Ajs 512 - Organizational Behavior

Organizational Behavior

Sherrill Jones

AJS/512

January 19, 2015

Steven J. Duplissis, JD

---

Organizational Behavior

Very few studies have been conducted regarding the organizational commitment within community corrections agencies. It is believed that background characteristics of officers have no real influence on job satisfaction, which tends to point to organizational culture and management style are more important factors in explaining employee satisfaction and retention. Community corrections officers appear to be most satisfied when their job-related duties are worthwhile and the officer has input and collaboration with supervisors on practices and procedures (Getahun, Sims, & Hummer, 2008). 

Parole and Probation

Parole and probation agencies have experienced unrestrained growth in the past twenty plus years due to prison overcrowding, budget constraints, and a growth in the number of conditions set by the court or other releasing authority (DeMichele, 2007). This has brought about a greater need for officers and supervisors to collaborate when deciding   caseload and workload decisions. It is important for the organization to understand and evaluate the differences between caseload, the head count on an officer’s roster, and the workload, the amount of time each offender will require to properly supervise. Organizational issues associated with workload continue to be problematic with the increased presence of offenders who would traditionally have been sentenced to prison for longer periods for gang related activities, sex offenses, and domestic violence.  

Probation caseloads are being crowded with offenders that could pose a greater threat to the community and therefore required a greater amount of time to be spent monitoring each offenders supervision, treatment, and enforcement of conditions. Another issue facing the organization is the levying of greater numbers of conditions of supervision by the courts (DeMichele, 2007).  In the late 80’s and early 90’s, the court trusted the presentence investigation report when setting conditions of supervision. With today’s budget deficits, it is not always possible to add additional staff to cover the additional hours needed to properly manage the influx of offenders to community corrections. Larger caseloads and limited time spent per offender plague community corrections agencies.

                                                                Job Satisfaction

Work environment has been shown to determine an officers’ job satisfaction. Factors that identify the main sources of job satisfaction in the work environment are the work itself, responsibility to the work, and recognition received from performing the work (Getahun, Sims, & Hummer, 2008). According to Getahun, Sims, and Hummer (2008), “criminal justice personnel are continually asked to perform their jobs in under-resourced conditions and sometimes within unsafe environments”. Studies also suggest that community corrections employees are much more satisfied with their jobs when they feel the agency they work for recognizes the challenges they are faced with and acknowledges a job well done. Most community corrections officers lack the opportunity to have an impact on the policies and procedures of the organization (DeMichele, 2007). Employees’ participation in workplace decision-making may lead to greater communication, reduced stress and burnout, and a significant increase in job satisfaction (Getahun, Sims, & Hummer, 2008).  

According to         DeMichele (2007), organizational characteristics are the best forecasters of organizational commitment. DeMichele (2007), “found that organizational structure, with informal communication and loose chains of command, coupled with a management style that promotes teamwork as well as participatory decision-making, results in more productive and satisfied employees”. Community corrections as a whole will need to address the issue of workload allocation above all others. These agencies will find it essential to position themselves to work with the courts, policy makers, and other releasing authorities to address the effect higher risk offenders and their greater number of imposed conditions, have on the organization and its employees (Getahun, Sims, & Hummer, 2008).