‘You have to be fluid’. Exploring the applicability of prison officer types to the Irish Prison Service

Abstract

This study explores Irish prison officers’ views on the applicability of existing prison officer typologies to the Irish Prison Service. A thematic analysis of data from semi-structured interviews with 24 Irish prison officers indicated that while participants felt some typologies could reflect how officers approached their work, prison officer types were conceptualised as representing different dimensions of doing prison work, which officers could draw on, as and when needed, depending on the situations they face and their objectives. In this way, the findings advance knowledge by stressing the fluidity of prison work and how prison officers may appear as different prison officer types, depending on a range of individual and external factors. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are also discussed.

Introduction

Prison officers ‘matter far more than they or others realise’ as their work is highly skilled, complex, and multi-dimensional (Liebling, 2011, 2024: 29). Former prisoners report benefitting from the expertise and professionalism that characterises the best prison officer work (Dennehy, 2023). Several prison officer typologies have been proposed in the literature to describe different ways that prison officers approach their work (e.g. Ben-David, 1992; Farkas, 2000; Kauffman, 1988; Klofas and Toch, 1982; Scott, 2012; Tait, 2011). However, gaps remain in our understanding of these typologies and there has been scarce exploration of their applicability across cultural contexts (Eriksson, 2024). It is therefore unclear whether existing prison officer typologies provide an internationally applicable and useful theoretical framework for understanding and supporting the best kind of prison officer work. This study addresses this gap by assessing the applicability of existing prison officer types to Irish prison officers and investigating their views on the individual and external factors shaping prison officer work. The study advances knowledge by stressing the fluidity of prison work and how prison officers may appear as different ‘types’ depending on a range of individual and external factors.

In the following sections, the literature on prison officer typologies and factors known to shape prison work are briefly reviewed, before describing the study's methodology. The findings are then presented, followed by a conclusion drawing out the implications of the findings.

Prison officer typologies

While existing prison officer typologies provide a useful description of different approaches to prison work, their utility and applicability may be limited because they tend to only focus on one or two aspects of prison work, and do not always consider how individual and external factors interact to shape behaviour or acknowledge the flexibility and adaptability of prison officers. While some typologies acknowledge the possibility that prison officers may change over time, few have examined how or why this change occurs. In the United States, Kauffman (1988) developed a typology focused on adaption to the prison environment and attitudes towards others in prison, proposing five prison officer types: ‘Pollyannas’, ‘White Hats’, ‘Hard Asses’, ‘Burnouts’, and ‘Functionaries’. ‘Pollyannas’ and ‘White Hats’ express positive attitudes towards prisoners, while ‘Hard Asses’ and ‘Burnouts’ express negative attitudes towards them. ‘White Hats’ and ‘Burnouts’ hold negative attitudes towards officers, while ‘Pollyannas’ and ‘Hard Asses’ have positive attitudes towards officers. ‘Functionaries’ are indifferent towards each group. Kauffman (1988) argued that all prison officers start off as one of three primary types (‘Pollyanna’, ‘White Hat’, ‘Hard Ass’) but may develop into one of two secondary types (‘Functionary’, ‘Burnout’), depending on their experience of the work environment. In this way, Kauffman (1988) recognised that prison officers’ approach to work could change and was influenced by external factors related to their work environment. Yet, Kauffman (1988) only recognised the ability to change from a primary to a secondary type, giving the impression that it is not possible for ‘Burnout’ or ‘Functionary’ officers to regain a positive attitude towards others. Consequently, Kauffman’s (1988) typology does not explain how/why officers may recover from burnout or consider the role workplace conditions may play in this.

Ben-David’s (1992) typology was developed in Israel and primarily focuses on staff–inmate relationships, while recognising that individual and external factors can influence how prison officers present. She conceptualised five types on a continuum: ‘Punitive’, ‘Custodial’, ‘Patronage’, ‘Therapist’, and ‘Integrative/Personal’. ‘Punitive’ officers avoid communicating with prisoners, demand obedience and view all prisoners as ‘bad’, while at the opposite end of the continuum ‘Integrative’/‘Personal’ officers perceive prisoners as almost equal in status, are flexible, and utilise a combination of the other types as and when needed (Ben-David, 1992). While individual and external factors (consisting of personal, professional, and job security) were found to influence prison officer type, leading to calls for more research into the factors shaping approaches to work and change over time (Ben-David, 1992; Ben-David et al., 1996), there is limited discussion of how the jurisdiction or prison regime may influence officers’ behaviour. Although Ben-David’s (1992) typology acknowledges fluidity in prison work via the ‘Integrative’ type, it may risk individualising officers’ behaviour by underestimating the influence of their working environment.

Focusing on interactions with prisoners to achieve order and control in England, Liebling et al. (2011) found four prison officer ‘working styles’: ‘Professionals’, ‘Reciprocators’ ‘Enforcers’, and ‘Avoiders’. ‘Avoiders’ engage in minimal interactions with prisoners, avoid confrontation and tend not to see interpersonal communication as part of their job (Liebling et al., 2011). ‘Enforcers’ actively seek out confrontation and enforce rules, ‘Reciprocators’ want to help others and prefer to use clincial or social work strategies, while ‘Professionals’ seek to maintain order and control through communication with prisoners (Liebling et al., 2011). Overlaps between these styles were observed, highlighting that officers need to be flexible (Liebling et al., 2011). Moreover, it was recognised that different styles were required within different areas of a prison (Liebling et al., 2011). Nonetheless, order maintanence and control is but one aspect of prison officer work, with officers increasing expected to provide care and rehabilitation. While an overlap between styles was observed, there was also little discussion of how flexibility may underpin this process or the factors influencing this flexibility.

Tait’s (2011) typology focuses specifically on the care and rehabilitation aspects of prison officer work in England, proposing five distinct approaches: ‘True Carers’, ‘Limited Carers’, ‘Old School’, ‘Conflicted’ and ‘Damaged’. ‘True Carers’ are confident, engaged and have positive relationships with prisoners, while ‘Limited Carers’ were pragmatic, took satisfaction from helping those who expressed gratitude, and avoided those who were more challenging and/or less grateful (Tait, 2011). ‘Old School’ officers provided care in return for compliance, while ‘Conflicted’ officers felt conflict between the care and security aspects of their work, and ‘Damaged’ officers had lost interest in caring for prisoners unless they were in dire need (Tait, 2011). Differences in approach were related to individual (e.g. gender, length of service) and external (e.g. managerial support, experience of trauma) factors (Tait, 2011). While recognising that individual and external factors could shape approaches to prison work, this typology only focused on one aspect of prison work, care and rehabilitation, with little discussion of the potential to change and transition between the different approaches. Further, interpersonal interaction between prisoners and officers is not a universal feature of prison regimes, limiting the applicability and utility of Tait’s (2011) typology. Indeed, Eriksson (2024) argues that differences in the emphasis placed on care and security may explain why Tait’s (2011) ‘True Carer’ was more transferable to Norway than Australia.

Scott (2012) sought to synthesise existing typologies and provide a more holistic typology of prison officer work by taking into account orientation to work, prisoner interactions, and key priorities. Based on this synthesis and a qualitative study of English prison officers, Scott (2012) proposed four ideal prison officer working personality types: ‘Careerist’, ‘Humanitarian’, ‘Disciplinarian’, and ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’. ‘Careerist’ possess a positive orientation to work, prisoner relationships are characterised by a commitment to rehabilitation and priorites reflect managment concerns (Scott, 2012). ‘Humanitarians’ have a positive orientation to work but are sceptical of management, have positive relationships with prisoners and display empathy, with care being their priority (Scott, 2012). ‘Disciplinarians’ express officer solidarity but are disappointed with/hostile towards management, have distant relationships with prisoners and their priorities are discipline, control, and safety (Scott, 2012). ‘Alienated Mortgage Payers’ are negative towards peers and management, aim for minimum interactions, are indifferent to prisoner relationships and prioritise being paid (Scott, 2012). Although some cross-over between these types is expected, how officers may change type over time is not discussed (Scott, 2012). Arnold (2016) asserts that prison officer types can change in different directions, with the officer one becomes being shaped by individual characteristics and professional socialisation.

Factors influencing prison work

Several factors can influence how prison officers approach their work. Occupational cultures set the norms for acceptable prison work (Crawley, 2004), providing officers with a multifaceted ‘toolkit’ (Garrihy, 2020) that shapes ‘the way we do things around here’ (Scott, 2012: 18). The repitition of occupational cultural norms and the regime informs prison officers’ professional identities which appear fluid in response to changing contextual factors (Maycock et al., 2023). If the dominant occupational culture values a humanitarian or discipinarian approach to work, officers are more likely to express these characteristics (Scott, 2012). As found in Ghana, officers’ perceptions of organisational justice can influence their approach to work (Akoensi, 2024), with positive perceptions among officers in the United States related to reduced job stress and burnout (Lambert et al., 2010, 2023), as well as lower support for punishment of prisoners (Lambert et al., 2011). This suggests that perceptions of organisational justice could promote the presence of some prison officer types over others. Moreover, longer serving officers in England tend to adopt a more understanding approach compared to newer staff, who may adopt a more security orientated approach (Liebling et al., 2011), while higher grade has been linked with lower adherence to traditional officer culture, impacting levels of care for prisoners (Arnold et al., 2012). Additionally, gendered norms can play a role, with female officers tending to be more empathetic and males enforcing discipline (Garrihy, 2020).

Personality and the capacity to be flexible/adaptable is also important, with Arnold (2016) claiming that many characteristics of a good officer are linked to personality (Arnold, 2016). Individual differences in personality influenced the strategies Polish prison officers employed to adapt their behaviour at work, with these strategies and personality differences associated with work engagement and wellbeing (Nowicka-Kostrzewska and Rożnowski, 2023). Moreover, proactive adaptability enabled American officers to best interpret and respond to situations and better handle future adversity (Gist et al., 2023). Notably, research and recruitment campaigns in several jurisdictions emphasise the need for officers to be adaptable (Ben-David et al., 1996; IPS, 2022) or flexible (Ben-David et al., 1996; Liebling et al., 2011) to do their best work, but yet there is scarce research on adaptability in prison officers (Dolgova et al., 2020).

Present study

This research addresses existing gaps in knowledge by examining the applicability of existing prison officer typologies to the Republic of Ireland and investigating the factors shaping how Irish prison officers approach their work. This study answers the following questions:

RQ1: Do prison officers in the Irish Prison Service (IPS) feel that existing prison officer typologies provide an applicable and useful framework for understanding their work?

RQ2: What factors do Irish prison officers feel shape their approach to work?

Answering these questions makes an original contribution to knowledge in four ways. Firstly, while it highlights the applicability of some typologies to the IPS, the fluidity of prison work is stressed, with participants explaining how officers may appear as different types at different times, depending on the individual and external factors shaping their approach to work. Secondly, several individual and external factors shaping their approach to prison work and the ‘type’ of officer they appear to be are identified. Thirdly, the findings indicate that officers who appear to be burnout/disengaged can regain a positive attitude towards their work and others by being supported. Fourthly, the findings aid our understanding of how adaptability can help prison officers do their best work.

Methodology

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 24 Irish prison officers to explore whether they thought existing prison officer typologies provided an applicable and useful framework for understanding their work, and the factors shaping their approach to work.

Sample

Participants were purposefully recruited from different prison officer grades in the IPS and different security categories, gender of establishment (male/female prison) and location (urban/rural) of prisons. The 24 participants consisted of 19 males and five females, whose experience ranged from 11 to 30 years. Participants were drawn from low, medium and high security establishments and across the Assistant Chief Officer, Chief Officer, Assistant Governor and Governor grades. Further information is not provided to protect their confidentiality and anonymity.

Procedure

Ethical approval for the research was obtained from Queen's University Belfast and the IPS. Information about the study and participant information sheet was emailed to all staff by the IPS and interested participants contacted the researchers. The researchers addressed any queries participants had and, if willing to be interviewed, a suitable time to conduct the interview was agreed and a signed consent form obtained. Interviews were conducted in-person in a private room within prison, were guided by an interview schedule and lasted on average an hour. During the interviews, participants received a visual table and summaries of the typologies as outlined by their authors, including the potential for movement or overlap in the typologies. Participants were asked for their views on the applicability of the typologies, as well as any factors they felt could influence their approach to work. With participants’ consent, interviews were recorded and transcripted for analysis.

Data analysis

The transcribed interviews were entered into NVivo and thematic analysis used to analyse the data following Braun and Clarke's (2012) guidelines and a critical review of the literature. Themes were identified deductively and inductively, with some themes identified from the literature review and other themes emerging from the data. Preliminary open coding was done line by line to capture the meaning of the data. Then axial coding was applied to identify connections between the codes, which were developed into initial themes. Next, the initial themes were reviewed before being refined, defined, and named. An independent coder coded 20% of the interview data and a Cohen's Kappa of 88.8% was attained, suggesting a high level of inter-rater agreement.

Findings

Applicability of prison officer types to the IPS

Participants recognised several types within and across the typologies in themselves and others. However, they identified with Scott's (2012) ‘Careerist’, ‘Humanitarian’, ‘Disciplinarian’, and ‘Alienated Mortage Payer’ types the most, although a minority felt the ‘Disciplinarian’ type was not common in the IPS:

[…] if I picture certain individuals, I might see them as basically a ‘Careerist’ yes, I can. Can I see someone as a ‘Humanitarian’? Yes, I can. Can I see someone as an out and out ‘Disciplinarian’? I don’t see too many of them. (P12)

Participants did not think Ben-David's (1992) ‘Punitive’ type was applicable, claiming they are ‘Not encouraged in the service’ (P12), implying a punitive approach to prison work would be frowned upon. Participants also felt that Kauffman's (1988) ‘Hard Ass’ type would be disapproved of, as such an approach would be antagonistic, potentially escalating challenging situations: ‘The “Hard Ass” in some ways can make it worse, whereas someone else would go in and calm them and break it up’ (P17).

While some felt the ‘Damaged’ type was relevant, participants were generally sceptical about the applicability of Tait's (2011) carer typology. Although IPS (2021) policy expects staff to treat people with dignity and care to support rehabilitation and desistance, participants felt that being identified as a carer conflicted with the disciplinary and security elements of their work:

I think they are looking for us to be carers, but you can’t be a true carer in this type of environment […] It's nearly like they want to kick the discipline to one side and be all softly, softly, and hold hands and hugs and stuff and that doesn’t work. (P19)

While participants agreed that Scott's (2012) ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ and Kauffman's (1988) ‘Functionary’ and ‘Burnout’ types were evident in the IPS, they argued that those staff still adequately performed their work. For instance: ‘There's plenty of people that will just come in to pay their mortgage. But they do their job and that's probably behind us all at the end of the day. We are not here for the love of it’ (P7).

Overall, Scott's (2012) typology appealed to participants the most, perhaps because it was the most recent, or the labels used were more relatable. As explained by one participant:

I would say that is a fair reflection and obviously this one is the most up to date [Scott's (2012) typology] and that's the one I’m sort of leaning towards. Maybe it's just the terms used but yeah, I could see that sort of split. (P3)

Examples of the ‘Careerist’ were evident, as some officers were motivated to progress through the hierarchy of roles associated with prison work:

I see there's ‘Careerist’ here, that's the person that wants to get farthest. Well, you have to have somebody who is interested in getting all the way up the ladder. There always has to be somebody there in charge. (P1)

Yet, participants felt the ‘Careerist’ type was not necessarily a reflection of how engaged someone was in their work. One participant described themselves as ‘not being “Careerist” anymore’ while still being ‘very engaged’ in their work (P6). Conversely, some participants felt that ‘Careerist’ types did not exist in the IPS because promotions were allocated based on ‘who you know’ over merit (P19).

Importantly, participants argued strongly that most people are fluid and move between the different types rather than rigidly behaving as the same type all the time. They argued, ‘it [types] can’t be black and white though. There has to be a certain amount of grey for the prison officer typologies to work in prison’ (P5). Reflecting on Scott's (2012) typology, one participant claimed ‘I could probably go through all four of these [types] from one end of the week to the other’ (P2). In this way, participants seemed to conceptualise prison officer types as different dimensions of doing prison work, which they drew on as and when needed, depending on how they interpreted a task or external situations they faced. Participants stressed the importance of recognising that while typologies could capture how officers present in a moment in time, they move between these types depending on the situations they faced. For instance, participants highlighted how staffing levels could influence the type of officer staff appeared to be, suggesting that staff shortages are associated with a more disciplinarian approach because staff do not have the resources to present as ‘caring’ or ‘Humanitarian’ types on top of core tasks:

I think a lot of that comes down to the type of jail you’re in and the resources that you have at your disposal. […] [Prison name] would be very much ‘Disciplinarian’ because they have no staff so because they have no staff your time is very restricted and you’re not going to give your time to be giving your caring side or your ‘Humanitarian’ side to somebody because you have your job to do and that's that. (P17)

In this way, participants felt that fluidity in their approach to work was key to enabling a smooth-running prison, helping to ensure staff were engaged in their work and formed appropriate staff–prisoner relationships:

Every prison officer should be a bit of everything here [referring to Scott's (2012) typology] […] because you have to have the goals for your career when you’re trying to get up the ladder. ‘Humanitarian’ is a big part of our job because you have to treat humans as human beings as yourself. ‘Disciplinarian’ because we have rules to adhere and at the end of the day bills have to be paid. So, I think […] you need a bit of everything. (P22)

This indicates that participants felt that Scott's (2012) ‘Careerist’, ‘Humanitarian’, and ‘Disciplinarian’ types were all characteristics associated with best prison officer work. They believed ‘Careerist’ types were necessary to run the organisation and develop the strategic direction and policy of the organisation. ‘Humanitarian’ and ‘Disciplinarian’ types were also associated with best prison officer work as order and control must be maintained, while treating people with empathy, developing positive relationships and fulfilling duties of care. Indeed, Liebling (2024) emphasised that the best prison work happens when officers integrate security with fostering appropriate staff–prisoner relationships.

In contrast, participants suggested that Scott's (2012) ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’, Tait's (2011) ‘Damaged’, and Kauffman's (1988) ‘Burnout’ types were viewed as representing undesirable characteristics:

We don’t want them [‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’/‘Burnout’ types]. I think a good mixture of everything except the ‘Damaged’ one or the ‘[Alienated] Mortgage Payer’. I would say a mixture of them makes a good prison officer. (P24)

Notably, some participants seemed to lack compassion towards colleagues who suffered from burnout. For example, ‘the ones that are burnt out, that can’t be motivated, they’re the ones you really don’t want on your team. The rest you can work around’ (P17). This implied some viewed those presenting as ‘Damaged’, ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ or ‘Burnout’ types as being fixed and unchangeable, which contradicted how most agreed officer types were fluid and changeable. This thinking can lead to correspondence bias, implying that participants felt this presentation was due to individual factors and unalterable. However, others observed that ‘there are complete change arounds too’ (P6) from the ‘Burnout’ or ‘Damaged’ types back to the ‘Careerist’ type, which highlights the importance of supporting colleagues to recover their fluidity. For example:

I would have seen people that were ‘Damaged’ for want of a better word, people that maybe might have addictions early on in their career, that would have solved their addictions and ended up being the ‘Careerist’ and flown up the ladder later on in their career. (P6)

Factors shaping prison work

Several factors were identified as shaping their approaches to work, including: personality, adaptability/flexibility, occupational culture, organisational culture, gendered norms, prison regime, workload, resources and perceived unfairness in the organisation. Participants argued that personality plays an important role in influencing how officers approach their work, the behaviours displayed and why some may be a better fit for the prison environment than others:

I think a person's personality has an awful bearing on what way they do the job and what way the job affects them. (P3)

Being an extravert and agreeable was felt to help officers do their best work, while being aggressive was problematic:

People who are very charismatic, they are that personality that do very well in here but people who are aggressive don’t do very well here because they don’t work out. I suppose their personality is that they don’t want to [work out] they just come to a brick wall, that's it, they don’t try to work around a brick wall. (P23)

It was further felt that an ability to regulate behaviour and control reactions was required:

If your personality is that you’re Gung Ho that's not going to work here, so you have to try and rein that back a bit, whereas if your personality is that you’re so relaxed, that's not going to work here either. […] it's trying to find that kind of level in between the two, where you have the self-discipline for doing stuff but also knowing when to pull back. (P19)

The ability to be adaptable and flexible was noted by participants as being essential if officers were to ‘be on [their] game’ (P1). They stressed how prison work involves dealing with challenging and unexpected situations, due to the nature of imprisonment, prisoners’ needs and changing policy and resourcing contexts. For instance:

You have to be fluid […] because of the unexpectedness and everything of the job. You can’t be too rigid. You have to have that level of flexibility. (P19)

They detailed how officers use their adaptability/flexibility to modify the emphasis placed on the characteristics associated with different prison officer types to use the approach which best achieved their desired outcome. More specifically, they explained how the situation they are in, the people they interact with, what is happening around them and the way they feel treated could lead them to change their behaviour to display different features of the varying prison officer typologies, depending on which they felt would work best in that situation:

I think it depends on the person they’re dealing with, it depends on the situation, and it depends on, if it's a prison officer dealing with a prisoner, it depends on that prisoner's attitude towards the person, and it depends on what they’re looking for. (P10)

Adaptability/flexibility enabled participants to ‘switch modes’ (P2) between different approaches to work so they could be ‘multifunctional’ (P2) and ‘adaptive’ (P1). For example, participants explained it was especially important to be understanding towards prisoners who suffered from mental illness, where they felt ‘a bit more of a kid gloves approach’ (P2) was required to de-escalate confrontations, leading them to appear as a ‘Humanitarian’ type. Yet, they described also appearing as a ‘Disciplinarian’ type for humanitarian purposes. One participant stated sometimes ‘you have to be cruel to be kind […] because you can’t reward bad behaviour by giving in in my opinion […]’ (P8). In this way, participants argued that being adaptable and flexible enabled them to modify the emphasis in their approach to work, as and when needed, to fulfil multiple functions:

You can switch modes if you need to, and this goes back to being multifunctional. You can switch from being the amicable guy to […] Mr Bastard in the blink of an eye if you have to. (P2)

Several external factors were also described as shaping their approach to work. For instance, occupational culture, including the role of informal mentoring, could play a role:

Well, I think culture in the prisons you look up to the senior staff, not necessarily in rank but service because they are the ones with all of the experience and they’re the guys that teach the other guys basically. Like the training […] really happens in the jail on the floor. (P4)

Participants explained how occupational culture reduced the applicability of Tait's (2011) carer typology to the IPS as ‘…they [officers] wouldn’t like to be called carers’ (P23) due to a perception they would appear to be a ‘hug a thug’ (P18) officer. Nonetheless, the emphasis placed by IPS (2021) management on promoting dignity, care and rehabilitation was attributed with increasing the appearance of ‘Humanitarian’ types in the IPS: ‘the caring environment we have culture wise drives it [prison officer types] at the moment’ (P23).

Gender norms among prison officers were also believed to play a role with female participants reporting ‘it's kind of an unwritten code’ (P6) that male staff take over from female staff during incidents in which rules or discipline need to be enforced. Such behaviours can lead males to appear more disciplinary in their work than females. There were mixed views on whether the gender of the prison establishment shaped prison officers’ approaches to work, with some suggesting that female staff can ‘empathise more’ (P9) with female prisoners, while others disagreed with this view. Participants did not specifically refer to the role masculinity may play in shaping prison work.

Another factor noted as shaping approaches to work was the prison regime. Participants explained that differences in prison regime played a role in shaping approaches to work, irrespective of personal preferences. As one participant argued, ‘It's the regime here. You have to change to work in prison [names prison] because it won’t change for you’ (P7). Another participant explained how his personal preference was to present as a ‘Humanitarian’ type but that the prison regime required him to be more ‘Disciplinarian’ in his approach:

I would like to think I am ‘Humanitarian’ I’m a very bad ‘Disciplinarian’ but I can be a ‘Disciplinarian’ if I had to be, but it wouldn’t be something that I would be comfortable doing. […] you have to be more disciplinary [in a medium security prison], yeah absolutely. (P6)

Different regimes have different priorities, and different security categories, which could make it more or less easy to display characteristics associated with particular prison officer types.

A related theme was how staff shortages and resourcing could influence approaches to work. In prisons with staffing shortages, concern was expressed that officers may act more disciplinary ‘[…] because they have no staff’ (P17) which leaves little time to deal with anything other than the basic day to day running of the prison. Additionally, staff shortages and reduced resources could result in more officers appearing as ‘Burnout’, ‘Damaged’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ due to the emotional and physical toll of trying to complete the necessary tasks without the proper levels of staffing or resourcing: ‘“Burnout”, which are getting more and more common at the moment, and that is down to poor staffing and things like that’ (P19). Poor living conditions were also believed to contribute to officers adopting a more disciplinary or punitive approach to work, if they were dealing with hostility from prisoners due to frustrations associated with living in poor conditions: ‘I feel like the lower the living conditions in a prison, the more “Punitive” types you would have or “Disciplinarians”’ (P12).

Lastly, feeling treated unfairly by the organisation could influence approaches to work. There was a sense that officer pay was insufficient and that management were not always supportive of prison officers: ‘Management affects me, management gets to me, the way things are done, the way prisoners get away with things’ (P11). There was a sense that promotions were not awarded ‘on merit’ (P11) rather ‘it's who you know. It's still kind of jobs for the boys’ (P19). Participants felt that ‘a lot of officers who aren’t able for prisoners [are] getting promoted’, which suggested the organisation ‘does not value their prison work expertise’ (P11). These feelings made it more likely that prison officers may present as less ‘Careerist’ and more ‘Burnout’, ‘Damaged’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ types. Yet, while colleagues who were alienated/burnout may not care about the wider organisational ethos, management or IPS policies, it was argued ‘they will give a friendly ear to a prisoner or help them out’ (P3), suggesting they could still adopt a humanitarian approach to their work. As previously discussed, there was a tendency among some to believe those appearing as ‘Burnout’, ‘Damaged’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ types were unable to change, despite participants emphasising the fluidity underpinning prison work and the range of factors shaping how people approach their work. Given the role that external factors play in shaping the presence of ‘Burnout’, ‘Damaged’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ types, it is important to tackle these external factors to support officers to regain a positive attitude to work and people in prison, as the findings indicate that despite appearing as ‘Burnout’, ‘Damaged’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ types, staff can still display a ‘Humanitarian’ approach to work and even change to present as a ‘Careerist’.

Discussion

Answering the study's first research question, the findings indicate that although participants felt that existing typologies could reflect how officers approached their work, they conceptualised the types as representing different dimensions of doing prison work, which officers could draw on, as and when needed, depending on several individual and external factors. This study suggests that Irish prison officers felt a continuum of adaptation to, and engagement in, doing prison work provided a more applicable and useful framework for understanding their work, particularly how and why they change and adapt their approach across time and context. Notwithstanding, participants recognised all of Scott's (2012) types, suggesting it was the most applicable and holistic framework for understanding variation in prison work in the Republic of Ireland. They were hesitant to admit that Ben-David's (1992) ‘Punitive’ and Kauffman's (1998) ‘Hard Ass’ types were applicable to the IPS, while arguing that ‘Humanitarian’ types were more prevelant than ‘Disciplinarian’ types. Accordingly, this study advances our understanding of prison officer work by providing evidence that some prison officer typologies are applicable to the Republic of Ireland. Yet it highlights the fluidity of prison work, explaining how officers may appear as different types at different times, depending on a combination of individual and external factors which shape their approach to work.

Regarding the study's second research question, several individual and external factors were found to shape Irish prison officers' approach to their work, explaining how and why they may present as different types across time and context. These included personality, adaptability/flexibility, occupational culture, organisational culture, gendered norms, prison regime, workload, resources, and perceived unfairness in the organisation. This study confirms previous evidence that some personalities and those with higher individual adaptability may fit well in the prison environment (Nowicka-Kostrzewska and Rożnowski, 2023), possessing characteristics seen in good prison officers (Arnold, 2016). Occupational cultural norms shaped how participants approach their work (Crawley, 2004; Garrihy, 2020) and, with the regime, fostered the presence of some types (Scott, 2012) and professional identities over others (Maycock et al., 2023). For example, ‘Hard Ass’ and ‘Punitive’ types were frowned upon for being antagonistic, while an increase in ‘Humanitarian’ over ‘Disciplinarian’ and ‘Punitive’ types were attributed to the organisation's focus on a more caring and rehabilitative service. Moreover, this study suggests that gendered norms shape Irish prison officers’ work, with females appearing more ‘Humanitarian’ compared to males who tend to appear more ‘Disciplinarian’, consistent with previous research findings (Garrihy, 2020).

Further, a high workload and insufficient resources left some officers without the time and energy required to transition to a more ‘Humanitarian’ approach in staff–prisoner interactions. Previous research in Canada (McElligott, 2007) and the United States (Shannon and Page, 2014) also found that staff shortages and limited resources can restrict officers’ approach to work and shape staff–prisoner interactions. It may also imply that care may be seen as peripheral and/or incompatible with security and discipline, rather than essential for promoting good order and control (Liebling, 2024). Resistance to being labelled a ‘carer’ but comfort in identifying as a ‘Humanitarian’ type may further hint at tensions between providing care to those who are imprisoned as punishment. Indeed, research has highlighted how officers experience conflict between the custodial and care aspects of their work (Brough and Williams, 2007; Crawley, 2004; Liebling, 2024; Ricciardelli, 2019). However, asserting a social boundary with people in detention that officers are comfortable with may help them to be fluid in their work.

Finally, perceptions of organisational justice were related to how officers approached their work, with negative perceptions related to appearing burnout/disengaged (or expressing punitive attitudes), and being less likely to appear as a ‘Careerist’. These findings support previous studies that recognise these factors shaping prison officer work (Akoensi, 2024; Lambert et al., 2010, 2011; Scott, 2012). However, this study advances our understanding by identifying several individual and external factors that influence prison officers’ ability to appear as different types at different times, as officers adapt their approach depending on their situation.

In particular, the findings emphasise that prison officers’ approach to work cannot be categorised as one ‘type’. Participants felt strongly that officers need to be fluid in their approach to work, rather than rigidly behaving as one type all the time. The findings indicate that officers adapt their approach depending on the different situations faced and outcomes desired, helping us to understand how and why officers may appear as a ‘Careerist’ at one time and a ‘Humanitarian’, ‘Disciplinarian’ or ‘Alienated Mortgage Payer’ type at others. These findings align with previous studies demonstrating how occupational cultural norms shape prison officer work (Garrihy, 2020), how professional identities can appear fluid in a context that is in flux (Maycock et al., 2023) and prison officer typologies that expect some cross-over between different types and change over time (Kauffman, 1988; Liebling et al., 2011; Scott, 2012). This fluidity can encourage best prison officer work by promoting multidimensionality (Liebling, 2011) and the ability to manage diverse and conflicting aspects of prison work (Maycock et al., 2023), such as the integration of care and security (Liebling, 2024). The findings therefore suggest that prison officer typologies may be limiting, prescriptive and fail to portray the fluidity of best prison work, with the literature on occupational culture better capturing this multidimensionality and fluidity.

Moreover, this study reveals novel evidence that fluidity in prison work is underpinned by officers’ personality and adaptability/ flexibility, while other individual and external factors can shape it. This supports previous evidence that personality influenced Polish prison officers’ adaptive work strategies, which were related to work engagement and wellbeing (Nowicka-Kostrzewska and Rożnowski, 2023). The findings also align with previous research that proactive adaptability supports officers to best interpret and handle situations and adversity (Gist et al., 2023). This study further validates the requirement for prison officers to be adaptable (Ben-David et al., 1996; IPS, 2022) or flexible (Ben-David et al., 1996; Liebling et al., 2011), while contributing to scarce research on their adaptability (Dolgova et al., 2020).

Of particular note was that despite the emphasis placed on fluidity, some participants attributed the causes of burnout/disengagement to individual characteristics, claiming these officers cannot adapt and change their approach to work. Yet, in contrast to Kauffman's (1988) typology, this study suggests that such officers can regain a positive approach towards their work and others by being supported. It verifies Arnold's (2016) assertion that prison officer types can change in various directions, depending on individual factors and workplace integration. As such, the study advances our understanding of prison work by indicating that supporting officers who appear burnout/disengaged can help them regain a positive attitude towards their work and others. Accordingly, prison officer typologies may not be particularly useful in informing approaches to prison work but may instead be applied afterwards to explain different approaches rather than being used prospectively to develop the fluidity associated with best prison officer work. Moreover, the findings further our understanding of how adaptability/flexibility can help officers do their best work because it enables them to adapt and change approaches to work, depending on changing contextual factors and objectives. Thus, the study illuminates our understanding of how adaptability can help officers do their best work, stressing the need to foster circumstances that support them to maintain their fluidity, as well as their mental health and wellbeing.

Practical implications

At an organisational level, the findings highlight the need for more resources to support officers to adapt to the increasing complexity of their work, foster fluidity, and reduce burnout/disengagement. For example, more frontline staff, more prisoner accommodation, investing in staff rest areas, and targeted policies and interventions. Targeted policies and interventions could apply the findings to increase awareness of burnout and the available supports, while reducing the risk of officers being negatively labelled by emphasising the role external factors play in these processes. Doing so could, at an individual level, encourage staff who are burnt out/disengaged to seek support to regain their fluidity. More mental health and wellbeing resources should be made available to support staff adaptation to the prison working environment, as well as their mental health and wellbeing. Staff training and development could also use the findings to support prison officers’ adaptability, while the organisation explores ways to address perceived unfairness due to its consequences for prison officers’ fluidity and burnout/engagement. Additionally, future research could examine case studies of those who have recovered from burnout, examining the role working environments play in these processes. Making these investments could benefit the organisation by reducing the financial costs associated with burnout/disengagement.

Methodological considerations

This study has several methodological strengths and limitations. Officers who did not participate in the interviews may share important views that are missing from the data. Perhaps, those who were burnt out/disengaged were less likely to volunteer than those who were engaged in their work and vice versa. There may be a likability bias amongst participants’ responses. For example, interviewees associated mainly positive characteristics of prison officer types with themselves, and negative ones (‘Hard Ass’) with people who worked elsewhere, while being hesitant to admit that the most negative (‘Punitive’) appear in the IPS. As the qualitative research design only captures information from a point in time, it is not possible to make claims about causality or examine changes over time. Participants’ descriptions of their approach to work were not cross referenced with their work practises. While participants may argue that officers do not adhere to ‘punitive’ or ‘disciplinarian’ approaches, their colleagues and prisoners may disagree, as previous studies indicate that officers may, at times, over-estimate their own professionalism and the quality of staff-prisoner relationships (Liebling, 2024). A longitudinal study including participant observation would have been ideal but it was beyond the practical and economic constraints of this research. Moreover, the study's theoretical generalisability is limited by the focus on the IPS. While the convenience sample is another limitation, purposefully recruiting participants who possessed a wide range of prison work experience enhances the study's credibility and theoretical generalisability. Employing a qualitative research design obtained a rich insight into participants’ perspectives that a quantitative design could not. Using a semi-structured interview schedule ensured consistency and flexibility across the interviews, while employing Braun and Clarke’s (2012) guidelines for thematic analysis facilitated a rigorous and systematic analysis of the data. Future research could seek to examine a larger, more generalisabile sample, while using longitudinal research to examine fluidity in prison officers’ work across time and differing contexts.

Conclusion

Although this study reveals that some existing prison officer typologies are applicable to the Republic of Ireland, it highlights that prison officers are fluid across the types and do not rigidly behave as one type all the time. Prison officers adapt how they configure the emphasis they place on the characteristics associated with the different types in their work depending on what they feel would achieve the best outcome across time and context. This study suggests that fluidity in prison work is underpinned by personality and adaptability/flexibility, and it is shaped by a combination of other individual and external factors, explaining how and why prison officers may appear to be different types at different times. Importantly, the findings suggest that supporting prison officers who present as burnt out/disengaged may reduce the risk of them being labelled and can help them regain their fluidity, which enables them to do the best prison officer work by adapting and changing their approach to work across time and context. Practical implications are put forward for how the findings could be applied to support prison officers to achieve the best prison work, as well as maintain their mental health and wellbeing. Making these investments could also reduce the financial costs associated with burnout/disengagement, benefiting the entire organisation.