Abstract
Correctional officers (COs) work in a unique climate of continual carceral care, balancing interpersonal relationships, prison dynamics, with organizational and occupational duties. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with COs (n = 72) employed in federal penitentiaries in Canada, we explore factors influencing CO culture and peer acceptance. Using a constructed semi-grounded approach, we analyze how CO behaviors and values shape CO culture and illustrate how proving oneself is fundamental to in-group acceptance. Findings support the importance of proving oneself to CO acceptance, through developing trust, putting in time, performance, work ethic, showing respect, and by having each other's backs on the job.
Introduction
Correctional officers (COs) perform their occupational responsibilities within a climate of continual carceral care, balancing relationships with colleagues and people who are incarcerated (PWAI), with other organizational and occupational duties (Ricciardelli & McKendy, 2020; Ricciardelli & Perry, 2016).Their work cultures are shaped by formal and informal processes (Ricciardelli & McKendy, 2020), each informed by shared meanings (Klofas & Toch, 1982; Lombardo, 1985; Rudes & Magnuson, 2019). Occupational culture, as defined by Farkas and Manning (1997), refers to “the values, beliefs, material objects and taken-for-granted knowledge associated with a full-time occupational role” that “serves to mediate, buffer, and otherwise pattern the conflicts” members of an occupational group face (p. 57). Culture, however, varies by institution, “pod,” and unit, and is constructed at diverse levels of occupational responsibility and duties (front line, supervisors, management, CO, health provision, etc.) with different social norms presenting within each group (Farkas & Manning, 1997). Even within CO subgroups, attitudes, informed by and resultant from culture, vary with the diversity in social norms (Duffee, 1974). Also influencing occupational culture are internal (e.g., PWAI, policies) and external (e.g., policies, government) factors (Farkas & Manning, 1997)—each making the CO workspace increasingly diverse. However, how COs navigate correctional culture and how culture shapes the CO workplace is understudied, representing a lacuna in knowledge. In response, we draw on analyses of transcripts from semi-structured interviews with COs (n = 72) employed in federal Canadian penitentiaries to discern the factors influencing CO culture and, ultimately, how these factors relate to peer acceptance (i.e., creating an in- and out-group). We analyze how CO behaviors and values shape their culture and illustrate the foundational role of “proving oneself” for in-group acceptance, which is critical for occupational safety.
In-Groups and Out-Groups
Work groups are vital to organizations; having a central role in employee satisfaction (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Social groups change systems (Packer, 2014) and evolve systems as group membership changes over time (Cini, 2001; Moreland, 1985; Moreland & Levine, 2002), where introducing new workers (new group members) facilitate the evolution (Cini, 2001). In any field, work team changes can negatively or positively affect work operations, influencing relationships between experienced colleagues and how experienced employees see each other (McCarter & Sheremeta, 2013). Thus, new employees can create stress for established workers, with new and experienced workers influencing each other (Cini, 2001; McCarter & Sheremeta, 2013). The labelling of groups shapes how people perceive, and even stereotype, groups (Yzerbyt et al., 1997), which can lead to in-group/out-group classification.
In social groups, membership is based on numerous factors, including personal attributes, behaviors, political affiliation, religious views, and recreational group membership (Brewer & Pierce, 2005; Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992), with group members valuing these different factors when deciding who is included (Brewer & Pierce, 2005). Factors affecting in-group acceptance include trust (which can increase the workload for in-group members when lacking; Moreland & Levine, 2002), time (to establish trust, camaraderie, etc.; McCarter & Sheremeta, 2013), and respect (self-worth being linked to receiving group respect; Branscombe et al., 2002).
Moreland and Levine (2002) argue that new workers are neither in-group, nor out-group members; they are in a space of quasi-membership until in-group members can assess them and they transition towards inclusion. As a group member, the level of adherence to in-group norms varies by individual, with some members typifying group values more than others (Noel et al., 1995). The decision of acceptance is a group choice and requires input from numerous group members (Castano, Paladino, et al., 2002); however, researchers agree in-group acceptance is predicated on specific criteria which must be met for inclusion (Castelli et al., 2008; Kteily et al., 2014; Leyes & Yzerbyt, 1992). Leyes and Yzerbyt (1992) found in-group members tended to confirm positive information in favor of inclusion, versus exclude others based on negative information. Castelli et al. (2008) hypothesized historical group experiences shape in-group inclusion criteria. Thus, the perceived risk to the in-group by new members must be considered (Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992).
Researchers agree that there are clear benefits to group inclusion, such as accommodation of needs, positive attitudes towards group members, and hard work toward shared goals (Moreland & Levine, 2002). Acceptance from valued groups may bring overall positive feelings and increased self-worth (Ellemers et al., 2004). Ellemers et al. (2004) found group members who were “highly respected” presented lower levels of shame, regardless of outside criticism. In-group supports include insulation from burn-out and judgment (Ellemers et al., 2004) and positive influences onself-esteem (Branscombe et al., 2002), given members benefit from their position and social identity (Castano & Yzerbyt, 1998). As such, group membership can function as an “anxiety buffer mechanism” (Castano, 2004, p. 381), providing members with additional social support.
In addition, the value placed on the in-group characteristics may be high (Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992), where individuals are highly motivated toward group success (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). Perhaps in part for these reasons, group members may be subject to ridicule from the in-group to manage threat (Castano & Yzerbyt, 1998) and in-group members who exhibit less desirable behavior may be judged harshly and ostracized (Castano, Yzerbyt, Bourguignon, et al., 2002; Castelli et al., 2008; Kteily et al., 2014; Marques & Yzerbyt, 1988; Marques et al., 1988; Rullo et al., 2015). Thus, othering, punishment, or distancing may result with the intention of protecting the in-group's image (Castano, Yzerbyt, Bourguignon, et al., 2002; Kteily et al., 2014). Thus, group conflict can increase member trust and cooperation (Theelen & Böhm, 2021).
A number of studies have discussed in-group/out-group dynamics in terms of risk. The exclusion of others functions to protect in-group members (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, et al., 2002). In response to threat, in-group members express a “more a positive stereotype of the in-group” (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003, p. 503). Although threats can be perceived differently by different group members, inclusion can lead non-threatened group members to cooperate with, and assist, threatened group members (Theelen & Böhm, 2021). Researchers propose in-group status alleviates fears related to personal identity, versus actual mortality (Castano, Yzerbyt, Paladino, et al., 2002). Hence, being a part of the in-group may be fundamental to CO culture, where persons excluded—located in the out-group—feel the ramifications of in-group exclusion.
Correctional Culture
Penal organizational management and interpersonal dynamics between COs influence the complexities of prison workspaces (Higgins et al., 2022; Wooldredge, 2020). Scholars find CO culture is typified as counter to PWAI in response to othering processes (Higgins et al., 2022; Kauffman, 1988; Spencer & Ricciardelli, 2017; Tracy, 2004; Tracy & Scott, 2006), which reinforces the group cohesion of COs. Scholars suggest a CO group identity exists, often interpreted against that of PWAI, and laced with shared group goals and understandings (Lombardo, 1985)—including the need to keep each other safe (Crawley & Crawley, 2007).
More recently, researchers evince how penal environments may encompass numerous continually shifting cultures, each influenced by policies, practices, and other factors across time, recognizing culture may be inappropriately blamed for workplace inadequacies (Rudes & Magnuson, 2019). As such, dynamics inherent to prison work influence CO culture. For example, correctional work culture has been described as emphasizing toughness and independence (Wills et al., 2021). Perhaps simultaneously, Crawley (2004) argues “emotion work” also intrudes into prison work (p. 414), meaning new officers are required to learn how to use emotions, both deep and surface acting, to fulfill their occupational responsibilities but, per Ricciardelli (2017), must also express masculine qualities (e.g., strength, power). Likewise, Farkas and Manning (1997) describe correctional work as “people work” (p. 53), where COs must exert control but, simultaneously, draw on high-level people skills when performing their occupational duties. They manage individuals and exercise authority in spaces where intimacy is “enforced” by a level of encroachment into PWAI's personal lives that is unwanted but necessary (Farkas & Manning, 1997, p. 53).
Nevertheless, correctional work includes monotonous daily tasks and routines, laced with unpredictability and daily tensions, but demands discretion (Farkas & Manning, 1997; Ricciardelli & Perry, 2016). As per Crawley (2004), high emotional awareness is necessary for working with PWAI and to respond to the variability of correctional work. For instance, COs, unlike police, operate without the immediate availability of force, instead, de-escalation and negotiation are stressed rather than physical intimidation (Farkas & Manning, 1997).
Viewed as potentially and inherently dangerous, COs face the possibility of harm regularly in their work environment (Ellison & Jaegers, 2022; Ricciardelli & Gazso, 2013). COs, then, must prioritize group and individual safety while also being responsible for the safety of PWAI, the institution, and the public (Ricciardelli & Gazso, 2013). Thus, COs may exhibit performative power, by acting confident, strong, and developing physical strength, to create workplace safety (Ricciardelli & Gazso, 2013). They enact both soft and hard power (Crewe, 2009), even if threats of violence are relatively rare (Burdett et al., 2018) to ensure safety. For example, a recent study involving 18 focus groups with program and security staff employed in 12 adult correctional facilities in one southern US state, Higgins et al. (2022) found correctional staff structure group identity by othering PWAI through embellished storytelling, stressing their own vitality for public safety, and emphasizing their mental load burden.
By conveying the history of PWAI with context or background learned second-hand, staff stress omnipresent danger, the evil nature of the other, and the hurdles to personal safety (Higgins et al., 2022). They construct in-group identity through “identity scars,” referring to how prison work changes them with occupational tenure, slowly eroding their being; creating distress rooted in their experiences and hardening them to their work as their career progresses (Higgins et al., 2022). The emphasis on safety creates a workplace CO culture, where, as per Wills et al. (2021), correctional staff perpetuate the interpretation of traditionally feminine (e.g., caring) qualities as leading to an unsafe work environment if compared to traditionally masculine (e.g., stoicism) qualities. Officers felt the exhibition of emotion or acknowledgement of their compromised mental wellness was interpreted as potentially negatively affecting their ability to do their jobs (Wills et al., 2021). Thus, staff are stressed, feeling pressure to conform to the hypermasculine work culture, which is particularly acute for those who feel vulnerable at work—they are made more vulnerable due to interpersonal relationships. For instance, Crawley (2004, 2007) found bullying exists among correctional staff, and COs feel pressure to adhere to social norms to avoid being treated with reprisal, ridicule, and a negative or outsider work identity.
Thus, CO culture is variable, laced with norms traditionally understood as masculine (e.g., power) while requiring emotional labor. However, the nuance of the culture remains understudied and as such merits further exploration, particularly given COs mental health is known to be largely compromised, with the prevalence of mental health disorders being far higher in CO's than within the general population (Pearson et al., 2013; Statistics Canada, 2012; see also Carleton et al., 2018, 2020). Prior studies have consistently placed the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder as high as one in three COs (Carleton et al., 2018; Denhof & Spinaris, 2013; Ellison & Jaegers, 2022), with over half of COs screening positive for any mental health disorder (Carleton et al., 2018). Thus, in the current study, we explore the relationship between CO culture and stress, unpacking intertwining variables that influence CO culture and shape their work environment.
Method
The current study data are derived from the qualitative component of a longitudinal mixed method investigation that includes three subprojects—qualitative interviews, psychological assessments, and self-report surveys. The objective of the broader study, entitled “Canadian Correctional Workers’ Well-being, Organizations, Roles and Knowledge” (aka CCWORK; Ricciardelli et al., 2021) is to understand the context around the changing mental health of COs with occupational tenure. Participants include COs under the employ of Correctional Services Canada (CSC), where they are recruited at occupational entry, with follow-up data collection annually.
All participants completed high school, with 36 completing a college program, 5 reporting completing some college, and 20 completing a university degree. In total, 57 participants identified as white, with 9 identifying as indigenous. Most (n = 33) were single and never married, 21 were married, 10 were in a common-law relationship, 6 were either separated or divorced, and 2 were in committed relationships (boyfriend–girlfriend). The majority of participants identified as male (n = 40) and 19 reported having children.
Recruitment is aided by CSC, who advertise the study, support recruitment, and ensure interested participants are able to complete their follow-up interviews during work hours on site on shift. Thus, CSC ensures COs are able to be paid for their time while interviewing in a private space with a phone that supports participant confidentiality. All study participation is voluntary, and ethics received approval from the Heath Research Ethics Board of the Memorial University of Newfoundland (File No. 20190481).
The 72 interview transcripts in the current study were conducted between October 2019 and March 2021, with a pause in data collection from March 2020 to January 2021 due to COVID-19 public health measures, with COs who had completed at least one year of their occupational tenure (i.e., wave one follow-up) (Ricciardelli et al., 2021). We audio-recorded interviews, which lasted between 45 and 90 minutes, transcribed each interview verbatim, and coded each interview first according to a codebook, and second with more detailed coding of subthemes within the broader themes of occupational culture (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). We anonymized respondent data, assigning a unique identification number to each for consistency across analysis rather than using pseudonyms. This was intentional, given the size of the sample and the gender and/or ethic/racial/etc. attributions that can be tied to pseudonyms.
We analyze here COs responses to questions about officer culture, obtaining the emergent themes of social dynamics, acceptance on the job, and their experiences transitioning into the workplace—all falling under the code of “having to prove oneself.” Drawing on Corbin and Strauss (1990), we applied axial coding, however, following Charmaz (2014), we identified patterns from the data without predetermined categories, assessing similarities in participant experiences, and compiling them into emergent themes.
Results
In discussing culture, COs spoke of an underlying need to “prove themselves” that was rooted in the desire for ensuring colleagues could protect each other in times of distress within their workplace.
Participants (n = 49) voiced this need, with ten indicating how proving themselves is an ongoing process. P77 states “I think all new people feel they have to prove themselves… They only accept certain types of people,” while evidencing how proving oneself is constant and multifaceted, P100 explains “You have to prove yourself day in and day out for months and months and months that you are worth to be an officer working here.” This is reiterated by P114 who explains how proving oneself is independent of “who you are and it also depends on your working ethic and background.” Thus, the imperative to prove oneself is tied to both social and occupational norms. We collapse proving oneself into the elements of trust, performance, time, having each other's backs, work ethic, and respect to demonstrate how proving oneself is foundational to CO culture and sheds light on the interpretation of the prison work environment, shaping the cornerstone of comradery and acceptance within CO culture.
Trust
A central theme to proving oneself was the concept of trust (n = 13).To exemplify, P18 states: It's like trying to get into a group of friends that you have to earn your way in. If you’re the new person, you’ll have people don’t say hi to you, things like that, but nobody really cares about you until they start work with you. There's a lot of give and take and a lot of trust that comes with this job. I find it very hard to work with people that I don’t trust and that I don’t know. And until I know them and I can have that trust, then that's always challenging. I think once you kind of get that through that barrier of trust and that knowledge base and I think once you can—and that comes with people knowing their job and knowing their what they should and shouldn’t be doing on the job.
Thus, the establishment of trust creates a challenge for both sides of the working relationship—and knowing the ins and outs of the occupation form the foundation of trust. Thus, a new employee is subjected to doubt until trust is established. Seniority has relevance to trust, where senior officers are viewed as suspicious of new officers until they are more familiar with them. Here, P55 describes trust as a barrier to overcome, and this elucidates roadblocks opposed to teambuilding. Similarly, P100 describes their experience as a new officer, stating: Now I find the inmates easier to deal with than I do the officers on a daily basis to be quite honest. But for the first year I had I think about six times I had someone flip me the one-eight-hundred number for the harassment line to report on officers because they were like-‘there's no way you should be treated that way.’…. In most jobs there is a timeframe of proving yourself. When you come out on top you tend to do well at your job.
Thus, the previous experience an officer brings with them into the job may impact their ability to cope during the initial period of proving themselves in the workplace. These comments by P100 also illuminate the level of scrutiny and social environment that new officers experience during the process of proving themselves.
Performance
The highest ranking indicator for proving oneself and establishing trust was performance in situations at work, evidenced in the aforementioned notion of learning the job put forth by respondents. Participants (n = 24) reported how they, or others, handled situations was used as an indicator of acceptance and a means of proving oneself to the workgroup. P994 explains the process “once you get to know the guys a little, get an incident or two under your belt and they see how you react and they see how you can handle yourself, they kinda open up a little more I would say.” Officers felt performing well in situations led to proving themselves and acceptance into the group—the new employee reveals if they are liability or a support at work. For instance, P134 reports goal-setting to perform favorably in situations to show they had their coworkers’ backs: You have to show that you can respond in situations, so that was my goal–my goal was to respond to however may situations that I could to prove that I could handle a situation by myself, I can handle a situation, so they knew that if it was just us on the unit and something was to happen that I had their back, you know what I mean. I think it's fair in sense, because you don’t really know what somebody is as an officer until they have to deal with an incident that's quite serious and see how they handle it and react and that's the only way to tell if someone's really reliable.
P31 describes performance evaluation of others as the only definitive determination of reliability in coworkers, despite the possibility of other indicators during work hours. Further, P149 explains: I think it's like kind of a natural thing that sort of sit back and wait and see how new people react I think in corrections it's kind of magnified because it is a high stress environment and you do want to know that you can rely on your partners and your kind of what to feel them out before you invite them into your inner circle or life.
Again, safety versus risk underpins performance. Here, how one comports themselves creates the infrastructure among colleagues that ensures safety. P152 describes their own prowess and how they handle their positioning at work: The biggest thing is I’m not gonna tuck tail and run when things get shitty. If you’ll stand your ground, when [you] apply force and that you’re not just gonna completely bow to everything the inmates say or ask. That you can stand up to them and both sort of psychologically and physically, cause I mean if they can bully you they will and if gonna turn around and run, well now you’re a liability and now I can’t count on you.
Thus, emphasis is placed on performance in situations based on what could happen and the liability presented by inaction, suggesting the imperative to prove oneself is driven by potential crisis rather than the practical day-to-day of the workplace.
The need to perform and the anticipation of situational performance impacts officer work experience.P8, for instance, said “I remember one of my partners told me a few people didn’t like me very much until I got into my use of force incident and then a lot of people started being nice towards me.” Echoing others, participants, like P8, explained how the social environment can be discouraging for new COs prior to their opportunity to demonstrate their capacity.
Time
Respondents explained how gaining acceptance required time in the profession. For P100, acceptance took “a good year” as time was necessary “to fit in with the officers that I work with.” This sentiment was echoed by P108, who said “I would say like close to the year and a half to two-year mark is where I was like starting to feel more accepted and included and whatnot.” Time doing the job and performing tasks has an impact on acceptance. P10 notes “their famous line there is put ‘some time in’, they’re always like if you say anything or do anything they’re like ‘go put some time in’, some of them will joke around.” P10's words reveal the valuing of seniority and the emphasis on experience. This is further clarified by P99: The people that have 30 years in, they don’t really have to prove it to me cause they’ve done stuff I might not have received and deal with but every day for however of the next years I’ll have to prove myself ‘cause you have to kind of earn your job every day. We have people that come in that do have military time and they think their shit don’t stink. They come in and try and tell you what to do and it's like ‘sit down. You’re going to have a long career, if that's the way you’re gonna act.’ When I started here, I put my head down shut up and listened. Didn’t care what my past experience was. If people asked, I told them. I didn’t bring it up, didn’t flaunter around and it's just how it is.
While keeping your head down is discussed further in the following section, the notion of focused work shows how not all experiences are equally valued, with time served at CSC is optimal.
Respect
Respect was foundational to proving oneself, particularly necessary when directed toward tenured officers (n = 9), who new recruits were to be willing to learn from (n = 7). Respect involved “paying attention” (P115) to how tenured officers engaged in their occupational responsibilities, particularly as per P115 notes “if someone's trying to teach you something or show you something that they think you need to learn.” New recruits were to be “receptive” and “appreciative,” qualities which helped to prove oneself. Part of showing respect involved, as explained by P12, “put[ing] your head down and do your time and take in everybody's advice and don’t put yourself out there too much because you’re new and you don’t know anything at this point.” The notion of “put your head down” as a demonstration of respect, accepting senior officer guidance and knowledge was mentioned by eight participants. P109 elaborates: It depends on your people skills and if you know how to do the type of jobs. At the end of the day, I had people tell me the same thing five times from like ten different people–every time someone told me the same thing I’d listen, I’d say ‘oh yeah, thank you for the advice.’
Work Ethic
Proving oneself also required a demonstration of work ethic (n = 13) and taking initiative (n = 8). P35, echoing others, explains acceptance is gained through hard work: “if you work hard, if you have a good work ethic and you’re good at the job itself” then one will prove oneself. Lacking work ethic also influences the work environment of others, creating tensions and increasing their workload. As such, per P35, “if someone's not really fitting in, it's probably because they’re not doing as much work as they should be or we have some officers who can be quite annoying and they kind of get shunned.” P35, among others, explains the value of taking initiative and working hard, as failing to do so draws unwanted attention—it affects the workload of colleagues.
Having Each Other's Back
In total, 20 participants, like P105, explained the culture, despite if one is tenured or new, is to “have one another's back.” Here, we unpack how officers operationalize this seemingly fundament concept to correctional work, learning it constitutes either uniquely or a combination of “not ratting” (n = 4), ensuring each other’s safety (n = 8), and providing support (n = 7)—all elements that are foundation to proving oneself.
Regarding “not ratting,” the operationalization of having each other's back appears to remain consistent with the idea of protecting other staff, working things out without turning to management for intervention, and respecting confidentiality. P12 explains that having each other's back means they do not inform on other staff, explaining “coworkers don’t, just like inmates, don’t rat on each other… you have each other's back,” suggesting part of the culture is to be trustworthy and offer understanding. P16, drawing on a policing metaphor, says “the best way to put it is blue always has blue. We always have to protect each other's backs,” while P5 explains that “when I first started if you’re wearing blue you stuck together, no matter what right or wrong, you stuck by your partner after or whatever but you’d never go to management or something like that, you’d work it out amongst yourself.” The notion of “blue” (i.e., the thin blue line) prevailed here where officers spoke of the value of being tolerant and not informing on other staff who may have erred in their practices or judgment.
A consistent theme, laced throughout the narratives, was the operationalization of “having each other's backs” as ensuring each other's safety while working as a team. P134 explains that in prison work “you gotta show that them that you want to be there… that you’re invested in their safety as well not just your own but theirs as well.” This participant explains how prior to starting their work they “didn’t really understand how important teamwork factor is” as learning teamwork is fundamental to protecting each other if an escalating event arises. P16 also draws attention to the “strong” team “mentality,” which emerges as “you work with the same group of people all the time and you have each other's backs…. It's a good feeling… you’re part of a team.” The team component was fundamental here, as officers understood they would rely on each other if a situation was to arise, and thus they needed to protect each other—including physically. P63 explains that “having each other's backs” “mean's if you’re going into a situation, [if] something bad happens so say your officer cause it's always two officers together you’re never going anywhere by yourself for the most part. If an inmate started whaling on me or something, my other officer would step in and help me.” P52 echoes here, explaining “we do what we can to make sure they’re alive and taken care of and then after that we make sure each other's safe and we check in with each other and then we go home at the end of the day.” They reveal how ensuring prisoner safety is fundamental to the job, just as ensuring colleagues are safe.
The final operationalization of “having each other's back” was providing support and checking in on their colleagues. P84, who had returned for two days’ leave after being part of a staff assault, explains “it's really just relying on your partners working together. And just being ready for anything that's unexpected.” Likewise, P26 describes a supportive, emotional element to the concept, explaining that after an incident—their first experience of an in-custody death—their colleagues checked in on their wellness. With colleagues, “we had our own little like debrief, like talk about it, like the 3 of us,” and also recall having “co-workers call me on post saying ‘I know this is your first in-custody death, how are you feeling?’” P80 explains “we kinda look after each other. And there's a lot of officers that go above and beyond to try and, and make the work there better.” Here, P114 describes their institution as “a pretty close-knit group” where “we all have each other's back and it's a good work environment.” This is consistent with P986 who, speaking to the emotional support, explains “they kind of have like a brotherhood sisterhood so we all look after each other so…” This group comradery underpins the positive elements of having each other's backs within the CO work group. Providing and receiving support, as mentioned by the participants, creates a good work environment for staff, creating not only physical safety but emotional and mental safety in the workplace.
Discussion
In the current study, we sought to elucidate how CO culture is shaped by specific values, behaviors, and expectations, each related to the CO workspace, and to explore what factors, if any, influence CO culture and determine in-group acceptance. In-group acceptance is determined by several key elements, reflected by themes of developing trust, putting in time, officer performance, work ethic, showing respect, and by having each other's backs on the job. These qualities together, and individually, underpinned new COs experiences of “proving themselves” to their colleagues, and only once one had proved themselves could they feel a part of the in-group. In-group acceptance was invaluable to COs; it determined their safety at work and shaped their feelings of security at work. Being othered or allocated to the out-group increased organizational stress, made one the possible target of gossip (Siqueira Cassiano & Ricciardelli, 2023), and had vast influences on experiences of alienation within CO culture. Thus, there was value in feeling a part of a group that is intended to maintain safety, while being othered increased vulnerabilities and negatively shaped the work experience.
The need to prove oneself was central to CO experiences, and participants reported this as an ongoing, developing process that can be challenging for new officers—as flight, fight, or freeze reactions are inherent rather than always controllable. Thus, failing to fight may result in movement to the out-group and suggest to colleagues one is a risk or liability. Tied to social and occupational norms, the need to prove oneself is embedded in what scholars have described as gendered traits: toughness, risk management, and the perception of CO safety within the carceral space (Britton, 2000). Participants stressed the role of performance, and the continual need to show their worth in workplace situations—being a team asset rather than liability. The role of safety and risk is deeply rooted in performance, with work ethic and willingness being highly valued competencies. The challenges, however, for new officers occurs when they are without the opportunity to “perform” for some time (e.g., use of force incidents may not occur readily), prolonging their inability to demonstrate their competencies to their peers. In addition, if an officer fails to perform during a workplace situation—if they freeze or flee, the repercussions may be insurmountable and equate to a loss of peer support and trust.
Obtaining occupational tenure of at least one or two years at CSC informed officer acceptance within the in-group, with COs reporting past-experience outside of CSC being less valued. New recruits needed, for some, a few years of experience to earn acceptance and establish trust. Relatedly, COs valued seniority, as tenured officers did not face the same level of scrutiny and had already proven themselves. Thus, there is interconnection between the time required to establish trust and internalize the social norm of managing risk, which collectively operationalizes CO safety-risk-culture. Within this culture, adherence to social norms and attitudes towards CO safety require performance over time, as they serve to create some semblance of organizational wellness, even in circumstances where little feels possible.
Additionally, showing respect and taking advice from senior officers was a foundational element of greater in-group acceptance. The value placed on seniority and experience within the CSC penitentiary as a workplace was stressed, which may present a challenge for older COs with non-CSC experience, as their perception of the value of their prior experience may differ from the value perceived by their tenured peers. Accepting advice and the willingness to hear repeated guidance are seen as showing respect, which may create difficulties for junior COs establishing themselves in the workplace. Hearing the same messaging repeatedly from peers—the repetitive guidance—after some time in the job may be frustrating. Unexplored, however, is the impact on the gender environment within the prison workspace, as officers may perceive a differing experiential value depending on their new CO's gender and the gender of the tenured advice provider. Further exploration of the perception of advice within the CO workspace could elucidate attitudes within the occupational group, and whether gender impacts the acceptance of advice and further, acceptance into the CO social group.
There is also a need to explore if new COs may benefit from more directed on-the-job coaching, with one specific coach officer compared to group instruction which may be repetitive. Additionally, junior officers may benefit from a more structured onboarding process with specific competency development and feedback opportunities, to illuminate their skills and establish objectives towards the performance of specific tasks. Reducing, even eliminating, the ambiguity of what is required could increase group acceptance while pacing expectations for newer officers.
Having each others’ backs was stressed by participants, regardless of experience in correctional services. The peer support encourages the group comradery felt by COs through strengthened group bonds and an increased perception of safety. Our participants stressed safety and the requirement to protect the group, which is consistent with the need for workplace performance and the establishment of trust, as well as previous research on the focus on workplace danger. Previous studies argue in-group values can be established through historical group experience, and the nature of risk can be conveyed by COs through storytelling. Structural changes that improve the perception of safety, as well as regular opportunities for group training may increase CO feelings of group comradery. Simultaneously, increased training and availability of post-incident debriefing could assist in creating a more cohesive group experience and strengthen both training and wellness within the workplace.
Strengths and Limitations
Our study provides valuable insight into the variables affecting CO culture and officer acceptance in the workplace. A research strength is the inclusion of multiple workplace locations across Canada, thus increasing the generalizability of our findings. Moreover, our work has implications for CO workplace management and onboarding, while highlighting the need for workplace safety and risk management within the CO occupational group.
This study, however, is not without limitations. The longitudinal project on which this study is based presents several limiting factors. First, the study sample includes exclusively federal CO employees, and may not be generalizable to the provincial and territorial CO population due to differences in location, resources, compensation, and work conditions. While we explored the elements to peer acceptance within the CO occupational group, we did not explore the variable of gender or race/Indigenous identity, which cannot be ignored in further research. Additionally, this study focused on English speaking officers, and further investigation to include French voices, given Canada is bilingual, should be conducted.
Conclusion
The culture of COs requires proving oneself for a myriad of reasons; officers prioritize safety and risk management by emphasizing teamwork, work ethic, and performance. Building trust, showing their worth, contributing time, and showing respect are fundamental to CO culture and in-group acceptance of new COs. In general, COs reported a desire for acceptance and in-group benefits; however, the process of performance can lead to stress and difficulty for new officers. CO culture shapes the CO workplace environment, as officers must establish themselves within the work group to facilitate acceptance. Further exploration into the role of CO culture and its impact on mental and social health could provide insight into the CO experience, as well as explicate other ways of precipitating acceptance in the workplace.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
Special thanks for recruitment support provided by Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) and the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers (UCCO-SACC-CSN).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.