be implemented. Staff need to be recognized
and rewarded for their meaningful input. Ultimately, by making changes to the work
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 105

environment, correctional administrators should not only positively affect staff affective
commitment, but other staff attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction and job involvement) and staff
behaviors (e.g. prosocial behaviors, absenteeism, turnover intent, and turnover) as well. In
the end, efforts to enhance the work environment should pay off by increasing affective
commitment.
While different predictors have been reported to be significantly associated with
affective commitment, three strong predictors (based on the size of the standardized
effect and the recommendations of past researchers) are procedural justice, input into
decision-making, and job satisfaction. Procedural justice likely goes to the heart of the
legitimacy of an organization. Being fair and transparent in processes and procedures
not only reflects positively on the organization but increases the likelihood that staff
will view the distributive outcomes as being fair (Lambert, 2003). Moreover, engaging
in procedural justice tends not to be very costly but has high dividends for the
organization (Martin & Bennett, 1996). Input into organizational decision-making
sends a message that staff are valued and respected. In addition, input allows for
staff to have a voice in the building and operation of the correctional organization.
People tend to be more committed to that they helped build (Lambert et al., 2006). As
noted above, allowing input does not mean administrators are bound to the staff
suggestions, but it does mean that there needs to be a forthright discussion of why
staff input can or cannot be implemented (Lambert et al., 2017). As noted earlier, job
satisfaction is reported to have the largest and strongest relationship with correctional
staff affective commitment (Lambert, 2004). Administrators need to build the job
satisfaction of correctional staff. It will not only make staff happier with their jobs but
will increase the level of commitment towards the organization. For ideas of how to
build correctional staff job satisfaction, we recommend seeing the antecedents of job
satisfaction reviews provided Butler et al. (2019) and Lambert et al., 2002a). If forced to
limit efforts to improve the affective organizational commitment of correctional staff,
correctional administrators should try to build the level of perceived procedural justice,
increase the amount of input into organizational decision-making, and raise the level of
job satisfaction among staff.
Although there are three types of organizational commitment, the empirical knowl-
edge about moral and continuance commitment is scant. The literature suggests that
continuance commitment can have negative outcomes. Most studies only focused on
affective commitment, but when continuance commitment was included, many of the
variables tested (i.e. working alliance, treatment oriented, etc.) had non-significant results.
This may be an indication that the only investment workers have in the organization are
the sunken costs (i.e. pension, health benefits, pay, seniority, etc.) rather than the variables
that usually shape commitment. Other antecedents increased the distance between the
staff and the organization. For example, job stress enhanced continuance commitment,
with the authors concluding that stress only added to the feelings of being trapped in the
job (Lambert et al., 2008). More research is needed to understand how continuance
commitment develops, how it is maintained, and whether or not it can be changed.
Further, research needs to explore how overall job performance is affected by continu-
ance commitment.
There is a growing body of research on correctional staff organizational commitment,
but more research is needed, particularly on the antecedents of commitment. Existing
106 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

literature on antecedents needs replication. Without additional studies, variables that

have universal effects cannot be definitively differentiated from those that have contex-
tual and situational effects. Job satisfaction, a work attitude, appears to be universal in its
positive connection with affective organizational commitment, and, as previously indi-
cated, it is one of the strongest predictors. While job involvement is less frequently
studied, the limited research to date suggests that it results in greater commitment, at
least in terms of the affective bond.
In general, workplace stressors as a group reduce the level of affective commitment,
but the effects of different stressors vary. For example, role conflict and role ambiguity
tend to reduce commitment, while the findings with role overload are mixed, sometimes
having a negative effect or no effect. Likewise, the association between perceived
dangerousness of the job and affective commitment was found by about half of the
studies to be negative and the other half to be nonsignificant. Work-family conflict tends
to reduce the level of commitment. Another stressor which appears to be universal in its
negative effects is job stress. It is hard to bond to an organization that is associated with
heightened psychological discomfort and tension.
In terms of job resources, the research to date suggests that input into decision-
making may have universal effects. Allowing staff input sends a message that they are
valued and respected. In addition, staff probably more likely to be committed to an
organization that they help build. The limited research on job autonomy suggests it may
vary in its association across different correctional organizations, suggesting it may be
a situational variable. Procedural justice appears to have near universal effects, but
distributive justice varies across studies. This suggests that improving fairness in pro-
cesses, which do not cost as much as outcomes to implement, may be a good method to
build commitment, at least in terms of its affective form. The effects of distributive
justice could vary because of the level of pay and benefits received, as they are often
seen by people as fair outcomes for their work and what they contribute (Lambert et al.,
2015). The level of pay and benefits varies across U.S. correctional agencies (Lambert
et al., 2015). Even though the correctional organization may not be in direct control of
pay and benefits, which are generally decided by legislative bodies, employees may
hold the correctional organization responsible, and, as such, reduce the level of the
bond. The bulk of the studies that included job variety have observed that it helps build
the affective form of organizational commitment, suggesting this workplace variable is
consistent (universal) in its effects. Quality supervision also appears to be near universal
in building affective commitment. The link between instrumental communication and
organizational commitment appears to be situational. Similarly, limited research sug-
gests that supervisory support appears to be situational in its effects, while manage-
ment/administrative support is more universal. Due to the limited number of studies on
formalization, promotional opportunity, and organizational trust (i.e. management and
supervisory trust) on organizational commitment, there are not sufficient results to
conclude whether their effects are universal or situational. More research is needed.
The effects of workplace variables have largely focused on affective commitment.
There is a need to explore how different workplace variables are associated with moral
and continuance commitment. Affective commitment is increased through positive treat-
ment that employees receive at work, thereby strengthening the bond with the organiza-
tion. Continuance commitment is often perceived as negative because the employee
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 107

might feel trapped in an organization as the costs of leaving might outweigh the benefits
of leaving. Moral or normative commitment is an obligatory feeling internalized by
employees by creating individual bonds that support an employee’s desire to stay.
While the latter two commitments have not been well-explored, increasing the affective
commitment in an organization will likely improve the other two commitments. If the
workplace variables like role ambiguity, conflict, and role strain are reduced, and staff are
treated with respect and play a role in decision-making, employees may find it more
beneficial to stay rather than leave (in the calculation of cost and benefit) and may also
develop deeper individual relations with their supervisors and co-workers. As such, the
three types of organizational commitment can function in a continuum and can be
sustained rather than being perceived and treated as if they are separate.
Future studies should explore the effects of different, rarely studied workplace vari-
ables, such as interpersonal justice (i.e. being treated with respect and dignity by the
organization) and informational justice (i.e. being provided explanations concerning
reasons/decisions for procedural justice processes and distributive justice outcomes) on
organizational commitment. Additionally, more research can determine whether partially-
studied workplace variables, such as formalization, promotional opportunity, and organi-
zational trust, are universal or situational in their effects. In addition to research examining
which variables are situational and which are universal, further research also needs to
examine under what circumstances these situational variables have effects on commit-
ment. For example, the effects of distributive may be greater for correctional organiza-
tions with low pay and less so for correctional organizations with higher pay than the
average for the field. There is also a need to determine whether variables have direct or
indirect effects. For example, role underload could have indirect effects, as it results in
greater job stress, and job stress, in turn, reduces affective commitment both directly and
indirectly by reducing job satisfaction. Understanding both direct and indirect effects will
allow for more informed, comprehensive, and ultimately successful interventions to raise
organizational commitment. For example, correctional administrators need to know
which variables raise or lower perceptions of procedural justice, an important variable
that influences the bond to the organization. For example, instrumental communication,
input, and organizational trust are important in improving views of procedural justice for
correctional staff. This information will aid administrators in making meaningful changes
intended to raise affective commitment.
Far more research exists on the antecedents of organizational commitment compared
to its consequences. Future research needs to replicate the limited past studies on the
consequences of organizational commitment, such as life satisfaction and absenteeism. In
addition, future studies need to explore other possible outcomes of organizational
commitment. For example, the limited research on the link between organizational
commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors looked at only two dimensions of
citizenship (i.e. altruism and compliance) and not the other dimensions of citizenship (e.g.
civic virtue and sportsmanship) (Lambert et al., 2008; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, &
Bachrach, 2000). Moreover, the potential antecedents and outcomes of organizational
commitment need to be studied from a comprehensive causal model point of view rather
than in a piecemeal fashion. By looking at both the potential causes and consequences of
commitment together, a clearer understanding of the process will be gained. Although
there are three types of organizational commitment, empirical knowledge about moral
108 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

and continuance commitment is scant. Far more research is needed that focuses on these
two forms of commitment. This future research should also include affective commitment,
so comparisons between variables can be made and the consequences that are asso-
ciated with each of these three forms of commitment can be determined based on the
results from the same sample of correctional staff. Finally, the studies to date have been
cross-sectional, which does not allow for the empirical demonstration of the causal
effects. For example, past studies theorized that job satisfaction causes affective commit-
ment. The opposite could be true, or reciprocal effect between these two variables over
time could exist. Longitudinal studies would help answer this and other causal questions.
Additional research will likely reveal a clearer picture of how different aspects of the
work environment affect different forms of organizational commitment among correc-
tional staff and the consequences of the different forms of organizational commitment.
Overall, understanding the different aspects of organizational commitment will provide
a template for administrators to enhance employee performance and satisfaction. This, in
turn, will result in a better and safer correctional work environment. Too often, the past
way of doing things, whether good or bad, remains because there is no guidance on
methods of improvement. This area of research can provide the groundwork to make
a change that benefits the entire organization.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which
improved the paper. The authors also thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of
Nevada, Reno. He received his Ph.D. from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of
New York at Albany. His research interests include organizational issues, job and organizational
effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees, and the interna-
tional perceptions, attitudes, and views on criminal justice issues.
Matthew Leone is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of
Nevada, Reno. He received his Ph.D. in Social Ecology from the University of California, Irvine. He has
co-authored three books in the areas of corrections and general criminal justice, and he has
published many articles. His areas of specialization include corrections and community based
corrections, juvenile justice, drugs and crime, and white collar crime.
Nancy L. Hogan is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University in Michigan,
USA. She received her Ph.D. in Justice Studies from Arizona State University in Arizona, USA. Her
research interests include job satisfaction and organizational issues of correctional staff, use of force,
and cognitive behavioral treatment for inmates.
Zachary Buckner earned a Master of Science in Criminal Justice program at the University of
Mississippi. He is interested in researching correctional treatment programs and correctional staff.
He is currently working in the field of institutional corrections, including serving as a case manager.
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 109

Robert Worley is an associate professor and Director of Criminal Justice Programs at Lamar
University. He earned his doctorate in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University. His
interests include inmate-guard inappropriate relationships, issues related to publication productiv-
ity and rankings in criminology and criminal justice, police and prison officers' liabilities for the use
of tasers and stun guns, computer crime and cyber-bullying.
Vidisha Barua Worley is an associate professor of Criminal Justice at at Lamar University. She earned
her doctorate in Criminal Justice from Sam Houston State University. She also earned an LLM in
Criminal Law from the State University of New York at Buffalo. She was a journalist in India for 6
years. Her research areas include police and prison officers’ liabilities for the use of tasers and stun
guns, the death penalty, prison rape, correctional officer deviance, inappropriate relationships
between inmates and correctional officers, cyber-bullying and sexting, ethical issues in criminal
justice, and terrorism.

References
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18
Armstrong, G.S., & Griffin, M.L. (2004). Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among
treatment and correctional staff in prisons. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 577–592
Becker, H.S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. The American Journal of Sociology, 66,
32–42
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2018: 33-3012
Correctional Officers and [Link] from: [Link]
Butler, H.D., Tasca, M., Zhang, Y., & Carpenter, C. (2019). A systematic and meta-analytic review of the
literature on correctional officers: Identifying new avenues of research. Journal of Criminal Justice,
60, 84–92
Camp, S.D. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on
turnover: An event history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279–305
Camp, S.D., & Gaes, G.G. (2002). Growth and quality of U.S. private prisons: Evidence from a national
survey. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 427–450
Camp, S.D., Saylor, W.G., & Harer, M.D. (1997). Aggregating individual-level evaluations of the
organizational social climate: A multilevel investigation of the work environment at the federal
bureau of prisons. Justice Quarterly, 14, 739–761
Carson, E.A. (2019). Prisoners in 2018 (NCJ 251149). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Retrieved from: [Link]
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M.S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal
of Management, 31, 874–900
Culliver, C., Sigler, R., & McNeely, B. (1991). Examining prosocial organizational behavior among
correctional officers. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 15,
277–284
Dawson, S. (1996). Analyzing organizations 3rd edition. London: MacMillan Education LTD
Dowden, C., & Tellier, C. (2004). Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 31–47
Dunham, R.B., Grube, J.A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1994). Organizational commitment: The utility of an
integrative definition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 370–380
Ford, J.K., Weissbein, D.A., & Plamondon, K.E. (2003). Distinguishing organizational from strategy
commitment: Linking officers’ commitment to community policing to job behaviors and satisfac-
tion. Justice Quarterly, 20, 159–185
Garland, B., Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Kim, B., & Kelley, T. (2014). The relationship of affective and
continuance organizational commitment with correctional staff occupational burnout: A partial
replication and expansion study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1161–1177
110 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Garland, B.E., McCarty, W.P., & Zhao, R. (2009). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
prisons: An examination of psychological staff, teachers, and unit management staff. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36, 163–183
Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications
Griffin, M.L. (2001). Job satisfaction among detention officers: Assessing the relative contribution of
organizational climate variables. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 219–232
Griffin, M.L. (2007). Women as breadwinners: The gendered nature of side bet theory and its
influence on female correctional officers’ commitment to the organization. Women & Criminal
Justice, 17, 1–25
Griffin, M.L., Armstrong, G.S., & Hepburn, J.R. (2005). Correctional officers’ perceptions of equitable
treatment in the masculinized prison environment. Criminal Justice Review, 30, 189–206
Griffin, M.L., & Hepburn, J.R. (2005). Side-bests and reciprocity as determinants of organizational
commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 611–625
Higgins, G.E., Tewksbury, R., & Denney, A.S. (2013). Validating a measure of work stress for
correctional staff: A structural equation modeling approach. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24,
338–352
Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E.G., & Griffin, M.L. (2013). Loyalty, love, and investments: The impact of job
outcomes on the organizational commitment of correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
40, 355–375
Hogan, N.L., Lambert, E.G., Jenkins, M., & Wambold, S. (2006). The impact of occupational stressors
on correctional staff organizational commitment: A preliminary study. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 22, 44–62
Hrebiniak, L.G., & Alutto, J.A. (1972). Personal and role-related factors in the development of
organizational commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 555–573
Iverson, R.D., & Buttigieg, D.M. (1999). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Can the
‘right kind’ of commitment be managed? Journal of Management Studies, 36, 307–333
Jaros, S.J., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moral
commitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. The
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 951–995
Kane, T., Saylor, W., & Nacci, P. (1983). Management strategies, morale, and staff turnover. U.S.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, D.C. NCJ Document Number:
089613
Kincade, B. (May 21, 2018). The economics of the American prison system. Retrieved from https://
[Link]/mortgage/the-economics-of-the-american-prison-system
Lambert, E. (2003). 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. The Prison
Journal, 84, 208–227
Lambert, E., & Hogan, N. (2009a). 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. (2009b). Creating a positive workplace experience: The issue of support
from supervisors and management in shaping the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment of private correctional staff. Journal of Applied Security Research, 4, 462–482
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Barton, S.M., Jiang, S., & Baker, D.N. (2008). The impact of punishment and
rehabilitation views on organizational commitment among correctional staff: A preliminary
study. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 85–98
Lambert, E., Hogan, N.L., Barton, S., & Clarke, A. (2002). The impact of instrumental communication
and integration on correctional staff. The Justice Professional, 15, 181–193
Lambert, E., Hogan, N.L., & Barton, S.M. (2002a). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature
on the correlates of correctional staff and job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29,
115–143
Lambert, E.G. (2006). I want to leave: A test of a model of turnover intent among correctional staff
[Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(1), 57–83
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 111

Lambert, E.G. (2008a). The impact of job involvement on correctional staff. Professional Issues in
Criminal Justice, 3(1), 57–76
Lambert, E.G. (2008b). A test of a turnover intent model: The issue of correctional staff satisfaction
and commitment. In E.R. Maguire & D.E. Duffee (Eds.), Criminal justice theory: Explaining the nature
and behavior of criminal justice (pp. 243–276). New York: Routledge
Lambert, E.G., Altheimer, I., Hogan, N.L., & Barton-Bellessa, S.M. (2011). Correlates of correctional
orientation in a treatment- oriented prison: A partial test of person–environment fit theory.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 453–470
Lambert, E.G., Barton, S.M., & Hogan, N.L. (1999). The missing link between job satisfaction and
correctional staff behavior: The issue of organizational commitment. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 24, 95–116
Lambert, E.G., Edwards, C., Camp, S.D., & Saylor, W.G. (2005). Here today, gone tomorrow, back
again the next day: Antecedents of correctional absenteeism. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33,
165–175
Lambert, E.G., Griffin, M.L., Hogan, N.L., & Kelley, T. (2015). The ties that bind: Organizational
commitment and its effect on correctional orientation, absenteeism, and turnover intent. The
Prison Journal, 95, 135–156
Lambert, E.G., Hoga, N.L., Elechi, O.O., Jiang, S., Laux, J.M., Dupuy, P., & Morris, A. (2009). A further
examination of antecedents of correctional staff life satisfaction. The Social Science Journal, 46,
689–706
Lambert, E.G., & Hogan, N.L. (2009c). A test of the importation and work environment models: The
effects of work ethic, importance of money, and management views on the job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of correctional staff. Journal of Crime and Justice, 32, 61–92
Lambert, E.G., & Hogan, N.L. (2009d). Exploring the predictors of treatment views of private
correctional staff: A test of an integrated work model. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48,
504–528
Lambert, E.G., & Hogan, N.L. (2010). Wanting change: The relationship of perceptions of organiza-
tional innovation with correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21, 160–184
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Altheimer, I., & Wareham, J. (2010). The effects of different aspects of
supervision among female and male correctional staff: A preliminary study. Criminal Justice
Review, 35, 492–513
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Barton, S.M. (2002b). Building commitment among correctional staff.
Corrections Compendium, 27(3), 1–5, 24–28.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Barton, S.M., & Elechi, O.O. (2009). The impact of job stress, job involve-
ment, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on correctional staff support for rehabi-
litation and punishment. Criminal Justice Studies, 22, 109–122
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Camp, S.D., & Ventura, L.A. (2006). The impact of work-family conflict on
correctional staff: A preliminary study. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 371–387
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Griffin, M.L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on
correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 35, 644–656
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Griffin, M.L. (2008). Being the good soldier: Organizational citizenship
behavior and commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 56–68
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Jiang, S. (2008). Exploring antecedents of the five types of organiza-
tional commitment among correctional staff: It matters what you measure. Criminal Justice Policy
Review, 19, 466–490
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Keena, L.D. (2015). The impact of job attitudes on private correctional
staff’s continuance and affective organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Security Research,
10, 1–22
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Kelley, T.M., Kim, B., & Garland, B. (2014). When domains spill over: The
relationships of affective and continuance commitment with work-family conflict among correc-
tional staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 476–502
112 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Moore, B., Tucker, K., Jenkins, M., Stevenson, M., & Jiang, S. (2009). The
impact of the work environment on prison staff: The issue of consideration, structure, job variety,
and training. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 166–180
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Paoline, E.A., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18
(4), 33–50
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., Paoline, E.A., & Stevenson, M.T. (2008). I want to know and I want to be
part of it: The impact of instrumental communication and integration on private prison staff.
Journal of Applied Security Research, 3, 205–229
Lambert, E.G., Jiang, S., & Hogan, N.L. (2008). The issue of trust in shaping the job stress, job
satisfaction, and organizational commitment of correctional staff. Professional Issues in Criminal
Justice, 3(4), 37–64
Lambert, E.G., Keena, L.D., May, D., Haynes, S.H., & Buckner, Z. (2017). To be committed or not:
Examining effects of personal and workplace variables on the organizational commitment of
Southern prison staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 30, 223–239
Lambert, E.G., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N.L. (2013a). The association of occupational stressors with
different forms of organizational commitment among correctional staff. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 38, 480–501
Lambert, E.G., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N.L. (2013b). Hanging on too long: The relationship between
different forms of organizational commitment and emotional burnout among correctional staff.
American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 51–66
Lambert, E.G., Kim, B., Kelley, T., & Hogan, N.L. (2013). The association of affective and continuance
commitment with correctional staff life satisfaction. The Social Science Journal, 50, 195–203
Lambert, E.G., Minor, K.I., Wells, J.B., & Hogan, N.L. (2016). Social support’s relationship to correctional
staff job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Social Science
Journal, 53, 22–32
Lambert, E.G., & Paoline, E.A. (2008). The influence of individual, job, and organizational character-
istics on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Criminal
Justice Review, 33, 541–564
Lambert, E.G., & Paoline, E.A. (2010). Take this job and shove it: An exploratory study of turnover
intent among jail staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 139–148
Lambert, E.G., Paoline, E.A., & Hogan, N.L. (2006). The impact of centralization and formalization on
correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment: An exploratory study. Criminal
Justice Studies, 19, 23–44
Lincoln, J.R., & Kalleberg, A.L. (1990). Culture, control and commitment: A study of work organization
and work attitudes in the United States and Japan. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press
Martin, C.L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship
between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group and Organization
Management, 21, 84–104
Matz, A.K., Wells, J.B., Minor, K.I., & Angel, E. (2012). Predictors of turnover intention among staff in
juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 115–131
McElroy, J.C., Morrow, P.C., & Wardlow, T.R. (1999). A career stage analysis of police officer work
commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 507–516
Melnick, G., Ulaszek, W.R., Lin, H.J., & Wexler, H.K. (2009). When goals diverge: Staff consensus and
the organizational climate. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103, S17–S22
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: Some
methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372–378
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61–89
Meyer, J.P., & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
 CRIMINAL JUSTICE STUDIES 113

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
538–551
Meyer, J.P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human
Resource Management Review, 11, 299–326
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20–52
Mohamed, F., Taylor, G.S., & Hassan, A. (2006). Affective commitment and intent to quit: The impact
of work and non-work related issues. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 512–529
Moore, E., & Sales, A. (2005). Organizational commitment as a predictor of staff working alliances
with juvenile offenders. Corrections Compendium, 30(4), 6, 7, 33–35
Morrow, P.C. (1993). The theory and measurement of work commitment. Greenwich: JAI Press
Mowday, R.T. (1998). Reflections on the study and relevance on organizational commitment. Human
Resource Management, 8, 387–401
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W., & Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of
commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press
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.
The Prison Journal, 86, 182–205
Paoline, E.A., & Lambert, E.G. (2012a). Exploring potential consequences of job involvement among
jail staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 231–253
Paoline, E.A., & Lambert, E.G. (2012b). The issue of control in jail: The effects of professionalism,
detainee control, and administrative support on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment among jail staff. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 179–199
Paoline, E.A., Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L., & Keena, L.D. (2018). The effects of the workplace on jail
staff: The issue of perceptions of pay fairness. Corrections: Policy, Practice, and Research, 3,
203–224
Penley, L.E., & Gould, S. (1998). Etzioni’s model of organizational involvement: A perspective for
understanding commitment to organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 43–59
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organizational citizenship beha-
viors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future
research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563
Powell, D.M., & Meyer, J.P. (2004). Side-bet theory and the three-component model of organizational
citizenship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 157–177
Savicki, V., Cooley, E., & Gjvesvold, J. (2003). Harassment as a predictor of job burnout in correctional
officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 602–619
Schaufeli, W.B., & Taris, T.W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:
Implications for improving work and health. In G. Bauer & O. Hammig (Eds.), Bridging occupa-
tional, organizational and public health (pp. 43–68). London: Springer
Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: applications, assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage
Stazyk, E.C., Pandey, S.K., & Wright, B.E. (2011). Understanding affective organizational commitment:
The importance of institutional context. The American Review of Public Administration, 41,
603–624
Stohr, M.K., Lovrich, N.P., Jr, Menke, B.A., & Zupan, L.L. (1994). Staff management in correctional
institutions: Comparing DiIulio’s ‘control model’ and ‘employee investment model’ outcomes in
five jails. Justice Quarterly, 11, 471–497
Stohr, M.K., Self, R.L., & Lovrich, N.P. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of
its causes and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455–478
Tewksbury, R., & Higgins, G.E. (2006). Prison staff and work stress: The role of organizational and
emotional influences. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 247–266
Vickovic, S.G., & Griffin, M.L. (2014). A comparison of line and supervisory officers and the impact of
support on commitment to the prison organization. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 719–742
114 E. G. LAMBERT ET AL.

Wells, J.B., Minor, K.I., Angel, E., Matz, A.K., & Amato, N. (2009). Predictors of job stress among staff in
juvenile correctional facilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 245–258
Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of Management
Review, 7, 418–428
Wiener, Y., & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and
work outcomes – An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26,
81–96
World Prison Brief. (2019). World prison brief data: United States of America. Retrieved from: http//
[Link]/country/united-states-america
Wright, K.N., Saylor, W.G., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and occupational outcomes
among prison workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 524–546