Maximum Security Correctional Officers: An Exploratory Investigation into Their Social Bases of Power

Correctional officers are responsible for maintaining prison order, establishing institutional security and managing inmate behavior. To accomplish these goals, officers are sometimes required to deploy available bases of power, which are mechanisms of behavioral control used to achieve certain objectives, and include reward, referent, legitimate, coercive and expert. While power bases have been researched at length across numerous organizational settings, they have received comparatively less attention within corrections. Using questionnaire data from a statewide population of maximum security correctional officers (N?=?559), several ordered logistic regression models were estimated in order to explore the power bases upon which officers rely the most, as well as the antecedents to this decision. Referent and legitimate power ranked highest concerning their ability to control inmates, while measures of officer risk perceptions and work-related attitudes significantly predicted their power base reliance. To ensure inmate compliance with institutional regulations, it is recommended that correctional officers utilize softer forms of power such as referent and legitimate.     

Exploring the association between organizational structure variables and work on family strain among Indian police officers

Work-family conflict occurs when the domains of work and home spill over into one another leading to conflict, which is a real possibility for the unique occupation of policing. Work on family conflict, a subdomain of work-family conflict, occurs when issues at work spill over impacting home life. One form of work on family conflict is strain-based conflict, which is when work problems results in conflict at home, such being irritable at home or arguments with family members and friends. This study examined the relationship between organizational structure variables and work on family conflict strain among Indian police officers. India is the most populous democracy in the world, but little has been published in Western journals of how workplace variables maybe related to work on family strain among Indian officers. Among the organizational structure variables, instrumental communication, organizational support, formalization, distributive justice, and procedural justice each had negative relationships with work on family strain. Input into decision-making had a nonsignificant association.     

Conclusion

In commenting upon the chapters gathered together in this volume I have had certain guidelines in mind. To the best of my ability, I have tried to consider the significance of the chapters on their own terms. I have tried to do so without reference to such commentary as may have occurred since they were first presented. I have tried to confine my observations to the relationship of the chapters in this volume to the most meaningful issues for the present dialogue and near future of the field. For the purposes of this reflection, the new public administration of Minnowbrook I and the papers gathered in the companion volume to the present one have served as background, but I have tried to restrain the temptation for detailed comparison. I hasten to avow that this approach—and the inescapable frailties of personal and perhaps idiosyncratic intellectual predilections and perceptions—has undoubtedly caused me to neglect some content of this volume which might strike others as more significant than that which I do discuss. I offer only a corollary to “Miles’ Law”:⁽¹⁾ what you see depends on where you stand on the path and what you have seen on other paths.

A quarter of a century ago, in commenting upon Minnow-brook I, I thought the main themes were relevance, antipositivism, ethics, innovation, concern for clients, antibureaucratic philosophy, social equity, and repression.⁽²⁾ With the exception, perhaps, of “repression” (which mainly surfaces in this volume only in the sense of the repressiveness of technicism), this could serve as a reasonable sketch of important themes of the chapters in this volume. The present discussion is organized under not very different headings. After a brief discussion of themes which seem central, I attempt a summary of some general impressions of the Minnowbrook perspective as it has evolved. Throughout, I try to indicate where I believe additional investigation and reflection might well serve the field and its future.     

The rationalization of democracy: Liberal,elitist, and corporatist conceptions of democracy∗

Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 (New York: Basic Books, 1984).

On Bureaucratic Discourse: A Radical Feminist Analysis of the Role of Public Administration in Late Capitalism

Jean Baudrillard, In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities . . . or the End of the Social and Other Essays, trans, by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and John Johnston (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983), 123 pp.

Jean Baudrillard, Simulations, trans. by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman (New York: Semiotext(e), 1983), 159 pp.

Omar Cabezas, Fire from the Mountain: The Making of a Sandinista, translated by Kathleen Weaver with a foreword by Carlos Fuentes and an afterword by Walter LaFeber (Crown Publishers, Inc.: New York, 1985), pp. 233.