Group Dynamics in Corrections
Kadijah Batiste
MGT 415
Angela Gillette
09/20/2010

Abstract
This paper will provide understanding of group dynamics in the correctional setting using personal examples and outside research.

Group Dynamics in Corrections
The field of corrections is sometimes considered the lowly or “bottom feeders” in society. Correctional officers get the least respect in the public eye, but we have the most dangerous job. In society eyes we are just babysitters for adults so it benefits us to form groups within the institution so that we can have others to relate to about the job that we do.
The group dynamics in a correctional setting consist of different groups. There are your 12 hour groups and your 8 hour groups. In corrections there are many groups from the small groups such as administration, kitchen staff, and janitors to the larger groups such as C.E.R.T team, disciplinary board members for inmates, and shifts. Group dynamics is the study of groups, behavior in groups, group development, and the interrelations between groups and individuals, other groups, and larger entities (Johnson & Johnson, 2009, pg. 1).
In the correctional business world group dynamics is important because it enhances the group members’ productivity and how officers interact with one another can set the tone for the whole work environment. If there is discord among group members then the safety and security of the institution is jeopardized. Our textbook say that “knowledge of group dynamics is central to effective businesses and industries because it makes people viable employees due to their ability to work in small groups, and produce results (Johnson, & Johnson, 2009, pg. 13). The 12 hour groups in corrections would be considered a traditional work group. A traditional work group is a group whose members are assigned to work together and accept that they have to do so (Johnson & Johnson, pg. 19). As a group, our expectations are clear and so there are few disagreements during our shifts. We know that we have to be on one accord because of the dangerous environment that we are in. During shift briefing the group leader puts out any valuable information that we need to complete our shift. The 8 hour groups function more independently because they have their own assigned areas. The 12 hour groups have daily goals that have to be met before the end of their shift. Each group member is assigned a task either from booking, central control, housing units or roving. Working as a correctional officer requires a contribution by each group member so that the whole process goes by smoothly. We are fully interdependent of one another, since the completion of the job depends on the group as a whole. Goals that must be met are making sure the all the counts are correct, inmates are transported to assigned destinations, and areas throughout institution are free of contraband. The groups have positive goal interdependence we assist each other when our own work is done, by relieving each other for breaks, or just lending a hand in the intake process. According to HR Magazine there are several factors that help teams with positive interdependence: trust, extroversion, dependency needs, and conflict avoidance.
Why is it said that research about groups is NOT always valid and relevant? A basic premise of group dynamics is that the methods of science can be employed in the study of groups. This assumption could be entertained seriously only after the more general belief had gained acceptance that man, his behavior, and his social relations can be properly subjected to scientific investigation. And, any question about the utilization of scientific methods for learning about human behavior and social relations could not rise, of course, before the methods of science were well developed (Cartwright & Zander, 2000). In my opinion researchers sometimes use their own ideas or theories to come to a conclusion about groups and how they function, form, and break apart in the workplace. In the correctional setting no two facilities operate alike so their results would be inconclusive to all groups in corrections. Since I have been in corrections I have found that groups are more effective in the work environment. On any given day there can be a riot, gang-related fight, or assault on an officer. We as officers have to be able to function together as one unit for the safety of the group and the facility as a whole. There is always a group that will have more cohesiveness than others. Group cohesiveness is the mutual attraction among members of a group and the resulting desire to remain in the group (Johnson & Johnson, pg. 100). Some officers like to get together after work and hang out, others develop lasting friendships. In corrections groups that are cohesive on a personal level can cause all kind of problems. According to social control theory, people can be restrained if they belong to groups which have strong ties (Hirschi & Stark, 1969). When applying this theory to business situations, it can be assumed that a competent employee who belongs to a highly-cohesive group would be restrained; in other words, group cohesiveness would weaken the competency-performance relationship (Shin, Soo-Young). Group cohesiveness is important when it comes to the group as a whole. Everyone has that group that you like working with because you get along and you have some kind of work system that makes everyone gel together. My group is Group A, we get along at work, we may even pay for each other’s lunch but it does not cross the outside of work boundaries. We have a cohesiveness that keeps us together in the work place and it does not need to be increased. In corrections cohesive forces affect group process because it leaves some officers feeling left out in the group or others being shown favoritism. Those are distractions that can keep important work from getting done. The positive sides of group cohesiveness and group process is that the bond between group members can help the group. Social Influence has 3 areas that affects decision making. Those areas are conformity, compliance, and obedience (Straker, D.). Researches suggest that an individual can be influenced by many different factors on many different levels. Individuals can be influenced by: a majority, a certain situation, a leader, persuasion, their own behaviors and attitudes, etc. Asch’s (1956) study of conformity suggests that individuals conform to the majority even when there is no social pressure to conform, no rewards for conforming, or no punishments for being the minority. Other research conducted by Milgram (1965) suggests that individuals can be influenced under certain immediate situations that make the individual feel they are emotionally distant, following orders, and/or part of a larger group. Research on leadership suggests that individuals can be influenced by leaders depending on the situation (Bales, 1958). If an individual is in a situation where they do not know what to do, they will look for a leader. In situations where a group is formed to accomplish a task, an individual is more likely to be influence by a task-oriented leader, and situations where a group is formed to increase social relations; an individual is more likely to be influenced by a socially-oriented leader. An individual, no matter the situation, is more likely to be influenced by a leader that possesses both task and social leadership (Fiedler, 1971). Research on persuasion suggests that individuals are influenced by the credibility and trustworthiness of an individual (Cook & Flay, 1978 cited in Myers). Lastly, individuals can be influenced by their own attitudes and behaviors (Zimbardo, 1971; Pilner, 1974;Cialdini, 1978 all cited in Myers). Research suggests that individuals’ attitudes can influence their own behavior, and that behavior can also influence one’s attitudes (Waller, 2002; Zimbardo, 1971; Pilner, 1974;Cialdini, 1978 all cited in Myers). This research on what influences individuals plays an important role in group dynamics because it can influence the group cohesion and later inter-group dilemmas (Sniezek, S. M.).
In the correctional setting some officers such as me have to confirm to a different persona to ensure safety. I am a quiet and shy individual when I am home and around family and friends but when I enter into a housing unit I become aggressive and out-spoken. Conformity affects the way I make decisions such as not being more lenient on inmate phone calls, and what I tell an inmate no about. Compliance in the correctional setting is a given at times. Officers are asked to do things by superiors, inmates and at times the public. As an officer you have that option to comply with the request or not to. As an officer you have to make decisions that will sometimes bring about unpleasant outcomes for others either in your group (if a group member breaks a rule or putting an inmate in lock-up and taking his/her privileges). In corrections there are many officers of higher rank. There are Wardens, Assistant Wardens, Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants, and Corporals. Obedience means obeying an order from someone you accept as an authority figure. For example, the warden told me I had to stay over with the incoming group and I did not want to because I had a homework assignment due. I was obedient because he is the warden even though I did not want to. In corrections there are shift leaders and their job is to assign work posts and keep all officers within policy and procedure during working hours. Leaders can emerge from within a group, most of our shift leaders started out on 12 hour teams before being promoted to shift leader. Studies of organized groups suggest that all groups have some form of leadership or authority structure. This is true of small groups, of organizations, and of large societies. Furthermore, when groups are faced with scarcity or conflict, their motivation to organize and create leaders or other authority structures increases and they create and/or empower leaders and rules (Messick et al., 1983). When it comes to teams versus work groups in corrections, the team does seem to trump groups. In corrections we have the C.E.R.T team they operate totally different from the work groups. They have a better understanding of each other and their tasks at hand. They have less disagreements and everyone seems to be on the same page with decision making. Researchers found that in a working group, interdependence is low, and accountability focuses on individual members, not on the groups as a whole. As for teams they not only meet to share information and perspectives and make decisions, they produce discrete work products through members’ joint efforts and contributions (Johnson & Johnson, pg. 527). An example of the C.E.R.T team being more effective than our work group was doing a shake-down in a housing unit. Our work group went in and it was confusing and disorganized. We discussed the plan before we went in but some members just did things the way that they wanted to and it kind of threw everyone off. We really did not accomplish anything because of how disorganized we were. We got the opportunity to watch the C.E.R.T. team go in and do a shake-down and it was the totally opposite from what we did. They went in as a unit, they had a structured plan that everyone on the team followed to a tee. There was shared leadership on the team and everyone knew the role that they had. Because of the effectiveness of their teamwork more contraband was found, and it got us a class on proper leadership and effectiveness as a group. No matter what kind of work you do, you have to be able to follow and lead at times. Group dynamics is almost like a lifestyle, and as an individual you have to be able to grow and adapt to changes that come from being in a group or on a team; but still be true to yourself.

Reference
Cartwright, D., (2000), "Origins of group dynamics". Group Facilitation. FindArticles.com. Retrieved September 16, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3954/is_200001/ai_n8882376/
Drexler, A. & Forrester, R. (1998, September). Interdependence: The crux of teamwork. HRMagazine, 43(10), 52-62. Retrieved September 16, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 33798264)
Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2009) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Pearson Education: Merrill
Shin, S. Y. (n.d.). Moderating Effects of Groups Cohesiveness in Competency-Performance Relationships: A Multi-Level Study. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, 2, 1-15. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http://aabri.com/manuscripts/09155
Straker, D. (n.d). Social Influence. Retrieved September 17, 2010, from http: changingminds.org/explanations/theories/social influence
Sniezek, S. M. (2007, May 11). Retrieved September 18, 2010, from Serendip Exchange Web site: http:// Serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange
Tyler, T. R. (2002). Leadership and cooperation in groups. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 769-782. Retrieved September 12, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 95468129).