The connection between organizational structure variables and organizational justice views among correctional staff

ABSTRACT

A growing body of research on organizational justice views indicates that distributive (i.e. perceived fairness of outcomes) and procedural justice (i.e. perceived fairness of procedures to reach outcomes) are linked to salient correctional staff outcomes, such as job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and life satisfaction; however, limited research investigates the relationships between workplace factors and the organizational justice views among prison staff. The current study investigated the relationships between organizational structure variables of instrumental communication, formalization, integration, and input into organizational decision-making with the procedural and distributive views of staff at a state-run U.S. prison. Data was from 257 staff who worked at a prison holding medium- and high-security convicted male offenders. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis indicated formalization, integration, and input were significantly positively correlated with procedural justice. Instrumental communication, however, was not significantly correlated with procedural justice. Input was a significant positive predictor of distributive justice, while instrumental communication, formalization, and integration were not significant predictors. Considerably more variance was explained in procedural justice compared to distributive justice views. The findings suggest that correctional administrators should be aware that input into decision-making is associated with prison staff’s views of both distributive and procedural justice.

KEYWORDS:

• Organizational structure
• procedural justice
• distributive justice
• correctional staff

Acknowledgements

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, and Editorial staff for reviewing the paper and their comments. These comments improved the paper. We thank Janet Lambert for proofreading the paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The specific breakdown of positions is as follows: 50% correctional officer, 6% food service, 5% educational or vocational teacher, 5% prison industry positions, 5% medical, 4% case manager, 4% counselors, 3% unit managers, 5% office support, 2% recreational, 6% mechanical services (e.g., plumbing, maintenance, etc.), and 5% other positions.

2. The Cronbach alpha values for the two justice measures in the current study are similar to that reported by other past correctional staff studies. For example, Taxman and Gordon (2009) had Cronbach alpha values of .85 and .76 for procedural and distributive justice, respectively. Boateng and Hsieh 2019a, 2019b) reported Cronbach alpha values of .73 for distributive justice and .70 for procedural justice. May et al. (2020) reported Cronbach alpha values of .94 and .84 for distributive and procedural justice, respectively. Lambert et al. (2021) had Cronbach alpha values of .85 for distributive justice and .87 for procedural justice. Overall, the current study alpha values are consistent with past correctional staff organizational justice research. Additionally, the values in the current study are above .70, which is viewed as good.

3. The Cronbach alpha values for the independent latent index variables are in accordance to the values found by other past correctional staff studies. For instrumental communication, previously reported Cronbach alpha values have been .89 (Garland, Hogan, and Lambert 2013), .93 (E. G. Lambert et al. 2023), .85 (E. Lambert et al. 2002), and .89 (E. G. Lambert et al. 2021). Garland et al. (2013) and Lambert et al. (2018) reported Cronbach alpha values of .60 for formalization. Oldham and Hackman (1981) reported a reliability value of .52 for formalization. For integration, the following Cronbach alpha values were observed: .85 (Garland, Hogan, and Lambert 2013), .72 (E. Lambert et al. 2002), and .85 (E. G. Lambert et al. 2021). Cronbach alphas of .87 (Garland, Hogan, and Lambert 2013; E. G. Lambert, Paoline, and Hogan 2018) and .92 (E. G. Lambert et al. 2023) were reported. Additionally, except for formalization, the values in the current study are above .70, which is viewed as good. While above the cut-off point of .60, the formalization Cronbach alpha value is low but is consistent with past studies that measured this organizational structure variable. All the possible combinations of the six formalization items were tested and the highest alpha value used all six items. Formalization may be a difficult latent concept to measure with a high alpha value. Future research is needed to explore how to measure formalization with a higher level of internal reliability.

4. A reviewer noted that the first measure of distributive justice (‘My last annual performance rating presented a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance’) was a stronger measure of distributive justice than the second item (‘The evaluation of my performance at this prison has been fair and objective’), and the second item was closer to a measure of procedural justice. A new OLS regression was estimated using only the first distributive justice item as the dependent variable and the personal characteristics and the organizational structure measures as the independent variables. R-squared was .10 and input was the only significant predictor among the organizational structure variables and the association between input and the one distributive justice item was positive. This is a similar result reported in Table 3.

5. A reviewer suggested that the low amount of variance explained of distributive justice in the current study as compared to the two past studies is likely to how distributive justice was measured in the current study. Again, distributive justice in the current study measured perceptions of fairness of evaluation using two items. In addition to using a general measure of distributive justice, measuring other specific outcomes, such as pay, promotions, and post assignments, could have resulted in a higher amount of the variance of distributive justice being explained by the organizational structure variables. Future research is needed to be clearly answer this issue. Further, as noted in Footnote 4, the one item the reviewer felt best measured distributive justice was used by itself and the same outcomes for predictors was observed.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eric G. Lambert

Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs in the College of Health and Human Services at Indiana University Northwest. His research interests include organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees.

Monica Solinas-Saunders

Monica Solinas-Saunders is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Northwest. Monica’s research focuses on corrections, interpersonal violence, rehabilitation, and policy.

David White

David R. White is an Associate Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University. He is a retired assistant chief of police with nearly 20 years of law enforcement experience. His research interests include police and correctional officer culture, organizational issues, and individual motivations and fit in criminal justice organizations.

Nancy L. Hogan

Nancy L. Hogan is a professor and Graduate Program Coordinator for the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State University. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State University in Justice studies while also teaching traffic safety for the Arizona Supreme Court. Prior to her academic life, she worked first as a correctional officer and then a counselor in a maximum-security prison, and then supervised a program for drug-exposed newborns and their mothers. She has published extensively on topics within the field of Corrections. Currently, her research focuses on work environment issues in Corrections, Correctional Officer stress, inmate rehabilitation, and job satisfaction.

Shannon M. Barton

Shannon M. Barton is a professor and Graduate Coordinator for the School of Criminology and Security Studies at Indiana State University. She received her Ph.D. in Criminal Justice from the University of Cincinnati. Her research interests include School Violence, Juvenile Justice and Delinquency, Correctional Programming, Correctional Officer Job Satisfaction, Court Improvement, Intermediate Sanctions, Gangs, and Homicides.