Abstract

This study employed organizational justice theory to examine the influence of employee perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on whether employees trust their supervisors and management. Analysis of survey results from 322 employees of a state prison located in the Southern United States indicate that procedural and interactional justice—but not distributive justice—predict employee trust in both supervisors and management. These findings present important policy implications which suggest that the employing organization would benefit from having mechanisms in place to ensure that decisions follow consistent rules and strategies. Considering the relevance of employee trust to the organization, transparency in the use of pre-determined standards to allocate resources and rewards fairly needs to become a priority in institutions of corrections.

Trust is an essential element of social interactions (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003). Trust can be defined as one’s expectations of others’ behavior (Gambetta, 2000). Within organizations, members must be able to trust one another to conduct their assigned tasks and fulfill the mission of the organization (Mayer et al., 1995). While many organizations tend to rely on solid legal frameworks to define relationships (e.g., contracts, job descriptions, ethics guidelines), establishing a trusting relationship that goes beyond the legal framework between the organization’s leadership and its employees is important (Lambert et al., 2012; Mayer et al., 1995). Organizational trust is the belief by an employee that an organization will keep its promises and treat the employee in a beneficial manner (Haynes et al., 2020; Mayer et al., 1995). Organizational trust must be earned. Wheatcroft et al. (2012) contended that trust in working groups “engenders cooperation, improves communication, and facilitates effective use of resources” (p. 390). Within correctional settings, organizational trust is especially relevant. In order to ensure a humane, safe, and secure facility, correctional employees perform difficult and complicated operations as they work to fulfill the facility’s dual missions of custody and rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 1993). Moreover, as with any other type of organization, correctional staff need to trust that they will be treated fairly by the organization and that benefits and rewards received are commensurate with their contribution to the organization (Cohen, 1987).

Organizational trust is an important factor for correctional staff and for the operation of prisons for several reasons. First, organizational trust is linked to important correctional outcomes, such as lower job stress, reduced job burnout, greater job involvement, higher job satisfaction, and increased organizational commitment (Haynes et al., 2020; Kane et al., 1983; Lambert et al., 2008, 2012, 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). These salient outcomes are positively related to other outcomes, such as work performance, support for rehabilitation, improved staff treatment of inmates, absenteeism, and turnover intent/turnover (Lambert et al., 2010; Lambert, Leone, et al., 2021; Liebling, & Arnold, 2012; Matz et al., 2013). Correctional staff turnover is a pressing issue at U.S. correctional facilities. Recent estimates for annual correctional turnover in the U.S. ranges from 20% to 30% (Lambert, Solinas-Saunders, et al., 2023). Turnover is expensive and disruptive to the operations of correctional facilities (Matz et al., 2013).

Organizational trust is influenced by the actions of the organization in terms of the behaviors and decisions made by supervisors and management, who are seen as representatives of the organization (Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Perceptions of organizational trust are likely affected by correctional staff perceptions of the organization’s adherence to fair and just practices, a concept known as organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Lambert, 2003). Organizational justice is the view that the leaders of an organization treat their staff in a fair manner, and different types of organizational justice exist (Colquitt, 2012). Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice are salient types of organizational justice. Distributive justice deals with the views that organizational outcomes are fair. Procedural justice deals with the views that the procedures used to reach outcomes are fair. Interactional justice deals with employee views of being treated in a respectful manner (Colquitt, 2001). While there has been general research on correctional staff organizational trust, there has been little, if any, published research on how perceptions of organizational justice are associated with perceptions of organizational trust among correctional staff.

The current study examined the association of perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice with the levels of supervisor and management trust among staff employed at a prison in the Southern United States. We focused on supervisor and management trust rather than an overall measure of organizational trust for two reasons. The first reason is that past research has tested the association of both of these two types of organizational trust (Haynes et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2008, 2012; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Second, measuring both forms of trust rather than combining them to form a composite measure of organizational trust allows for more information in terms of how the three measured types of justice influence supervisor and management trust. While both supervisors and management are representative of the organization, they present different levels of organizational trust and may not necessarily move in the same direction (Haynes et al., 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Understanding how employees view justice, in terms of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, could provide information which could prove to be useful for increasing supervisor and/or management trust.

Trust in Correctional Settings

An overall measure of measure of organizational trust was negatively related to fear of being hurt on the job among correctional staff (Lambert et al., 2012). Both supervisor and management trust were associated with lower correctional job stress (Haynes et al., 2020; Lambert et al., 2008) and job burnout (Lambert et al., 2012). Specifically, supervisor trust has been observed to result in higher job involvement, job satisfaction, and/or organizational commitment (Lambert et al., 2008, 2010, 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). On the other hand, other research has found that supervisor trust was not a significant predictor of correctional staff organizational commitment or job involvement (Lambert et al., 2010; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Management trust in some studies has been reported to raise job involvement, job satisfaction and/or organizational commitment (Kane et al., 1983; Lambert et al., 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). This research supports two major conclusions. First, supervisor and management trust are linked to many salient correctional staff outcomes, which confirms the need to explore how other workplace factors could contribute to these two types of organizational trust. Second, the effects of supervisor and management trust differ, and this is why it is important to measure both types of trust rather than an overall measure of organizational trust.

Only a single published study could be located that explored how other workplace variables might be related to supervisor and management trust among correctional staff. Using the job-demand-resources model, Keena et al. (2022) explored the influence of job demands of role ambiguity, fear of being victimized at work, and role overload and the job resources of job variety, quality training, and job autonomy were associated with both correctional staff supervisor and management trust. Job variety, quality of training, and job autonomy were associated with higher supervisor trust, while role overload was associated with lower. Job variety and quality training were both associated with higher management trust. The study by Keena et al. (2022) supports the postulation that workplace variables contribute to shaping correctional staff trust levels in supervisors and management. Research needs to determine the relationship of other workplace variables with correctional staff supervisor and management trust, including organizational justice, especially because organization justice views have been postulated to help shape the level of organizational trust of employees (Colquitt et al., 2001; Korsgaard et al., 1995).

Organizational Justice

Organizational justice deals with the views of how fairly employees feel they have been treated by the organization (Colquitt, 2001; Greenberg, 1990). There are several dimensions of organizational justice, with distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice being major ones. Distributive justice deals with the perception that employee outcomes in the organization are fair, such as evaluations, pay, promotions, discipline (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Under the equity theory (Adams, 1965), perceptions of distributive justice are based on equity rather than equality, because the perceptions of fair outcomes are influenced by the inputs and outcomes for a person as compared to other employees and their efforts and outcomes, while equality would hold that outcomes are the same for all workers (Greenberg, 1990; Lambert, 2003). Procedural justice deals with the perception that the procedures and processes utilized to reach distributive justice outcomes are fair (Colquitt 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Interactional justice is entirely concerned with the fairness of interactions between the organization’s leadership and its employees and deals with providing information about decisions and processes and treating employees with respect (Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt et al., 2001).

Justice in organizations matters for several reasons. Organizational justice can result in favorable views of the organization, so employees are more willing to invest in the organization, undertake efforts to benefit the organization, and to trust the organization (Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Even when the outcome is unfavorable, employees can accept such outcomes if they believe that the organization followed a fair decision-making process (Cropanzano et al., 2005). Further, fairness is a clear manifestation of organizational adherence to ethical principles that represent generalized moral values (Cropanzano et al., 2005). Employees who perceive they are treated fairly by the employing organization are less likely to exhibit counterproductive behaviors (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) and more likely to exhibit organizational citizenship (prosocial) behaviors (Cropanzano et al., 2005). Efforts made to increase organizational justice will likely result in staff viewing the organization in a more favorable light, thereby increasing the level of trust in the organization.

The Current Study

The current study focuses on the influence of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice on supervisor and management trust among staff at a U.S. Southern prison. Following Colquitt et al. (2001), we used the types of organizational justice as an antecedent of supervisor and management trust. We hypothesized that all three forms of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional) would have a positive association with supervisor trust and management trust. More specifically, we hypothesized that:

Staff who perceive the organization as fair in the allocation of resources (distributive justice) are more likely to exhibit higher levels of supervisor (Hypothesis 1) and management trust (Hypothesis 2).

Staff who perceive the organization as fair in adhering to pre-defined standards and processes (procedural justice) are more likely to exhibit higher levels of supervisor (Hypothesis 3) and management trust (Hypothesis 4).

Staff who perceive the organization as offering fair interpersonal exchanges (interactional justice) are more likely to exhibit higher levels of supervisor (Hypothesis 5) and management trust (Hypothesis 6).

The major premise for the above hypotheses is that the types of organizational justice actions shape the level of trust among correctional staff. As trust needs to be earned, a person is more likely to trust their supervisor and management because the organizational actions are seen as fair. In other words, if I perceive you to be fair, I am more likely to trust you.

Methods

Procedures

This study secured human subjects’ approval from an Institutional Review Board to survey staff at a large medium- and maximum-security prison in the Southern U.S. The prison housed approximately 4,600 male felony offenders and employed about 720 staff. This was an unusual prison because the majority (70%) of the staff, including custody officers, were women, which is a higher percentage than found at other U.S. prisons holding male offenders (Maruschak & Buehler, 2021). With leave (e.g., personal, sick, administrative), only 547 staff were available to receive the study packet. Except for top administrators (i.e., warden, deputy wardens), staff holding different positions, including custody officers, case managers, counselors, medical staff, food workers, industry personnel, and educational staff, received the study packet. The study packet was distributed at roll call (called “muster call” at the prison) over the course of a week. The study packet included a consent form, a cover letter, a survey instrument, a bifurcated raffle ticket, and a return envelope. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study, that participation was voluntary, that staff could stop taking the survey at any time, that responses would be anonymous, and how to return the survey instrument, raffle ticket, and consent form. Regardless of whether the survey instrument was completed, staff could be part of a raffle for ten $50 VISA gift cards by returning half of the bifurcated raffle ticket. Staff could complete the survey at a time and place of their own choosing, including at work. After placing the consent form, survey instrument, and raffle ticket half into a provided envelope, the envelope could be returned to one of four locked boxes on prison grounds; only a member of the research team could open the locked boxes. Raffle tickets and informed consent forms were immediately removed from the returned envelopes so there was no way to link an individual staff member to a survey instrument. A drawing for the gift cards was conducted after the data collection period ended.

Participants

Of the 547 distributed study packets, 322 completed survey instruments were returned, which was a response rate of 59%. In terms of gender, 74% were women. The mean age was 40.07 years, with a standard deviation of 12.74. In terms of position, 68% were custody officers and 32% worked in other positions (e.g., counselors/case managers, education/vocational specialists, medical personnel, industry/maintenance). The mean time in the current position was 5.11 years, with a standard deviation of 5.64. For educational level, 27% indicated that they had earned a high school diploma or GED, 28% indicated that they earned college credits but no degree, 19% indicated that they had earned an associate degree, 17% indicated that they had earned a bachelor’s degree, and 9% indicated that they had earned a graduate degree.

The participants appeared to be representative of the overall prison workforce based on information provided by the human resource office of the prison. As for the entire prison workforce, 70% were women, the average age was about 40, 70% held the position of custody officer, and average tenure was slightly under five years. The human resources office could not provide information about the educational level of the prison staff. No human resource personnel saw any of the completed survey instruments.

Measures

Dependent Variables

In the study, supervisor trust and management trust were included as the two dependent variables. Both supervisor trust and management trust were measured using two items from Lambert et al. (2012) and Tan and Tan (2000). Due to a need to reduce the number of questions in the survey, we selected only two items for each measure. To measure supervisor trust, participants in the survey were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the statements “My supervisor is an honest person” and “I have a trusting relationship with my supervisor.” Similarly, to measure management trust, participants were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the statements “When management says something, you can believe it is true” and “I have trust in management.” Participants in the study rated the four trust items using a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 “strongly agree.” Cronbach’s alpha for the supervisor trust measure was .91, while for the management trust measure was .89.

Independent Variables

Three main independent variables were included in the study to measure staff perceptions of organizational justice (i.e., distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice). To measure distributive justice, participants were asked four questions based on items from Price and Mueller (1986) about fairness within the organization: “How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when you consider the amount of effort that you have put forth?” “How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when you consider the responsibilities that you have at work?” “How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when you consider the stresses and strains of your job?” and “How fair has the prison been in rewarding you when you consider the work you have done well?[1] We measured procedural justice with the following two items: “How fair is the promotion process here?” and “How fair is the process of the evaluation of our job performance at this prison?” (Lambert et al., 2007).[2] Finally, to measure interactional justice, participants were asked two questions: “How fair is the prison in explaining decisions that have a significant effect on you?” and “How fair is the prison in treating you with respect and dignity?” Participants had the option to rate the organizational justice questions using a five-point Likert scale, with 1 being “very unfair” and 5 being “very fair.”[3]   Cronbach’s alpha for the three measures of organizational justice were .94 for distributive justice, .90 for procedural justice, and .82 for interactional justice. The results of the Cronbach’s alpha test suggest that the items selected for each measure were reliable in representing the three concepts of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Frost, 2022).

Six control variables were included in the study: gender, age, position, tenure, education, and supervisory status. Gender was coded “0” representing women participants and “1” representing men participants. Age was measured in continuous years. Position in the organization was coded “0” for non-custody officer and “1” for custody officer. Tenure in the position was measured in years. Educational level was coded with “0” being no-college degree completed and “1” for a college degree being earned. Supervisory status was coded “0” for not being a supervisor of other staff and “1” for being a supervisor of other staff.

Analysis Plan

Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were conducted using data from the responding staff. Descriptive analyses were performed to provide descriptive statistics of all the study variables and to verify that there were no issues for the bivariate and multivariate analyses. Bivariate correlations were calculated to explore associations between the independent variables and the dependent variables of supervisor and management trust and to check for collinearity among independent variables. Multivariate analysis using Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was conducted to determine the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variables once shared effects were considered. Two OLS regression equations were estimated; one had supervisor trust as the dependent variable and the other had management trust as the dependent variable. Both OLS regression equations had distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice as the main independent variables, and gender, age, position, tenure, educational level, and supervisory status as control variables.

Results

The descriptive statistics and the correlations matrix for the variables included in the analysis are presented in Table 1. There was significant variation in both the dependent and independent variables (i.e., none were constants). The median and mean were similar to one another for each variable, suggesting that the variables were normally distributed. In addition, skewness and kurtosis statistics also indicated a normal distribution. All the index variables had Cronbach’s alpha values above .70, indicating each index was a reliable measure (Frost, 2022).

 Table 1. Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables

Note. Educ. stands for educational level, Sup. Status for supervisory status, Dist. Just. for distributive justice, Proc. Just. for procedural justice, Inter. Just. for interactional justice, Sup. Trust for supervisor trust, and Mgt. Trust for management trust. Gender was coded 0 for women and 1 for men. Age was measured in continuous years. Position was coded 0 for non-custody position and 1 for custody position. Tenure in the position was measured in years. Education was coded 0 for no college degree completed and 1 for college degree. Supervisory status was coded 0 for non-supervisory status and 1 for supervisory status. Cronbach’s alpha is reported in parenthesis on the diagonal; “—” indicates data not reported due to the type of variable.

*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01

Among the personal characteristic variables, only position had a significant correlation with supervisor trust; custody officers reported lower average trust in their supervisors compared to staff in non-custody positions. All three justice variables had significant positive correlations with supervisor trust, meaning increases in views of fairness of outcomes, procedures, and treatment were related to increases in supervisor trust. For management trust, age was the only personal characteristic with a significant correlation; increases in age were associated with lower trust in management. All three justice variables also had significant positive correlations with management trust.

Two Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression equations were run, one with supervisor trust as the dependent variable, and the other with management trust as the dependent variable. The results of the two OLS regression equations are presented in Table 2. Multicollinearity was not a problem in either OLS regression equation. Multicollinearity is seen as a problem when Variance Inflation Factor scores (VIF) exceed 5.0 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019). Based upon the correlations (see Table 1) and the Variation Inflation Factor (VIF) statistics (see Table 2), there appeared to be no issues with collinearity or multicollinearity. The highest VIF scores were 2.64 for the supervisor trust equation and 2.63 for the management trust equation. Additionally, the issues of outliers, influential cases, normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals, and independence of errors in the regression equations were tested for in the two OLS regression equations (Berry, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019).

 Table 2. OLS Regression Results of the Association of Organizational Justice with Trust

Note. B stands for the unstandardized regression slope, SE the standard error, β the standardized regression slope, VIF for variance inflation factor score, a measure of multicollinearity, and (df) for degrees of freedom.

*p ≤ .05 **p ≤ .01

For the regression equation with supervisor trust as the dependent variable, both procedural justice and interactional justice (both p-values ≤ .01) had significant positive associations; staff’s perceptions of procedural justice or interactional justice were associated with greater trust in supervisors. Distributive justice, however, did not have a statistically significant effect on supervisor trust; this suggests that staff perception of distributive justice in the organization (fairness of outcome) might not be a determining factor in staff trust in their supervisor when other measures are included in the analysis. Among the control variables, position in the organization was statistically significant (p-value ≤ .01), indicating that participants employed as custody staff were less likely to trust their supervisor than those in non-custodial positions. Based on the standardized regression coefficients, which can be ranked in size, interactional justice had the largest sized effect. Position had the second largest effect, followed closely by procedural justice. The R-squared value for the supervisor trust equation was .31, which means that the independent variables as a group accounted for about 31% of the variance in the dependent variable.

For the OLS regression equation with management trust as the dependent variable, distributive justice was again not statistically significant, suggesting that perceptions of distributive justice among staff might not significantly influence their trust in management when controlling for other variables. Both procedural justice and interactional justice were significant with p-values ≤ .01, indicating that increases in perceptions of procedural and interactional justice significantly predict higher trust in management within the employing organization, even after controlling for other measures. Among the control variables, only age was statistically significant (p-value ≤ .01), which had a negative association, indicating that older staff were less likely to trust management than their younger colleagues. Based on the standardized regression coefficients, procedural justice had the largest sized effects, almost twice that of procedural justice, which had the second largest effect. Age followed closely with the third largest sized effect. The R-squared value for the management trust equation was .42, which means that the independent variables as a group explained about 42% of the observed variance in the management trust variable. In sum, the results of the multivariate analysis support Hypothesis 3, 4, 5, and 6, but do not support Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Because women represented the largest group among the staff, we examined the effect of gender on the model using two sample t-test procedures and found no difference between men and women staff in their justice views or in their levels of supervisor trust or management trust. We also ran analyses using the mediation test suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986), but no mediation effect was found. Due to the limited number of men participants, we could not conduct an analysis where separate regression equations are run for men and women staff. In the current study, there were 81 men participants, and, with listwise deletion, there were only 72 men participants, which was insufficient for power of analysis with the number of independent variables—at least 10 cases, and preferably 20, are needed for each independent variable (Hair et al., 2018).

Discussion

The current study examined the influence of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on staff trust in supervisors and management in a correctional facility located in the Southern U.S. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on the influence of employee organizational justice views on trust among correctional employees. The current study found that staff perceptions of organizational justice significantly influenced staff trust in supervisors and management. In other words, perceptions of fairness appear to shape the level of organizational trust among the correctional staff; however, our hypotheses that all three forms of organizational justice would predict staff trust in supervisors and management were only partially supported by the multivariate statistical analyses. The study found that while staff perceptions of procedural justice and interactional justice positively influenced staff trust in supervisors and management, perceptions of distributive justice did not.

Perhaps the current findings can be explained by the fact that state-level correctional institutions have preexisting standards for the allocation of resources such as salaries, rewards, overtime pay, paid holidays, personal days, sick days, family leave, etc.; however, the organization’s management must demonstrate adherence to standardized protocols in carrying out every day’s tasks and keeping the facility safe. Staff might be less concerned with the outcomes they receive, which are based on state policies, but more interested in making sure that supervisors and management within the facility stick to well-defined standards and practices that determine those outcomes and treat them fairly (Colquitt, 2012; Colquitt et al., 2001). Additionally, many of the distributive outcomes such as pay and benefits are mainly determined by the state’s legislature and not the prison. On the other hand, prison supervisors and managers have more control over providing information, having clear and transparent procedures, and treating staff with respect. Whether supervisors and managers engage in procedural and interactional justice reflects on them, and this reflection helps shape staff’s level of supervisor and management trust.

The findings support the premise that trust is earned. Correctional administrators need to be aware that procedural and interactional justice are linked to staff’s supervisor and management trust. If correctional organizations are interested in raising supervisor and management trust, it is important to ensure that procedures are fair, and that staff are treated with respect. As noted earlier, supervisor and management trust are linked the salient correctional outcomes of lower job stress, reduced job burnout, greater job involvement, higher job satisfaction, and increased organizational commitment (Haynes et al., 2020; Kane et al., 1983; Lambert et al., 2008, 2012, 2020; Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). The findings indicate that to influence these outcomes, efforts should be made to raise supervisor and management trust by enhancing perceptions of procedural and interactional justice among correctional staff.

Further, as the R-squared values for supervisor trust and management trust were .31 and .42, respectively, the findings indicate that procedural and interactional justice appear to have a greater positive impact on management trust as compared to supervisor trust. This might be explained by the fact that management tends to represent the organization and has more power than supervisors in making changes to procedural and interactional justice efforts (Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). This is not to claim that neither procedural nor interactional justice play no role in influencing supervisor trust; they do. Rather, the point is that procedural and interactional justice explain more of management trust than they do for supervisor trust, likely because management is seen those in control of the organization and more likely to change justice efforts, particularly in terms of procedural justice.

Overall, the personal characteristics of the respondents were not significant predictors of either form of organizational trust. Only position was a significant negative predictor of supervisor trust, and age was a significant negative predictor of management trust. The findings indicate that custodial staff were less likely to trust their supervisors than non-custodial staff; however, no differences between custodial and noncustodial staff were found for trust in management. The position of custody officer is a line position that requires enforcement of rules and control of individuals being held against their will, which can be a trying experience. Being suspicious of incarcerated individuals could carry over to those with whom they interact, including supervisors. Age had a significant negative relationship with management trust and a nonsignificant association with supervisor trust. As for the age variable, older staff tend to have more experience within the facility. This might be explained by the fact that, for the most part, staff work more closely with their supervisors than with the organization’s managers. Working closely with someone also means monitoring their behaviors more often, and less trust is needed when the opportunity to monitor one’s behaviors is available (Haynes et al., 2020).

Implications for Theory and Practice

As the first study to examine the influence of employee organizational justice views on organizational trust, this study’s findings present important theoretical and practical implications. At the theoretical level, the findings contrast with the premises of organizational justice theory, which posits that all three forms of organizational justice are antecedents of trust (Colquitt et al., 2001). While procedural and interactional justice positively influenced supervisor and management trust, distributive justice did not. Procedural justice tends to be a stronger predictor of in predicting employee trust than is distributive justice (Korsgaard et al., 1995; Moorman et al., 1993). The current findings support this postulation among correctional staff. This also suggests that the type of organization likely plays an important role in shaping supervisor and management trust of correctional staff from procedural and interactional justice actions (Lambert, Keena, et al., 2021). Correctional staff scholars need to consider the likely positive association between justice views and organizational trust when they theorize the effects of these concepts on correctional staff.

Scholars need to conduct additional research on how and why organizational justice views are related to supervisor and management trust. Similarly, additional studies are needed at different correctional institutions to confirm that distributive justice is not associated with either supervisor or management trust. The current nonsignificant association could be due to random chance or to the fact that the association is contextual and tends to vary across different correctional institutions. While the gender variable was not statistically significant in the analysis, it is possible that the large proportion of women staff could have influenced the results. Gender could play a role mediating the relationship of justice views with supervisor and management trust. Women and men staff could view organizational justice differently. In addition, justice views might affect trust in supervisors and managers differently for men and women. As women and men staff are impacted differently by some aspects of the correctional work environment, the effects of the three justice views could vary by gender. For example, Triplett et al. (1999) reported that work-family conflict was a predictor of job stress for women correctional staff but not for men correctional staff. The associations between justice views and trust could vary by the percentage of women employed at the correctional facility or could be contextual, varying across different types of correctional institutions in terms of security level, staff gender composition, staff racial/ethnic composition, size, and location. From a theoretical standpoint, this is why more research is needed.

Further, correctional scholars need to explore whether organizational trust—either as a composite measure or broken down into supervisor and management trust—mediate the effects of justice views on salient correctional outcomes. Including measures of organizational justice and trust in the same multivariate analysis might not accurately indicate their association with a given outcome. Based on the current findings, future studies should explore whether organizational trust mediates, either fully or partially, the effects of organizational justice on correctional staff work outcomes, such as job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Baron & Kenny, 1986). For example, including measures of the different types of organizational justice and the types of organizational trust in the same multivariate analysis might not accurately reflect the effect of each measure. Supervisor and management trust could mediate the effects of procedural and interactional justice on organizational commitment, where the justice views help positively shape supervisor and management trust, which, in turn, help build organizational commitment. Similarly, research is needed to determine whether organizational trust buffers the effects on stressors for correctional staff in terms of job stress, job burnout, and depression/mental health.

From a practical standpoint, the current findings point to the need for correctional administrators to be aware of the association of justice views and organizational trust for staff. This means that one way to raise trust in supervisors and management is to engage in procedural and interactional justice. To raise perceptions of procedural justice means having fair and transparent procedures for organizational outcomes such as promotions, assignments, evaluations, and discipline. Staff need to be asked how they view the fairness of procedures and changes they would recommend and why. Administrators need to be fair in seeking feedback from staff on their procedural and interactional justice efforts and how they can be improved. There can be neither favoritism in efforts to seek input from staff nor can there be any retaliation for negative comments or criticism (Lambert et al., 2007; Lambert, Lanterman, et al., 2023). In addition, supervisors and managers need to be made aware of the importance of procedural justice and should be trained in how to raise it. One way to raise perceptions of procedural justice is to make all employees aware of the processes and procedures used to make salient organizational outcomes and encourage staff input. Input does not require changes to be made but rather necessitates a fair and open discussion, including explanations. Explaining decisions and processes to staff should enhance interactional justice views (Lambert, Berthelot et al., 2021). Treating a person with respect and dignity is another major part of interactional justice. Supervisors and managers need to be made aware of the importance of treating staff with respect, even when there are disagreements (Lambert, Lanterman, et al., 2023). Even in disagreements or with discipline, it is important that staff are treated in a professional manner (Haynes et al. 2020). Supervisors and managers need to be trained in the importance of interactional and procedural justice. Further, both the actions of supervisors and managers should be evaluated to improve staff perceptions of these two forms of organizational justice. Finally, supervisors and managers alike need to be rewarded for their efforts.

In the study, both interactional and procedural justice had positive associations with both supervisor and management trust, but distributive justice was not a significant predictor. This is good news for correctional organizations. Improving distributive justice views takes time and often financial resources (Lambert, 2003). Improving views of procedural and interactional justice tends to be less costly and can be done more quickly. Martin and Bennett (1996) noted that treating staff with respect and following fair procedures only requires minimal financial outlay.

Limitations of Current Study

As with many studies, there were limitations with the current research project. Staff from a single unusual Southern U.S. prison were studied. Far more research is needed to determine whether the effects discovered here are universal or contextual. In other words, there is a need for replication by studying the connection between organizational justice and organizational trust at other correctional institutions, in different regions of the U.S., and in other nations. As noted above, the results could vary by the security level, type of correctional facility, gender composition of the institution, region, and the racial ethnic composition of the facility. In addition, more in-depth analyses, which were not possible with the current study, should be done to gain a more nuanced understanding of the connection of justice views with correctional staff organizational trust. For example, the findings could vary by the gender and position of correctional staff (e.g., men custody officers versus women treatment staff). There were not a sufficient number of participants to do sub-analyses. This means that future studies likely will need to have more participants of various backgrounds to conduct more detailed subgroup analyses. More items should be used to measure procedural justice, interactional justice, supervisor trust, and management trust. Supervisor trust, management trust, procedural justice, and interactional justice were each measured with two items. Future studies using more items would allow for more rigorous factor analysis to determine whether the items accurately measured these latent concepts. New research should also use different measures of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Besides the items used in the current study, there are other approaches to measure distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (e.g., see Colquitt et al., 2001). Using more items and different measures for distributive, procedural, and interactional justice could change the results.

Another limitation is the use of cross-sectional data, which does not allow for the demonstration of causality; longitudinal studies are needed. In other words, organizational trust could influence perceptions of organizational justice, or it could be that the two salient concepts of organizational justice and trust have a reciprocal relationship with one another over time. While the current study was based on the premise that organizational actions in terms of fairness influence the level of trust in key organizational members, only longitudinal data can empirically demonstrate the causal relationship of organizational justice and trust among correctional staff. Similarly, trust must be earned, and it takes time to build relationships based on mutual respect (Kettl, 2017). Further, leadership in terms of supervisors and administrators must manifest their trustworthiness over time, as trust can also be lost very quickly. The study suggests that maintaining fair processes in decision-making might be key to safeguarding the trust between leadership and staff. How to build correctional supervisor and management trust and how to avoid losing supervisor and management trust are areas that need to be explored by future longitudinal studies. The effects of other workplace variables, such as instrumental communication, input into decision-making, supervisor support, management support, and job autonomy, need to be explored in order to determine whether they relate to supervisor and management trust among correctional staff. In the current study, only about 31% of supervisor trust and 42% of management trust were accounted for in the regression analyses, which means that other variables contribute to shaping the trust of correctional staff. These variables need to be identified and researched. Additional research on the connection of trust with various correctional staff outcomes, such as work performance, organizational citizenship behaviors (i.e., prosocial work behaviors), life satisfaction, absenteeism, workplace deviance/wrongdoing, and turnover/turnover intent, is needed. Clearly much more research is needed to examine different forms of organizational justice and trust among correctional staff.

Conclusion

As Liebling (2006) asserted, trust can be contagious, and trust is essential in the prison environment for the operation of humane, safe, and secure correctional facilities. It is also likely that distrust or lack of trust can be contagious as well. The current study examined the direct association of three types of organizational justice (i.e., distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) on two forms of correctional staff trust (i.e., supervisor and management trust). Procedural and interactional justice views were significant positive predictors of supervisor trust and management trust, but distributive justice views were not. The current findings indicate that improving perceptions of fairness of procedures and fairness of interactions should increase the level of trust in supervisors and administrators among correctional staff. Correctional organizations should ensure that decisions are made in conformity with well-defined procedures and that staff are treated respectfully (Ayree et al., 2002). The costs of engaging in more transparent and fair procedures and interactions are far less than enacting changes to raise perceptions of distributive justice, such as increasing pay. Future studies should go beyond the analysis of the direct association between organizational justice and staff trust and develop analytical models that explore the mediating effect of trust on staff outcomes (Cropanzano et al., 2005). At the very least, the authors hope that there will be further interest in research concerning organizational justice and organizational trust among correctional staff. Correctional staff are a valuable resource for correctional organizations and deserve research that involves improving their work experience.

Author’s Note

The authors are grateful for the work and support of the Editor and the editorial staff, and the helpful comments provided by the anonymous reviewers. The authors also thank Janet Lambert for proofreading this paper. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Monica Solinas-Saunders, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Northwest, 2135A Dunes MB, 3400 Broadway, Gary, Indiana; email: [email protected] or [email protected].

Authors’ bios

Monica Solinas-Saunders is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University Northwest. Monica’s research interests are in the areas of corrections, interpersonal violence, rehabilitation, and policy.

Eric G. Lambert is a faculty member in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs in the College of Health and Human Services at Indiana University Northwest. His research interests include organizational issues, job and organizational effects on the attitudes, intentions, and behaviors of criminal justice employees.

Stacy H. Haynes is a Professor in the Department of Sociology at Mississippi State University. Her research focuses on issues related to corrections, courts and sentencing, victimization, and criminal justice policy. 

Linda Keena is Professor Emerita of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies at the University of Mississippi. Linda’s research focuses on issues associated with corrections, sentencing, and treatment/rehabilitation.

Matthew C. Leone is a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice, located within the School of Social Research and Justice studies in the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Nevada, Reno. His research interests include corrections and community-based corrections, gangs, and juvenile justice.

David C. May is a Professor in the Department of Sociology at Mississippi State University. David has authored or coauthored six books and over 100 articles and book chapters around his research interests of fear of crime, school safety, cybercrime, policing, corrections, and military sociology. He is currently coauthoring books on school safety and the school to prison pipeline and writing a variety of articles about corrections, fear of crime, and school resource officers.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (pp. 267-299). Academic Press.

Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267-285. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.138

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Berry, W. D. (1993). Understanding regression assumptions. Sage.

Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness, In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (pp. 43–55). JAI Press.

Cohen, R. L. (1987). Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice Research, 1(1), 19-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049382

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321. https://doi.org /10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386

Colquitt, J. A. (2012). Organizational justice. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 1-22). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0016

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B. M., & Benson III, L. (2005). Organizational justice. In J. Bawling, E. K. Kelloway, & M. R. Frone (Eds.), Handbook of work stress (pp. 63-87). Sage.

Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2003). An overview of organizational justice: Implications for work motivation. In L. W. Porter, G. Bigley, & R. M. Steers (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (7^th ed., pp. 82-95). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Cullen, F. T., Latessa, E. J., Burton Jr, V. S., & Lombardo, L. X. (1993). The correctional orientation of prison wardens: Is the rehabilitative ideal supported? Criminology, 31(1), 69-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1993.tb01122.x

Frost, J. (2022). Cronbach’s Alpha: Definition, calculations, and example. Retrieved from https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/cronbachs-alpha/

Gambetta, D. (2000). ‘Can we trust?’ In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, (pp. 213-237). Oxford University Press.

Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208

Hair, J. F., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. C. (2018). Multivariate data analysis (8^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Haynes, S. H., Leone, M. C., Keena, L. D., May, D. C., Ricciardelli, R., & Lambert, E. G. (2020). The association between different forms of organizational trust and correctional staff job stress. Journal of Crime and Justice, 43(5), 623-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2020.1734056

Kane, T., Saylor, W., & Nacci, P. (1983). Management strategies, morale, and staff turnover. NCJ Document 089613.

Keena, L. D., Lambert, E. G., Haynes, S. H., May, D., & Doty, P. A. (2022). Testing the job demands-resources model with organizational trust among prison staff. Criminal Justice Review, 47(2), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221076789

Kettl, D. F. (2017). Can governments earn our trust? John Wiley & Sons.

Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 60-84. https://doi.org/10.2307/256728

Lambert, E. (2003). The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00222-2

Lambert, E. G., Berthelot, E., Morrow, W., Block, L., & Hogan, N. (2021). Exploring the effects of organizational structure variables on the organizational justice perceptions of correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 101(5), 553-574. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855211048173

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Altheimer, I. (2010). An exploratory examination of the consequences of burnout in terms of life satisfaction, turnover intent, and absenteeism among private correctional staff. The Prison Journal, 90(1), 94-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855093575

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Barton-Bellessa, S. M., & Jiang, S. (2012). Examining the relationship between supervisor and management trust and job burnout among correctional staff. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(7), 938-957. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812439192

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Block, L. M., Berthelot, E. R., & Morrow, W. J. (2020). Examining the relationship between supervisor trust and administration trust with job involvement among private prison staff. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law, and Society, 21(1), 60-73.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 644-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.001

Lambert, E. G., Jiang, S., & Hogan, N. L. (2008). The issue of trust in shaping the job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of correctional staff. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice, 3(4), 37-64.

Lambert, E. G., Keena, L. D., Haynes, S. H., Ricciardelli, R., May, D., & Leone, M. (2021). The issue of trust in shaping the job involvement, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of southern correctional staff. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(2), 193-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420903370

Lambert, E. G., Lanterman, J. L., Leone, M., Keena, L. D., Haynes, S. H., & May, D. (2023). Improving correctional staff perceptions of organizational justice. Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research, 8(2), 97-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/23774657.2020.1832625

Lambert, E. G., Leone, M., Hogan, N. L., Buckner, Z., Worley, R., & Worley, V. B. (2021). To be committed or not: A systematic review of the empirical literature on organizational commitment among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, 34(1), 88-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2020.1762082

Lambert, E. G., Solinas-Saunders, M., Haynes, S. H., May, D. C., Keena, L. D., Leone, M., & Buckner, Z. (2023). The association of organizational justice views and turnover intent among correctional staff. Criminal Justice Studies, Online First, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2023.2239994

Liebling, U. A. (2006). Prisons in transition. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 29(5), 422-430. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.002

Liebling, A., & Arnold, H. (2012). Social relationships between prisoners in a maximum-security prison: Violence, faith, and the declining nature of trust. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(5), 413-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.003

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84-99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84

Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Group and Organization Management, 21(1), 84-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601196211005

Maruschak, L. M., & Buehler, E. D. (2021). Census of state and federal adult correctional facilities, 2019–statistical tables. NCJ, 301366. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/csfacf19st.pdf

Matz, A. K., Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., & Angel, E. (2013). Predictors of turnover intention among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/154120401246087

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (1993). Treating employees fairly and organizational citizenship behavior: Sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 6(3), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01419445

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover among hospital employees. JAI Press.

Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximise scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v30i4.168

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using multivariate statistics (7^th ed.). Pearson.

Tan, H., & Tan, C. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in the organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 241-260. Retrieved from https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3677&context=lkcsb_research

Triplett, R., Mullings, J. L., & Scarborough, K. E. (1999). Examining the effect of work-home conflict on work-related stress among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(98)00066-X

Wheatcroft, J. M., Alison, L. A., & McGrory, D. (2012). The influence of trust on senior investigating officers’ decision making in high-profile critical incidents. Police Quarterly, 15(4), 386-413. DOI: 10.1177/1098611112447610

Notes

[1]Price and Mueller (1986) used six items. We selected four items and reworded them to indicate whether the prison was perceived as fair in terms of rewards and outcomes. We dropped an item that asked about fairness of rewards at the current organization as compared to other organizations and an item asking about being satisfied with the fairness of the rewards. We did not use these two items to keep the survey length reasonable and because all prisons in the selected Southern system operated with the same rewards structure, which would make a comparison with other organizations irrelevant. We also did not use the item that focused on employee satisfaction as it failed to confirm face validity with the targeted population in measuring perceived fairness of reward outcomes.

[2]Lambert et al. (2007) used seven items to measure perceived fairness of the processes to reach promotions and evaluations. Due to length limitations of the survey, two items were selected based on a face validity analysis of the original items, one reflecting fairness of promotional procedures and one reflecting fairness of evaluation procedures.

[3]We used principal axis factoring with varimax rotation to conduct factor analysis for the justice measures (Gorsuch, 1983). Three factors resulted. The four distributive justice items had the highest factor loadings on one factor. The two procedural justice items had the highest factor loading scores on another factor. The two interactional justice items had the highest loadings on a third factor. Because procedural justice and interactional justice were measured using only two items, there was a concern about conducting factor analysis (MacCallum et al., 1999; Raubenheimer, 2004). As such, we have not reported the factor analysis results, nor did we use these results in deciding to create the indexes for the three justice variables. We created the three organizational justice measures applying theoretical reasons, face validity, and the Cronbach alpha values. Similarly, factor analysis results have not been reported for the supervisor and management trust indexes, which were both measured using only two items.