The Importance of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Shaping Turnover Intent A Test of A Causal Model

Criminal Justice Review
http://cjr.sagepub.com
The Importance of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Shaping

Turnover Intent: A Test of a Causal Model
Eric Lambert and Nancy Hogan
Criminal Justice Review 2009; 34; 96 originally published online Oct 13, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0734016808324230
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/96
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Georgia State University, College of Health and Human Sciences
Additional services and information for Criminal Justice Review can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://cjr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://cjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/1/96
Downloaded from http://cjr.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 13, 2009
The Importance of Job

Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment in Shaping
Turnover Intent

Volume 34 Number 1
March 2009 96-118
2008 Georgia State University
Research Foundation, Inc.
10.1177/0734016808324230
http://cjr.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
A Test of a Causal Model

Eric Lambert
Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
Nancy Hogan
Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan
Employee turnover can have devastating effects on correctional facilities. Excessive turnover
wastes recruiting and training dollars. In addition, high turnover rates may also directly affect
the security of the institution as well as the safety of both staff and inmates. Thus this study surveyed correctional staff at a maximum security private prison to examine the impact of the work
environment, personal characteristics, external employment opportunities, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment on turnover intent. The results of the multivariate ordinary least
squares regression equations generally supported the proposed path model, and indicated age,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitment directly influence turnover intent, whereas
gender, job satisfaction, role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, input into decision making,
and organizational fairness indirectly affected employees decisions to leave the job.
Keywords: correctional staff; job satisfaction; organizational commitment; turnover intent
taff turnover, where employees either voluntarily quit or are involuntarily terminated,
has been an ongoing problem in the field of corrections for more than 40 years (Tipton,
2002). Most empirical estimates of annual correctional staff turnover vary from 15% to
25% (American Correctional Association, 2001; Benton, Rosen, and Peters, 1982; Blakely
& Bumphus, 2004; Contact Inc., 1987; Delprino, 2002; Dennis,1998; Hepburn,1987;
Lunden, 1965; McShane, Williams, Schichor, & McClain, 1991; National Institute of Law
Enforcement and Criminal Justice,1978; Philliber, 1987; Wright; 1994); however, studies
that have compared turnover rates across different agencies have found that turnover rates
in some agencies can be as low as 1% to 2% to as high as 30% to 68% per year (American
Correctional Association, 2001; Blakely & Bumphus, 2004; Delprino, 2002; McShane
Authors Note: The authors thank Janet Lambert for editing and proofreading the article. The authors also thank the
editor and anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions. Please address correspondence to Eric Lambert,
Department of Criminal Justice, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202; e-mail: elamber55555@gmail.com.
96
Lambert, Hogan / Shaping Turnover Intent
97
et al.,1991; Merriweather, 2003; Wright; 1994). Overall, the literature indicates the annual
correctional turnover rate has averaged about 20% per year.
Turnover has both direct and indirect costs. The direct financial costs include the loss of
the performance and expertise of the employee, recruitment costs, and training of new hires
(Weisberg & Kirschenbaum, 1991). It can cost US$10 to US$20,000 to recruit, test, hire, and
train a new correctional employee (Gilbert, 1988; McShane et al., 1991). There are also direct
costs for overtime to cover vacated positions, administrative time to rearrange schedules, and
obtaining approval to hire new staff. The indirect costs of turnover include the loss of social
networks, increased use of inexperienced and/or tired staff, insufficient staffing, and
decreased morale. Social networks and communication lines are essential to maintain a safe
and secure environment, and these skills take time to develop (Mitchell, MacKenzie, Styve,
& Gover, 2000; Stohr, Self, & Lovrich, 1992). High turnover can result in inexperienced staff
who have not cultivated these networks (Lambert, 2001, 2006; Stohr et al., 1992). Likewise,
high turnover can lead to shortages of staff, which can decrease the quality of services provided and increase risks to safety. Furthermore, high turnover can result in increased use of
mandatory overtime. Aside from the fact that tired, or perhaps even burned out, staff might
perform subpar during their shifts, the excess burden placed on them could cause them to consider quitting as well. Thus high levels of turnover can trigger future turnover among the
remaining employees (Cawsey & Wedley, 1979). Excessive turnover can also decrease the
morale of the employees who remain (Byrd, Cochran, Silverman, & Blount, 2000; Stohr
et al., 1992), which can lead to additional problems and further decreased morale. Ultimately
the image of the correctional organization can suffer. Prisons are often located in rural areas,
where the labor pool can be limited and an institutions reputation can be common knowledge
among the local population (Lambert, 2001). In sum, turnover is very costly to correctional
organizations (Kiekbusch, Price, & Theis, 2003). Thus high turnover can result in the health
and safety of staff and inmates being put at risk (Mitchell et al., 2000).
In her opening speech at the Winter 2005 conference, American Correctional
Association President Gwendolyn Chunn recognized this drain on valuable resources when
she indicated that staff turnover was a problem requiring correctional administrators to
explore and develop new retention plans (American Correctional Association, 2005).
Empirical research into the potential antecedents of correctional employee turnover is necessary to combat the problem. Nevertheless, correctional staff turnover has only received
limited empirical attention to date indicating a need for research on this expensive and often
disruptive occurrence.
The following study was conducted at a Midwestern private maximum security prison.
Although there were differences in extrinsic factors, such as pay and benefits, the private
prison was mandated to follow all the policies and procedures of the state system. One
might surmise that turnover would be greater due to lower pay, but the prison was located
in an economically depressed rural area where job opportunities were scarce. Unlike the
state system, the private prison employees had more opportunity for advancement due to
the expanding prison population. Both the state and the private prisons correctional officers were unionized even though they were not in the same union.
This study tested a model of turnover intent that focused on personal and work-related
concepts to ascertain the antecedents of turnover intent. It was expected that those
who viewed work environment variables negatively would have lower job satisfaction and
98
organizational commitment and thus would be more likely to consider leaving. In contrast,
positive perceptions by correctional staff were predicted to lower turnover intent.
Turnover, Turnover Intent, and the Proposed Path Model

There are two general types of turnover, involuntary and voluntary (Price & Mueller,
1986). Involuntary turnover is when a person is removed from his or her job by the employer.
Voluntary turnover (i.e., quitting) is when the employee chooses to leave the job. Voluntary
turnover tends to be more harmful to the organization and occurs more frequently than involuntary turnover. Blakely and Bumphus (2004) reported the majority (60% to 70%) of correctional staff turnover is voluntary. Moreover, Wright (1993) reported, in his study of
juvenile correctional staff, the best employees quit because they had more job opportunities.
Rather than examine actual turnover, this study examined turnover intent. Turnover intent
is the cognitive process of thinking of quitting, planning on leaving a job, and the desire to
leave the job (Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). Studying turnover intent rather
than actual turnover has several advantages. Turnover intent is often used as the final outcome variable in studies because it is easier to measure and tends to be more accurate. It is
difficult to gain access to people who have already left to determine why they really quit
(Firth, Mellor, Moore, & Loquet, 2004). In addition, administrative records are sometimes
closed to outside researchers or may be incomplete or inaccurate (Mitchell et al., 2000). In
addition, those employees who are thinking of quitting may still be swayed by changes in
the work environment. It is too late to change the work environment for those who have
already left employment. As pointed out by Dalessio, Silverman, and Schuck (1986),
More attention should be given to the direct and indirect influences of variables on intention
to quit as opposed to the actual act of turnover. From the employers standpoint, intention to
quit may be a more important variable then the actual act of turnover. If the precursors to intention to quit are better understood, the employer could possibly institute changes to affect this
intention. However, once an employee has quit, there is little the employer can do except
assume the expense of hiring and training another employee. (p. 261)
Moreover, turnover intent has been found to be the best predictor of voluntary turnover
among noncriminal justice employees (Steel & Ovalle, 1984; Van Breukelen, Van Der Vlist,
& Steensma, 2004; Vandenberg, 1999).
This study tested a model (Figure 1) of turnover intent proposed by Lambert (2001),
which was based on theory and results of past correctional staff studies.
External employment opportunities were predicted to have a direct positive effect on
turnover intent. Employment opportunities are important because the ability to find a new
job affects peoples turnover intentions (Kiekbusch et al., 2003; Trever, 2001). Most correctional workers are rational economic creatures who will not quit their jobs without feeling confident that they will be able to find a similar or better paying job (Lambert, 2001).
External employment opportunities were associated with higher levels of turnover intent
among jail staff (Kiekbusch et al., 2003). Specifically, those workers who perceived they
could easily find a similar paying job were more likely to express an intention to leave
employment with the jail facility.
99
Figure 1
Proposed Turnover Intent Model for Correctional Staff
Personal Characteristics
(Gender, Age, Tenure,
Position, Educational Level,
and Race)
Work Environment Variables

(Dangerousness, Role
Ambiguity, Role Conflict, Role
Overload, Input into DecisionMaking and Organizational
Fairness)
+/
+/
Job Satisfaction
+/
+/
+
Organizational
Commitment
Turnover Intent
+
External Employment
Opportunities
The work attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment are important in
shaping employees intentions to stay or leave. Both were predicted to have direct effects
on turnover intent of correctional employees. Organizational commitment is the bond
between the worker and the organization. Employees with high commitment are loyal to
the organization, share its values, and identify with the goals of the organization (Mowday,
Porter, & Steers, 1982). Employees bonded with the organization have little reason to want
to leave. Empirical results have suggested organizational commitment is negatively related
to turnover intent. In a study of Florida police officers, organizational commitment had a
negative association with turnover intent (Jaramillo, Nixon, & Sams, 2005). Organizational
commitment has been found to have an inverse effect on both turnover intent and turnover
among correctional employees (Camp, 1994; Lambert, 2006; Robinson, Porporino, &
Simourd, 1992, 1997; Stohr et al., 1992).
Job satisfaction is an affective response by people toward their jobs (Cranny, Smith, &
Stone, 1992) and is basically the degree that people like their jobs (Spector, 1996). In surveys, people have reported they want more than a good paying job. They want a rewarding,
meaningful, enriching, and enjoyable job (Naisbitt & Aburdene, 1985). If a person likes his
or her job, there is less of a reason to quit as compared to when the person dislikes the job.
100
There is empirical evidence to support that job satisfaction has an inverse effect on correctional staff turnover intent. Except for Camps (1994) study, job satisfaction has been found
to have an inverse effect on both turnover intent and turnover among correctional workers
(Byrd et al., 2000; Dennis, 1998; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Liou, 1998; Mitchell et al., 2000;
Robinson et al., 1997; Stohr et al., 1992; Wright, 1993). Besides a direct effect, job satisfaction was hypothesized to have an indirect impact on turnover intent through organizational commitment. Job satisfaction has been theorized to be a highly salient antecedent of
correctional staff organizational commitment (Lambert, Barton, & Hogan, 1999). Job satisfaction generally occurs more quickly than organizational commitment, which takes time
to develop. In a study of Florida police officers, job satisfaction was observed to be the
strongest predictor of organizational commitment (Jaramillo et al., 2005). In a study of the
effects of job stress, supervision, job variety, job autonomy, and job satisfaction on organizational commitment among staff at a Midwestern state correctional facility, it was found
job satisfaction was the best predictor (Lambert, 2004).
Based on the model, it was predicted that work environment variables would not have a
direct effect on turnover intent but instead would have indirect effects through job satisfaction
and organizational commitment. The work environment is very important in shaping peoples
job satisfaction and organizational commitment; these in turn affect peoples level of turnover
intent. In an analysis of correctional staff turnover intent, the work environment variables are
not expected to have a direct effect on turnover intent after controlling for job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. A few studies have found some work environment variables
(e.g., staff communication, degree of care given to inmates, job stress, and participation in
decision making) were negatively associated with turnover and turnover intent (Jurik & Winn,
1987; Mitchell et al., 2000; Slate & Vogel, 1997); however, these studies did not include both
job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the analysis. In addition, even though a few
work environment variables have been found to be associated with correctional staff turnover
intent, most environment variables included in the analysis were observed to have nonsignificant effects. For example, in a study of juvenile correctional staff, a single multivariate analysis was conducted where personal characteristics, work environment variables, job
satisfaction, and job stress were regressed on turnover intent (Mitchell et al., 2000). Job satisfaction was observed to have a significant inverse impact. Only three (i.e., job stress, staff
communication, and degree of care given to juvenile inmates) of the 10 work environment
variables had a significant relationship with turnover intent. Most important, of all the variables in the analysis, job satisfaction had the greatest impact. Finally, Mitchell et al. pointed
out that the lack of a measure of organizational commitment was a weakness in their study.
The two correctional studies that included both job satisfaction and organizational commitment found none of the included work environment variables had a significant direct
effect. Camp (1994) examined the effects of personal characteristics, work environment
perceptions, job satisfaction, agency commitment, institutional commitment, turnover
intent, and the local unemployment rate on turnover of federal correctional staff in a single
multivariate analysis. None of the work environment measures (i.e., job stress, supervisor
satisfaction, perceptions of institutional operations, and perceived efficiency in working
with inmates) had a significant effect on turnover. Although job satisfaction had a nonsignificant effect, agency commitment and institutional commitment both had negative
effects. Finally, the local unemployment rate had no significant relationship with turnover
101
among federal correctional employees. Lambert (2006) examined the direct effects of personal characteristics, work environment variables, job involvement, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment on turnover intent among staff at a Midwestern state correctional facility in a single regression analysis. None of the work environment variables (i.e.,
input into decision making, instrumental communication, integration, organizational fairness, job variety, supervision, role stress, job stress, work-related family conflict, and
family-related work conflict) had a significant effect. Although job involvement (another job
attitude) had no significant impact, both job satisfaction and organizational commitment did.
Although not having a direct effect, the work environment should have an indirect effect
on turnover intent through job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The correctional literature strongly supports the contention that the work environment is salient in
helping shape the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of staff (Lambert, 2004;
Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002a). Although there are many dimensions of the work environment, past research has clearly indicated that perceived dangerousness of the job, role
ambiguity, role conflict, role overload, input into decision making, and organizational fairness are salient antecedents of job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment. Working
in corrections is often perceived as a dangerous occupation. Dangerousness of the job refers
to perceptions of an employee whether his or her job is dangerous (Cullen, Link, Wolfe, &
Frank, 1985). Staff members who perceive their jobs as dangerous are less likely to see
their jobs in a positive light and as such are less likely to report high levels of job satisfaction. Similarly, those who see their jobs as dangerous are probably likely to blame the organization for the situation, which in turn reduces the likelihood they will bond with the
organization. Thus perceived dangerousness of the job should have an inverse relationship
with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Research has found that perceived
dangerousness of the job has been inversely linked to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment among correctional staff (Cullen et al., 1985; Lambert & Paoline, 2005;
Lambert, Reynolds, Paoline, & Watkins, 2004).
Role conflict occurs when an employee receives conflicting directions for the job (Rizzo,
House, & Lirtzman, 1970). These conflicts make it difficult for the person to do his or her
job effectively (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980). Role ambiguity is the lack of clarity in how
to complete the job (Rizzo et al., 1970). Role overload occurs when a worker is required to
do too many tasks or duties than are manageable (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980; Triplett,
Mullings, & Scarborough, 1996). Workers who suffer from role conflict, role ambiguity, or
role overload are likely to view their jobs and the organization in a negative light, which will
result in reduced job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Past studies have reported
role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload as having significant negative effects on correctional staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Hepburn & Knepper, 1993;
Lambert, Hogan, Paoline, & Clarke, 2005; Van Voorhis, Cullen, Link, & Wolfe, 1991).
Input into decision making is the degree to which employees perceive that they have a
voice in organizational decisions. Input into decision making is concerned with how power
is distributed within an organization (Wright, Salyor, Gilman, & Camp, 1997). Employees
who are allowed input into decision making generally view their job in a more positive light
resulting in greater job satisfaction. Organizational commitment is likely to be higher
among employees who perceive they have input into decision making because it allows
them to help shape the organization and shows that they are valued by the organization.
102
People have satisfaction and commitment for things they help shape. Research has found
that input into decision making has a positive relationship with both correctional staff job
satisfaction and organizational commitment (Lambert, Paoline, & Hogan, 2006; Stohr,
Lovrich, Monke, & Zupan, 1994; Wright et al., 1997).
Organizational fairness is also known as organizational justice. It is the degree of fairness
and justice a worker perceives within an organization in terms of outcome and procedures
for reaching outcomes (Lambert, 2003). If an organization is perceived as being fair in terms
of the outcomes for workers based on their inputs into the organization and being fair on the
procedures used to reach these outcomes, it is likely that people will be more satisfied with
their jobs. Most workers wish to be treated in a fair and just manner. Likewise, it is easier
for employees to form a bond with an organization if they perceive the organization is being
fair and just in how it treats its workers (Greenberg, 1990). Past studies have observed that
organizational fairness is important in helping shape the job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of correctional staff (Lambert, 2003; Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2002b).
In the proposed model, the personal characteristics of gender, age, tenure, position, educational level, and race are predicted to have both direct and indirect effects on correctional
staff turnover intent. The indirect effects would be through both job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Although the literature is far from conclusive, several studies have found women to be
higher in turnover intent or turnover (Camp, 1994; Jacobs & Grear, 1977; Lambert, 2006;
Slate & Vogel, 1997; Tipton, 2002). Camp (1994) suggested family obligations may
account for this relationship where women are generally responsible for child care and for
the maintenance of the household. Thus it was predicted women correctional staff in this
study would express a higher degree of turnover intent than their male counterparts.
Age has also been inversely linked with turnover intent and turnover among correctional
workers (Byrd et al., 2000; Camp, 1994; Mitchell et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 1997;
Tipton, 2002). Older workers tend to have a greater stake in continuing employment with
an organization than do their younger counterparts (Lambert, 2001). Older employees are
probably more entrenched and involved with their jobs, have greater financial and familial
obligations, and face greater age discrimination in seeking new jobs (Camp, 1994;
Lambert, 2001; Mitchell et al., 2000). Therefore, it was predicted that age would be negatively related to turnover intent.
Generally, tenure is negatively related to correctional staff turnover intent and turnover
(Byrd et al., 2000; Camp, 1994; Kiekbusch et al., 2003; Lambert, 2006; Robinson et al.,
1997; Stohr et al., 1992; Tipton, 2002; Wright, 1993). The longer a worker stays with an
organization, the more investments, such as pay, social contacts, seniority, and retirement,
the person will have, which make it more difficult to leave employment (Lambert, 2006).
Tenure was hypothesized to be inversely associated with turnover intent in this study.
Position was predicted to be related to correctional staff turnover intent. Two studies
have found line staff (i.e., officers) expressed greater desire to leave than staff in other positions (Byrd et al., 2000; Slate & Vogel, 1997). Working in custody is often a difficult and
demanding job that does not result in the praise it should. In addition, the pay and schedules for custody line staff are not as favorable as they are for other positions. Custody officers were therefore postulated to be more willing to leave the organization than compared
to their noncustody counter parts.
103
Educational level was hypothesized to be positively associated with turnover intent. There
is empirical support for this hypothesis (Lambert, 2006; Mitchell et al., 2000). Workers with
higher educational levels tend to have more and better employment opportunities than their
less educated counterparts (Lambert, 2006). In addition, correctional organizations do not
always fully utilize or challenge more educated workers, which can lead to status inconsistency (Jurik, Halemba, Musheno, & Boyle, 1987; Jurik & Musheno, 1986; Rogers, 1991).
Finally, past research suggests non-White correctional employees either express higher
levels of turnover intent or have greater levels of turnover (Ford, 1995; Jacobs & Grear,
1977; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Mitchell et al., 2000). In this study, it was predicted that White
correctional staff members would be lower in their turnover intent than would non-White
staff members.
In summarizing the existing literature, most studies have only examined the direct
effects of various work environment and personal characteristics with some studies looking
at job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Results are mixed for direct effects of
several work environment variables and personal characteristics. Overall, not much empirical direction can be ascertained on turnover intent. This study attempts to add clarification
on the antecedents of turnover intent by not only examining the direct and indirect effects
of the work environment and personal characteristics, but also their interaction with job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and external employment opportunities.
Methods
The entire staff (except upper administration) at a private Midwestern maximum security
prison were provided a survey and a cover letter. The survey had 225 questions, which asked
about personal characteristics, perceptions of the work environment, job attitudes, views of
inmates, and desire to leave or stay with the job. The survey was undertaken to learn about
the views, attitudes, and intentions of the staff at the facility. The data used in this study is
from a subpart of the survey.1 The cover letter explained the purpose of the survey, the
importance of the survey, that participation was voluntary, and that responses would remain
confidential and anonymous. The facility at the time of the survey housed approximately 450
young adult inmates. The cover letter, survey, raffle tickets, and a postage-paid return envelope were placed in a manila envelope marked with the employees name. These envelopes
were given to every employee with the distribution of their paycheck.
To improve the response rate and to encourage employees to participate, several cash
awards ranging from US$50 to US$150 were randomly chosen from those who returned surveys. A raffle ticket with duplicate numbers on each half was provided with each survey.
Staff members were asked to return half of the raffle ticket with the survey and to keep the
other half. The returned raffle tickets were separated from the surveys before the surveys
were examined. This was done to ensure there was no possibility of linking a staff member
to a particular survey. After waiting almost a month, a drawing of raffle tickets was held at
an employee function, and individuals with a winning raffle ticket were awarded a particular cash prize. Prizes that were not claimed were donated to the employee organization.
Two hundred surveys were distributed to the entire prison staff. Some employees were
unavailable at the time of the survey (e.g., sick or vacation leave). A total of 160 completed
104
surveys were returned, which represents a response rate of 80%. Except upper administration, the respondents represented all the work areas at the prison (e.g., correctional officers,
case managers, medical staff, industry staff, food service workers, business office, etc).
Specifically, 62% were correctional officers, 3% were unit management staff (i.e., counselors, case managers, and unit managers), 4% worked in education, 3% worked in the
medical department, 6% worked in the business office, 9% were custody supervisors, and
13% worked in other areas. Fifty-nine percent of the respondents were men. The median
age was 33 and ranged from 19 to 49 years of age. The mean age was 37.77, with a standard deviation of 10.82. The median tenure at the facility was 17 months and ranged from
1 to 53 months. The mean tenure was 20.64 months with a standard deviation of 13.84.
Because the prison had been in operation for less than 5 years at the time of survey, the
tenure of the employees was low. In terms of educational level, 6% had a high school
degree or GED, 47% had some college but no degree, 24% had an associates degree, 16%
had a bachelors degree, and 7% had a graduate or professional degree. With regard to race
or ethnicity, 79% were White, 11% were Black, 2% were Hispanic, 3% were Native
American, and 4% marked other. Overall, the respondents appeared to be representative of
the employees at the prison. At the time of the survey, 61% of the total prison staff members were male, 81% White, and the median age was 33 years.
Personal characteristics. The personal characteristics of gender, age, tenure, position, educational level, and race were included in the study. Gender was measured as a dichotomous
variable (0 = female, 1 = male). Age was measured in continuous years and tenure at the correctional facility was measured in continuous months. Position was measured as a dichotomous variable representing whether the respondent was a correctional officer (1) or not (0).
Educational level was measured using a variable that represented whether a respondent had
(1) or did not have (0) a college degree (i.e., associate, bachelor, or graduate). A variable representing whether the respondent was White (1) or non-White (0) was used to measure race.
Turnover intent. According to Mobley et al. (1979), there are four cognitive parts of
turnover intent: (a) thinking of quitting; (b) planning to stay or leave; (c) searching for alternative employment; and (d) a desire to leave current job. In this study, each was measured
using items adapted from Sager, Griffeth, and Hom (1998). Thinking of quitting was measured using two items: In the last 6 months, have you thought about quitting your current
job? (Response options of 1 = yes, 0 = no) and I frequently think about quitting my job
at this prison (Response options of 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Planning
to stay or leave was measured using How likely is it that you will be at this job in a year
from now? (Response options of 5-point Likert-type of scale ranging from very likely to
very unlikely). Searching for alternative employment was measured using How actively
have you searched for a job with other employers in the last year? (Response options of
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from not at all to very actively). A desire to leave was
measured using Do you desire to voluntarily leave/quit your job? (Response options of 1 =
yes, 0 = no). The five items were summed together to form the turnover intent index.
External employment opportunity. The two primary methods for measuring external
employment opportunities are the local unemployment rate or a persons perception of
105
finding work with a similar or better pay level. Using the unemployment rate is an acceptable measure, but it was deemed not to be a useful measure for this study for three reasons.
First, all the respondents came from the same prison, so the local unemployment rate would
be a constant in this case. Second, the unemployment rate does not reflect the level of pay
and benefits a person receives from his or her current job. Third, correctional employees may
not be aware of the local unemployment rate and as such it may not fully measure a persons
perceptions of the availability of alternative employment opportunities. Thus a measure of
the respondents perception of finding work with a similar or better pay level was used.
Specifically, perception of external employment opportunity was measured with How easy
would it be for you to find another job with another employer that is as good or better than
your current job? (Response options of 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very difficult
to very easy). The item was adopted from Mueller, Boyer, Price, and Iverson (1994).
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment. A global measure of job satisfaction
was used rather than a facet measure. Facet measures of job satisfaction focus on specific
dimensions of the job (e.g., pay, coworkers, etc.), whereas global measures focus on the
overall level of satisfaction with the job (Cranny et al., 1992). Job satisfaction was measured by summing five items (see appendix) from Brayfield and Rothe (1951) to form an
index. Organizational commitment was measured by summing six items from Mowday
et al. (1982) to form an index (see the appendix for the specific items).
Work environment variables. Perceived dangerousness of the job, role ambiguity, role
conflict, role overload, input into decision making, and organizational fairness were
included in the study as variables measuring a persons perceptions of the work environment. An index for perceived dangerousness of the job was measured by summing five
items from Cullen et al. (1985; see appendix). An index for role ambiguity was measured
by summing four items (see appendix) from three sources (Cullen et al.,1985; Rizzo et al.,
1970; Triplett et al., 1996). An index for role conflict was measured by summing five items
(see appendix) from several sources (Babin & Boles, 1996, Ivancevich & Matteson, 1980;
Poole & Regoli, 1983, Triplett et al., 1996). Three items (see appendix) from Ivancevich
and Matteson (1980) and Triplett et al. (1996) were summed together to form an index for
role overload. Input into decision making was measured by summing four items (see
appendix). These items were either adapted from Teas (1981) or created for the survey.
Organizational fairness represented both procedural and distributive justice. It was measured by summing seven items from Wright and Saylor (1992), Mueller et al. (1994), and
those created for the survey (see appendix).
Findings
Descriptive statistics for the variables are shown in Table 1. There appeared to be significant variation in the variables (i.e., the variables were not constants) and the continuously
measured variables were normally distributed. There were no problems noted with kurtosis or skewness. In addition, all the indexes had Cronbachs alpha values equal to or higher
than .70, a level generally viewed as good (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). A principal factor
106
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Variables (N = 160)
Measure
Gender
Age
Tenure
Position
Education
Race
Dangerousness
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Role overload
Input into
decision making
Organizational
fairness
External
employment
opportunity
Job satisfaction
Organizational
commitment
Turnover intent
Description
Median
Min
Max
0 = Female, 1 = Male
Continuous years
Months at the prison
0 = not a correctional officer,
1 = correctional officer
0 = no college degree, 1 = college degree
0 = non-White, 1 = White
5 Item index, = .78
4 Item index, = .70
5 Item index, = .73
3 Item index, = .77
4 Item index, = .87
1
33
17
1
0
19
0
0
1
68
53
1
0.59
35.77
20.64
0.62
0.49
10.82
13.84
0.49
0
1
16
9
15
8
10
0
0
6
4
8
3
4
1
1
25
19
25
15
20
0.47
0.79
16.01
9.22
15.29
8.44
10.13
0.50
0.41
4.32
2.86
3.96
2.67
4.06
7 Item index, = .85
21
34
20.98
5.66
3.49
1.04
5 Item index, = .92

6 Item index, = .88
19
19
5
6
25
26
18.34
18.14
4.67
4.00
5 Item index, = .77
17
8.02
3.76
1 Item measure
SD
Note: min = minimum value; max = maximum value; M = mean; SD = standard deviation; = Cronbachs
alpha.
analysis for each latent variable was conducted. Specifically, the items for a particular
index were entered into a factor analysis using principal axis factoring, a type of test for
construct validity (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Gorsuch, 1983). Based on the Eigenvalues and the
Scree plot, a single factor was extracted for each latent concept. All the items for a particular latent concept had factor loading of .50 or higher, which was above the cutoff rule of
.30. The factor loading scores are reported in the appendix.
Multivariate models using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression were estimated on the
impact of personal characteristics, work environment variables, external employment
opportunity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment on turnover intent. The
results are reported in Table 2. The first model estimated the direct effects of personal characteristics, work environment variables, external employment opportunity, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment on turnover intent among correctional staff. The second
model added the work environment variables.
Based on the R-squared statistic, about 59% of the variance observed in the turnover
intent index was accounted for by the independent variables in Model 1. As predicted, based
on the first model, age, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment had statistically significant negative effects on the turnover intent index (s were .17, .39, and .41, respectively). Older workers were less likely than younger workers to express turnover intentions.
107
Table 2
Turnover Intent Models
Model 1
Independent Variables
Gender
Age
Tenure
Position
Education
Race
External employment opportunity
Job satisfaction
Organizational commitment
Dangerousness
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Role overload
Input into decision making
Organizational fairness
R-squared
24
.06
.02
.73
.80
.14
.24
.32
.38
Model 2
03
.17*
.07
.10
.11
.02
.06
.39*
.41*
.59*
B
08
.06
.02
.63
.07
.16
.32
.24
.32
.04
.08
.09
.12
.02
.03
Direct
Indirect
01
.17*
.06
.08
.09
.02
.09
.30*
.34*
.04
.06
.10
.08
.03
.04
.61*
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.06
0.10
0.12
0.26
Note: For how the variables were measured see Table 1. OLS regression was used. B represents the unstandardized slope and represents the standardized slope. Direct represents the statistically significant direct effects
on turnover intent and indirect represents the statistically significant indirect effects, which are modified
through job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment. The direct effects are the standardized regression
coefficient from Model 2. The indirect effects were calculated by multiplying the standardized coefficients
among the paths leading ultimately to turnover intent (e.g., job satisfaction had a direct effect on turnover intent
and an indirect effect through organizational commitment).
*p .01.
As job satisfaction and organizational commitment increased, turnover intent decreased.

Unlike as predicted, gender, tenure, position, educational level, and race all had nonsignificant effects. Although not significant, the direction of the relationship for gender was the
opposite than predicted, with men expressing a higher level of turnover intent than the
female respondents. Likewise, although it did not reach statistical significance, White correctional staff members expressed a higher desire to leave than did non-White staff members, which is contrary to what was postulated. Conversely, the impact of tenure was
negative, as hypothesized, even though it did not reach statistical significance. Similarly,
educational level, although it failed to reach statistical significance, did have a positive association with turnover intent, as was postulated. Although the measure for external employment opportunity was in a positive direction, it did not reach statistical significance (p = .06).
Based on the standardized slope (i.e., ), organizational commitment had the greatest impact
on turnover intent, followed closely by job satisfaction. Age had the third largest effect, but
was less than half the effect of either job satisfaction or organizational commitment.
The work environment variables were added to the multivariate OLS analysis and the
results are presented in Table 2 under Model 2. The addition of the six work environment
108
variables led to only a very small increase of 2% in the amount of variance in the turnover
intent index explained by the independent variables. Moreover, as predicted, age, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment still had statistically significant impacts on
turnover intent (s were .17, .30, and .34, respectively). Likewise, gender, tenure, position, educational level, race, and external employment opportunity still had nonsignificant
effects. Even though the effects did not reach statistical significance, they were in the direction hypothesized for tenure and educational level, but not for gender, position, or race.
None of the new work environment variables had a direct significant impact on turnover
intent. Finally, organizational commitment in Model 2 had the largest impact, followed
closely by job satisfaction. The magnitude of the effect of age was about half the effect of
organizational commitment or job satisfaction.
Multivariate OLS analyses were conducted for the impact of personal characteristics and
work environment variables on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and the
results are presented in Table 3. Based on the R-squared statistic, about 57% of the
observed variance in the job satisfaction index was explained by the six personal characteristics and the six work environment variables. For the job satisfaction model, gender, role
ambiguity, role overload, and organizational fairness all had statistically significant effects
on the employees at the private prison (s were .14, .21, .18, and .33, respectively).
Although no prediction for the relationship of gender with job satisfaction or organizational
commitment was made, men, on average, reported higher levels of job satisfaction than
women. As predicted, role ambiguity and role overload both had inverse relationships with
correctional staff job satisfaction. As each increased, job satisfaction dropped.
Organizational fairness had a positive association with job satisfaction. As organizational
fairness increased, job satisfaction increased as well. Other than gender, none of the
remaining personal characteristics had a significant relationship with job satisfaction.
Perceived dangerousness of the job, role conflict, and input into decision making all had
nonsignificant effects on correctional staff job satisfaction even though it was expected that
perceived dangerousness and role conflict would have an inverse relationship with job satisfaction and input into decision making would have a positive association. Organizational
fairness had the greatest impact on job satisfaction. Role ambiguity had the second largest
effect closely followed by role overload. Gender had the smallest sized impact.
For the organizational commitment model, about 71% of the variance of the organizational commitment measure was accounted for by the independent variables. None of the
personal characteristics had a statistically significant impact. As predicted, role conflict had
a significant negative relationship with organizational commitment ( was .15). Staff who
reported greater role conflict tended to report lower levels of organizational commitment.
As predicted, input into decision making, organizational fairness, and job satisfaction had
a positive relationship with organizational commitment (s were .29, .17, and .48, respectively); as they increased, organizational commitment also increased. Perceived dangerousness of the job, role ambiguity, and role overload all had nonsignificant effects on
correctional staff organizational commitment. It should be noted that the direction of the
effects were in the direction predicted even though they did not reach statistical significance. Job satisfaction had the largest impact on correctional staff organizational commitment of all the variables in the model. Input into decision making had the second largest
effect followed by organizational fairness. Role conflict had the smallest impact.
109
Table 3
Impact of Personal Characteristics and Work Environment
Variables on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment
Job Satisfaction
Independent Variables
Gender
Age
Tenure
Position
Education
Race
Dangerousness
Role ambiguity
Role conflict
Role overload
Input into decision making
Organizational fairness
Job satisfaction
R-squared
B
1.34
.01
.02
.90
.10
.52
.05
34
.05
.31
.08
.27
Organizational Commitment
.14*
.01
.06
.09
.10
.04
.05
21**
.04
.18**
.07
.33**
.57**
.01
.01
.01
.30
.20
.12
.08
00
.15
.11
.28
.12
.41
.01
.02
.01
.04
.02
.01
.08
00
.15*
.07
.29**
.17*
.48**
.71**
Note: See Table 1 for a description of how the variables were measured. B represents the unstandardized slope
and represents the standardized slope. OLS regression was used.
*p .05. **p .01.
Finally, the significant direct and indirect effects of the independent variables on turnover
intent are reported in Table 2 for Models 1 and 2. Direct effects are those a variable has on
a dependent variable with no other intervening or moderating variable. For example, the
effects reported in Table 2 for Models 1 and 2 are all direct effects because there are no intervening or moderating variables between the specific variable and its estimated effect on
turnover intent. An indirect effect is the effect of a variable which is through another intervening variable. To determine the direct and indirect effects, path analysis using OLS regression was conducted. The direct effects are the standardized regression coefficients for Model
2, which are reported in Table 2. Indirect effects represent the impact that a variable has on
another variable that is mediated by one or more other variables. Indirect effects were calculated by multiplying the standardized coefficients of the direct causal paths leading ultimately to the variable measuring turnover intent. For example, the indirect effects for job
satisfaction would be through organizational commitment (.48 .34 = .16).
Only age, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment had direct effects on turnover
intent. The personal characteristics and work environment variables had indirect effects on
turnover intent. As predicted, gender had a negative indirect effect on correctional staff
turnover intent through job satisfaction (see Table 2 for the indirect effect). Gender also had
an indirect effect via job satisfactions impact on organizational commitment, which in turn
had a significant impact on turnover intent (see Table 3 for the direct effects of the personal
characteristics and work environment variables on job satisfaction and organizational commitment). As predicted, role ambiguity and role overload both had positive indirect effects
110
through job satisfaction. As postulated, role conflict had a positive indirect impact on
turnover intent through organizational commitment. As predicted, input into decision making had a negative indirect effect through organizational commitment. As postulated, organizational fairness had an indirect effect through job satisfaction, an indirect effect through
organizational commitment, and an indirect effect through job satisfaction and then organizational commitment. As predicted, job satisfaction not only had a direct effect, it also
had an indirect effect on turnover intent through organizational commitment.
Discussion of Results
In reviewing these results, all hypotheses were supported, except for the impact of external employment opportunity. Both job satisfaction and organizational commitment had an
inverse relationship with correctional staff turnover intent; the higher the level of satisfaction and commitment the lower the turnover intent. The typical response to a negative stimulus is to remove it or to withdraw from it. As previously indicated, a job is more than a
source of financial gain. It is a place where people seek to fill their social, emotional, and
psychological needs. If these needs are not being met by the job, then it would be expected
people would seek another job. In addition, generally, the more committed a correctional
worker was to the organization, the lower their level of turnover intent was. People who
form attachments do not usually willingly sever those attachments. Hence correctional
workers who have bonded with the correctional organization are less likely to wish to leave.
Those with strained or no bonds have little reason to remain long term with the correctional
organization. They are probably actively looking for other employment opportunities and
are willing to express intentions to leave as a way of alleviating their lack of organizational
commitment. In addition, as predicted, job satisfaction had a positive impact on organizational commitment. In fact, as shown in Table 3, job satisfaction had by far the greatest
impact on organizational commitment.
The postulation that work environment variables would have no direct impact on
turnover intent in a model including job satisfaction and organizational commitment was
supported. In Model 2 in Table 2, when all of the variables presented in Figure 1 were
included in the analysis, none of the six work environment variables had a direct effect.
When a separate regression model (not shown) was estimated with only the six work environment measures as the independent variables (i.e., the personal variables, external
employment opportunity, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment were excluded
from the model) with turnover intent as the dependent variable, three of the work environment variables (role ambiguity, role conflict, and organizational fairness) had statistically
significant (p .05) effects on turnover intent; however, when organizational commitment
and job satisfaction were added to the model, the effects of all six work environment measures were nonsignificant. The results of this more complete model are, for all intents and
purposes, nearly identical to Model 2 in Table 2. This does not mean work environment factors have no effect on turnover intent but rather the effects are indirect rather than direct.
The results suggest job satisfaction and organizational commitment moderate the effects of
the work environment on turnover intent among correctional workers. Six studies have
examined the effects of work environment factors on correctional turnover intent (Camp,
111
1994; Jurik & Winn, 1987; Lambert, 2006; Mitchell et al, 2000; Slate & Vogel, 1997; and
the current study). The three studies that included measures for both job satisfaction and
organizational commitment in the analysis (Camp, 1994; Lambert, 2006; and the current
study) found that the work environment variables had no direct effects on either turnover
or turnover intent. Of the three studies that found that work environment factors had a significant association with correctional staff turnover or turnover intent, Jurik and Winn
(1987) and Mitchell et al. (2000) included job satisfaction in the analysis, but not organizational commitment, whereas Slate and Vogel (1997) included neither job satisfaction nor
organizational commitment. One cannot reach a conclusion about the validity of these latter three studies without knowing how their findings might have differed if they had
included both job satisfaction and organizational commitment in their analyses.
As hypothesized, the effects of the work environment variables were indirect through job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. Except for perceived dangerousness of the
job, the work environment variables all had indirect effects on turnover intent (see the
Indirect column in Table 2). Role ambiguity, role overload, and organizational fairness had
significant effects on correctional staff job satisfaction.2 Increases in role ambiguity and
role overload resulted in decreases in job satisfaction; however, when workers perceived
that the organization treats its employees fairly, then their job satisfaction was higher. Role
conflict, input into decision making, and organizational fairness all had significant impacts
on organizational commitment. As role conflict rose, the commitment level dropped. Both
input into decision making and organizational fairness had positive effects. Thus although
there were no direct effects, all the work environment variables except perceived dangerousness were important in ultimately shaping the turnover intent of the correctional
employees in this study. The effects were indirect through either or both job satisfaction and
organizational commitment.
Although it was postulated each of the personal characteristics would have a direct effect
on turnover intent, only age did. Older workers were less likely to express a desire to leave
employment with the correctional organization as compared to younger workers. None of
the remaining five personal characteristics had a significant direct relationship with turnover
intent. Furthermore, as a group, personal characteristics had almost no indirect effects on
turnover intent. Only gender had an indirect significant relationship with job satisfaction. In
general, men reported higher levels of job satisfaction than women. None of the six personal
characteristics had a significant association with organizational commitment.
It was predicted perceived external employment opportunity would have a significant
positive effect on turnover intent. It did not. Although the effect was positive, it failed to
reach statistical significance. It could be external job opportunities are not part of the
turnover intent process for correctional workers. The only other correctional study that
included a measure of external employment opportunity also found no relationship with
actual turnover. Specifically, Camp (1994) found the local unemployment rate had no relationship with actual turnover among federal correctional staff. It is also possible both
Camps and this study did not fully capture the concept of external employment opportunity, and external employment opportunity does in fact have a direct positive effect on
turnover intent. Additional research is needed before the type of relationship between external employment opportunity and correctional staff turnover intent can be determined.
112
The results of this study indicate the job attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment are highly important in shaping turnover intent of correctional staff, and work
environment variables are important in influencing their job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Personal characteristics and external employment opportunities have little
impact on correctional staff turnover intent, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment.
Implications and Conclusion

Even though turnover is harmful to correctional organizations, little research has been
conducted on the issue of turnover or turnover intent among correctional staff (Tipton,
2002). There is a need for further research on correctional staff turnover intent and turnover.
Like most studies, this study has limitations. The current study examined the process of
turnover intent at a Midwestern private prison. Staff at other prisons should be studied
including those who work at public correctional facilities. This study is unable to answer
the question if the turnover intent process differs between private and public correctional
staff. This is a salient question that needs to be studied, particularly in light of the growth
of private correctional facilities over the past several decades. Yet based on the results of
this study, there are some implications regarding private facilities. The literature has repeatedly pointed out that major differences between public and private institutions are extrinsic
factors such as pay, benefits, and promotional opportunities. The results indicate, though,
that these are not direct salient characteristics of turnover intent, rather they would be mediated through job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Future research should include actual turnover in the causal model to verify turnover
intent is its most immediate and strongest predictor. Because the survey was anonymous, it
was not possible to include actual turnover in the analysis. Future research needs to include
different measures of the work environment. Only some of the dimensions of the work environment were included in the present study. There are many other dimensions of the work
environment that need to be explored. There is a need to include different measures of the
concepts measured in this study to see if the results would change. The work environment
indices were created using items from different studies. It must be noted that there are different methods for measuring the concepts that could affect the results. For example, other
studies have used different measures of role conflict and role ambiguity, and some studies
have even included these two concepts to measure the larger concept of role stress or strain
(Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980; Hepburn & Knepper, 1993; Lambert et al., 2002a). How a concept is defined and measured will influence the results. Thus future research is needed to
determine the accuracy of the measures used in this study. This will ensure that validity and
reliability measurement errors will be minimized when researching turnover intent among
correctional staff. There is a need to examine and assess the impact of various interventions
designed to increase the job satisfaction and organizational commitment to determine which
ones are more effective and efficient. This information is necessary for correctional administrators interested in improving staff job satisfaction and commitment. It is hoped this study
will result in new research on the causal process of correctional staff turnover intent.
There are administrative implications from this study. As pointed out by Kiekbusch
et al., (2003), turnover can be reduced. To respond to the problem of turnover, it is necessary
113
to understand its causal process. The findings indicate that designing ways to increase staff
job satisfaction and organizational commitment are paramount. The results of this study
suggest the work environment, not personal characteristics, is critical in helping shape the
job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional workers. The small impact
of the personal variables on turnover intent, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment is good news for correctional administrators. The work environment is an area over
which they have a great deal of control. It is recommended that correctional administrators
focus on improving the work environment for the staff. This should result in increased job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, which will in turn lower the turnover intent of
the employees. Besides the work environment variables found in this study as being linked
to job satisfaction and organizational commitment, there are many published studies that
have identified other work environment variables that influence the job satisfaction and
organizational commitment of correctional workers (Cullen et al., 1985; Hepburn &
Knepper, 1993; Lambert, 2003, 2004; Lambert et al., 2002a, 2002b, 2004; Lambert &
Paoline, 2005; Stohr et al., 1994; Van Voorhis et al., 1991; Wright et al., 1997). It is within
the power of most correctional organizations to reduce turnover intent among their staff.
There are also theoretical and research implications. There is a need to examine the
potential causes of turnover intent among correctional staff in light of the high turnover rate
in the field of corrections. The results of this study indicate turnover intent among correctional staff should not be considered a theoretically simple process. It is a complex process
in which the work environment helps shapes the job attitudes of employees and these attitudes in turn influence turnover intent. Future research is needed to understand more fully
the complex process of correctional staff turnover intent. The disappearance of the direct
effects of the work environment variables in this study, after job satisfaction and organizational commitment were entered into the equation, supports the need for the development
and testing of causal models for complex outcomes. It is important not only to investigate
the direct effects, but also the indirect effects as well. The importance of a variable in a
process may not be identified or understood without considering these indirect effects
(Bollen, 1989). Thus by failing to consider indirect effects, variables with nonsignificant
direct effects that are nevertheless salient within the causal process of correctional staff
turnover intent would be rejected. Causal models make researchers and administrators
more aware of the complex turnover process. As Lee and Mowday (1987) argued, comprehensive models provide structure and guidance for studying turnover intent, which allows
for the results to be compared to other studies that have tested the same or a similar causal
model. Thus it is hoped future studies in this area will test causal models rather than examine the direct effects of a myriad of variables. In addition, the results support the contention
that organizational commitment is a salient job attitude among correctional staff and should
not be ignored in future studies of correctional staff behaviors, including turnover intent.
In closing, many correctional organizations report that correctional staff turnover is a problem and has been for some time. The costs of high turnover can be considerable for correctional agencies as correctional employees are the most valuable asset for a correctional
agency. If they leave in high numbers, much is lost both directly and indirectly. In an era of
increased demands and tightened budgets, it behooves correctional organizations to reduce
correctional staff turnover. Administrators trying to respond after employees have left are too
late, which means it is necessary to focus on turnover intent and understanding the complex
114
process that leads to it. This study tested a causal model and found that work environment factors helped shaped the job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional workers at a Midwestern private prison. In turn, job satisfaction and organizational commitment
were inversely linked to turnover intent. In the end, reducing turnover intent will be a beneficial outcome for employees, coworkers, clients, administrators, and society. At the very least,
it is hoped this study will lead to increased awareness of the problem and further research.
Appendix
Turnover intent (Cronbachs alpha = .77; See Method section of article for the specific response options)
In the last 6 months, have you thought about quitting your current job? (.72)
I frequently think about quitting my job at this prison. (.87)
How likely is it that you will be at this job in a year from now? (.68)
How actively have you searched for a job with other employers in the last year? (.55)
Do you desire to voluntarily leave or quit your job? (.71)
Job satisfaction (Cronbachs alpha = .92)
I definitely dislike my job. (reverse coded; .84)
I like my job better than the average worker does. (.78)
Most days I am enthusiastic about my job. (.90)
I find real enjoyment in my job. (.84)
I feel fairly well satisfied with my job. (.83)
Organizational commitment (Cronbachs alpha = .88)
I tell my friends that this is a great organization to work for. (.87)
I feel very little loyalty to this prison. (reverse coded; .61)
I find that my values and the prisons values are very similar. (.71)
I am proud to tell people that I work at this prison. (.81)
This prison really inspires the best in me in the way of job performance. (.74)
I really care about the fate of this prison. (.73)
Dangerousness of the job (Cronbachs alpha = .78)
Most of the time when Im at work I dont feel that I have much to worry about (reverse coded; .40)
In my job, a person stands a good chance of getting hurt. (.73)
I work at a dangerous job. (.88)
My job is a lot more dangerous than most other jobs. (.76)
A lot of people I work with have been physically injured on the job. (.49)
Role ambiguity (Cronbachs alpha = .70)
I clearly know what my work responsibilities are. (reverse coded; .74)
The rules that were supposed to follow seem to be very clear. (reverse coded; .63)
I am unclear to whom I report and/or who reports to me. (.43)
I do not always understand what is expected of me at work. (.64)
Role conflict (Cronbachs alpha = .73)
I regularly receive conflicting requests at work from two or more people. (.63)
When a problem comes up here, people seldom agree on how it should be handled. (.54)
Sometimes I am criticized by one supervisor for doing something ordered by another supervisor. (.66)
I sometimes have to bend a rule or policy to get an assignment done. (.46)
I often receive an assignment without adequate resources and materials to get it done. (.66)
Role overload (Cronbachs alpha = .77)
I am responsible for almost an unmanageable number of assignments and/or inmates. (.72)
The amount of work required in my job is unreasonable. (.94)
The amount of work I am required to do seems to be increasing all the time. (.57)
(continued)
115
Appendix (continued)
Input into decision making (Cronbachs alpha = .87)
When there is a problem, management frequently consults with employees on possible solutions. (.82)
Management routinely puts employee suggestions into practice. (.87)
Management around here allows little employee input into decision making (reverse coded; .72)
Management often asks employees their suggestions on how to carry out job related tasks and
assignments. (.80)
Organizational fairness (Cronbachs alpha = .89)
There is a fair opportunity to be promoted. (.66)
My own hard work will lead to recognition as a good performer. (.58)
The standards used to evaluate my performance at this prison have been fair and objective. (.77)
My supervisor is familiar enough with my job to fairly evaluate me. (.58)
My last annual performance rating presented a fair and accurate picture of my actual job performance. (.63)
I am fairly rewarded at this prison based on my education level and job skills. (.76)
I am fairly rewarded considering the responsibilities and work I do at this prison. (.73)
All the following items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = uncertain, 4 = agree, and 5 = agree. Cronbachs alpha, a measure of internal consistency, is presented
in parentheses after the name of each concept. The factor loading scores using principal factor analysis are presented in parentheses after each item.
Notes
1. The data set used in this study has also been used to examine the impact of role conflict, role ambiguity,
role overload, and dangerousness on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; the impact of work-family conflict on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment; the impact of the job characteristics (i.e., job variety, supervision, and job stress) on correctional
staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment; the impact of procedural and distributive justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment; and the impact of job stress, job
involvement, and organizational commitment on correctional staff organizational citizenship behavior. Full citations are available on request.
2. As pointed out by a reviewer, there is disagreement in the literature over whether the middle, uncertain,
or neutral responses options in a Likert-type scale should be included when forming indexes for latent concepts.
It is beyond the scope of this article to argue this issue; however, we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge it. All questions were recoded so the uncertain responses became missing responses. The indexes were
recalculated and the analyses were redone. All the recalculated indexes had a Cronbachs alpha of .70 or higher.
In terms of statistical significance for Model 1 in Table 1, there were no changes. Age, job satisfaction, and
organizational commitment still had significant effects. Likewise, there were no major changes in terms of statistical significance for the model with job satisfaction as the dependent variable (see Table 3 for the variables
in this model). Because of too few cases due to list wise deletion, Model 2 in Table 2 and the model for organizational commitment as the dependent variable (see Table 3) could not be estimated. Thus it is unclear how
including the uncertain responses may have influenced the results for these models. It is recommend future
research explore this issue to see if including the uncertain or neutral responses influence the results of turnover
intent among correctional staff.
References
American Correctional Association. (2001). 2001 Directory of adult and juvenile correctional departments,
institutions, agencies, and probation and parole authorities. Lanham, MD: Author.
116
American Correctional Association. (2005). ACAs 2005 winter conference recap. Retrieved July 4, 2006, from
http://www.aca.org/conferences/Winter05/updates05.asp
Babin, B., & Boles, J. (1996). The effect of perceived co-worker involvement and supervisor support on service
provider role stress, performance, and job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 72, 57-75.
Benton, F., Rosen, E., & Peters, J. (1982). National survey of correctional institution employee attrition.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Blakely, C., & Bumphus, V. (2004). Private and public sector prisonsA comparison of select characteristics.
Federal Probation, 68(1), 49-55.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Brayfield, A., & Rothe, H. (1951). An index of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35, 307-311.
Byrd, T., Cochran, J., Silverman, I., & Blount, W. (2000). Behind bars: An assessment of the effects of job satisfaction, job-related stress, and anxiety of jail employees inclinations to quit. Journal of Crime and
Criminal Justice, 23, 69-89.
Camp, S. (1994). Assessing the effects of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on turnover: An event
history approach. The Prison Journal, 74, 279-305.
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cawsey, T., & Wedley, W. (1979). Labor turnover costs: Measurement and control. Personnel Journal, 58, 90-95.
Comrey, A., & Lee, H. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Contact Inc. (1987). Survey: COs in demand in many states. Corrections Compendium, 11, 9-13.
Cranny, C., Smith, P., & Stone, E. (Eds.). (1992). Job satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and how it
affects their performance. New York: Lexington Books.
Cullen, F., Link, B., Wolfe, N., & Frank, J. (1985) The social dimensions of correctional officer stress, Justice
Quarterly, 2, 505-533.
Dalessio, A., Silverman, W., & Schuck J. (1986). Paths to turnover: A re-analysis and review of existing data
on the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworths turnover model. Human Relations, 39, 245-264.
Delprino, R. (2002). Work and family support services for correctional officers and their family members: A
national survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Dennis, G. (1998). Here today, gone tomorrow: How management style affects job satisfaction and, in turn,
employee turnover. Corrections Today, 60(3), 96-102.
Firth, L., Mellor, D., Moore, K., & Loquet, C. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 170-187.
Ford, M. (1995). Job performance and job tenure of jailers. In N. Jackson (Ed.), Contemporary issues in criminal justice: Shaping tomorrows system (pp. 243-257). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, M. (1988). Recruiting. In F. Benton & C. Nesbitt (Eds.), Prison personnel management and staff development (pp. 37-46). College Park, MD: American Correctional Association.
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.
Hepburn, J. (1987). The prison control structure and its effects on work attitudes: The perceptions and attitudes
of prison guards. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 49-64.
Hepburn, J., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role conflict in correctional institutions: An empirical examination of the
treatment-custody dilemma among correctional staff. Criminology, 17, 445-459.
Hepburn, J., & Knepper, P. (1993). Correctional officers as human service workers: The effect of job satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 10, 315-335.
Ivancevich, J., & Matteson, M. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Jacobs, J., & Grear, M. (1977). Drop-outs and rejects: An analysis of the prison guards revolving door.
Criminal Justice Review, 2, 57-70.
Jaramillo, F., Nixon, R., & Sams, D. (2005). The effect of law enforcement stress on organizational commitment. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 28, 321-336.
Jurik, N., Halemba, G., Musheno, M., & Boyle, B. (1987). Education attainment, job satisfaction, and the professionalism of correctional officers. Work and Occupations, 14, 106-125.
Jurik, N., & Musheno, M. (1986). The internal crisis of corrections: Professionalization and the work environment. Justice Quarterly, 3, 457-480.
117
Jurik, N., & Winn, R. (1987). Describing correctional security dropouts and rejects: An individual or organizational profile? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 5-25.
Kiekbusch, R., Price, W., & Theis, J. (2003). Turnover predictors: Causes of employee turnover in sheriffoperated jails. Criminal Justice Studies, 16, 67-76.
Lambert, E. (2001). To stay or quit: A review of the literature on correctional staff turnover. American Journal
of Criminal Justice, 26, 61-76.
Lambert, E. (2003). Justice in corrections: An exploratory study of the impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 155-168.
Lambert, E. (2004). The impact of job characteristics on correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 84, 208-227.
Lambert, E. (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.
Lambert, E. Barton, S., & Hogan, N. (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., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002a). Satisfied correctional staff: A review of the literature on the
antecedents and consequences of correctional staff job satisfaction. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 115-143.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., & Barton, S. (2002b). Building commitment among correctional staff: The issue of feedback, promotional opportunities, and organizational fairness. Corrections Compendium, 27(3), 1-5, 24-28.
Lambert, E., Hogan, N., Paoline, E., & Clarke, A. (2005). The impact of role stressors on job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment among private prison staff. Security Journal, 18, 33-50.
Lambert, E., & Paoline, E. (2005). The impact of jail medical issues on the job stress and job satisfaction of jail
staff: An exploratory study. Punishment and Society: The International Journal of Penology, 7, 259-275.
Lambert, E., Paoline, E., & Hogan, N. (2006). The impact of centralization and formalization on correctional
staff job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime,
Law, and Society, 19, 23-44.
Lambert, E., Reynolds, M., Paoline, E., & Watkins, C. (2004). The effects of occupational stressors on jail staff
job satisfaction. Journal of Crime and Justice, 27, 1-32.
Lee, T., & Mowday, R. (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical investigation of Steers and
Mowdays model of turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 721-743.
Liou, K. (1998). Employee turnover intention and professional orientation: A study of detention workers.
Public Administration Quarterly, 22, 161-175.
Lunden, W. (1965). The prison warden and custodial staff. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
McShane, M., Williams, F., Schichor, D., & McClain, K. (1991). Early exits: Examining employee turnover.
Corrections Today, 53(5), 220-225.
Merriweather, J. (2003). Prison staffing a matter of concern. Stand up for what is right and just. Retrieved July
10, 2006, from http:/www.surj.org/articles/News%20Journal/nj_8_4_03.htm
Mitchell, O., MacKenzie, D., Styve, G., & Gover, A. (2000). The impact of individual, organizational, and voluntary turnover among juvenile correctional staff members. Justice Quarterly, 17, 333-357.
Mobley, W., Griffeth, R., Hand, H., & Meglino, B. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee
turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493-522.
Mowday, R., Porter, L., & Steers, R. (1982). Employeeorganization linkages: The psychology of commitment,
absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic Press.
Mueller, C., Boyer, E., Price, J., & Iverson, R. (1994). Employee attachment and noncoercive conditions of
work. Work and Occupations, 21, 179-212.
Naisbitt, J. & Aburdene, P. (1985). Reinventing the corporation. New York: Warner Books.
National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. (1978). National manpower survey of the criminal justice system, vol. 3, corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Philliber, S. (1987). Thy brothers keeper: A review of the literature on correctional officers. Justice Quarterly,
4, 9-37.
Poole, E., & Regoli, R. (1983). Professionalism, role conflict, work alienation, and anomie: A look at prison
management. Social Science Journal, 20, 63-70.
Price, J., & C. Mueller (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rizzo, J., House, R., & Lirtzman, S. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
118
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1992). Staff commitment in the correctional service of Canada
(NCJ Document No. 148402). Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canada Correctional Service.
Robinson, D., Porporino, F., & Simourd, L. (1997). The influence of educational attainment on the attitudes and
job performance of correctional officers. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 60-77.
Rogers, R. (1991). The effect of educational level on correctional officer job satisfaction. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 19, 123-137.
Sager, J., Griffeth, R., & Hom, P. (1998). A comparison of structural models representing turnover cognitions.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254-273.
Slate, R., & Vogel, R. (1997). Participative management and correctional personnel: A study of the perceived
atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts
of quitting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 397-408.
Spector, P. (1996). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice. New York: John Wiley.
Steel, R., & Ovalle, N. (1984). A review and meta-analysis of research on the relationship between behavioral
intentions and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 673-686.
Stohr, M., Lovrich, N., Monke, B., & Zupan, L. (1994). Staff management in correctional institutions:
Comparing DiIulios control model and employee investment model out-comes in five jails. Justice
Quarterly, 11, 471-497.
Stohr, M., Self, R., & Lovrich, N. (1992). Staff turnover in new generation jails: An investigation of its causes
and preventions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 455-478.
Teas, R. (1981). A test of a model of department store sales peoples job satisfaction. Journal of Retailing, 57, 3-35.
Tipton, J. (2002). Attitudes and perceptions of South Carolinas juvenile correctional officers insight into the
turnover epidemic. Journal of Crime and Justice, 25, 81-98.
Trever, C. (2001). Interactions among actual ease of movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621-638.
Triplett, R., Mullings, J., & Scarborough, K. (1996). Work-related stress and coping among correctional
officers: Implications from organizational literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 291-308.
Van Breukelen, W., Van Der Vlist, R., & Steensma, H. (2004). Voluntary employee turnover: Combining variables from the traditional turnover literature with the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 893-914.
Van Voorhis, P., Cullen, F., Link, B., & Wolfe, N. (1991). The impact of race and gender on correctional officers orientation to the integrated environment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 472-500.
Vandenberg, R. (1999). Disaggregating the motives underlying turnovers intentions: When do intentions predict turnover behavior? Human Relations, 52, 1313-1336.
Weisberg, J., & Kirschenbaum, A. (1991). Employee turnover intentions: Implications from a national sample.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2, 359-375.
Wright, K. (1994). Effective prison leadership. Binghamton, NY: William Neil.
Wright, K., & Saylor, W. (1992). Comparison of perceptions of the environment between minority and nonminority employees of the Federal Prison System. Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 63-71.
Wright, K., Saylor, W., Gilman, E., & Camp, S. (1997). Job control and occupational outcomes among prison
workers. Justice Quarterly, 14, 525-546.
Wright, T. (1993). Correctional employee turnover: A longitudinal study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 131-142.
Eric Lambert is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice at Wayne State University. He
received his PhD from the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. His
research interests include criminal justice organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes,
intentions and behaviors of criminal justice employees, the evaluation of correctional interventions, the ethical
behavior of criminal justice employees and students, and international attitudes toward criminal justice issues.
Nancy Hogan is a professor and graduate program coordinator in the School of Criminal Justice at Ferris State
University. She received her PhD in justice studies from Arizona State University in 1996. She has published
several articles dealing with health issues of inmates and correctional staff satisfaction. She is currently
researching the effectiveness of cognitive correctional interventions. Her other research interests are private
prisons, ethics, and correctional treatment interventions.

The Importance of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Shaping Turnover Intent A Test of A Causal Model

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Importance of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Shaping Turnover Intent A Test of A Causal Model

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Justice Review