Abstract
Coworker relationships are a central part of carceral staff culture but are poorly understood and conceptualized. This article examines how and why these relationships exist and the outcomes of relationship quality. Through interviews with 183 staff working at eight state prisons and five county jails across eight U.S. states, we find that staff rely on coworkers for security, practical, and social support. Demographic, personality, and organizational factors influence these relationships, which in turn affect job stress, satisfaction, and turnover intention. Understanding coworker relationships is crucial for improving theory, research, and practice. By exploring these dynamics, we fill a gap in knowledge and aim to inspire researchers to consider the complexities of these relationships in their own work.
Introduction
People interact more with their coworkers than anyone else in the workplace (Sias, 2008). As such, coworker relationships shape working experiences and influence personal and organizational outcomes like motivation, stress, satisfaction, and commitment (Andrews et al., 2024; Dutton & Heaphy, 2003; Simon et al., 2010). This article examines relationships among carceral staff. While prior research touches on these dynamics (e.g., Carbonell & Ricciardelli, 2023; Crawley & Crawley, 2013; Ingel, 2020), questions remain about how these relationships form, endure, or fracture, and what outcomes come of relationship quality. Moreover, understanding relationships is necessary for improved understanding of carceral culture—a concept that has been scapegoated as a significant barrier to change (Rudes & Magnuson, 2019). This research also lends explanatory power to findings that link carceral coworker support to outcomes such as job stress and commitment (e.g., Lambert et al., 2016, 2021). To address this gap, our team interviewed 183 staff working in eight state prisons and five county jails across eight U.S. states. From analysis of that data, we unpack how and why relationships exist among carceral staff, if/how they falter, and the outcomes of relationship quality.
Literature Review
Organizational Literature: Coworker Relationships
In any workspace, coworker relationships are highly influential for staff’s personal well-being and organizational functioning (Chiaburu & Harrison, 2008). Poor coworker relationships are linked to decreased life satisfaction, job motivation and satisfaction, and increased turnover (Andrews et al., 2024; Sias, 2008; Simon et al., 2010). In addition, while people will still interact even with low-quality connections to peers, these interactions lack enthusiasm or care, whereas high-quality connections foster resilience among individuals and can lead to organizational flourishing (Dutton & Heaphy, 2003). Employee turnover can also impose significant financial and practical burdens on organizations, including recruitment costs, lost productivity, reduced engagement, and lower consumer satisfaction (Cloutier et al., 2015).
Kram and Isabella (1985) identified three types of workplace peer relationships: information peers, collegial peers, and special peers, each serving different functions like information-sharing, career strategizing, and emotional support. These typologies offer insight into why coworker relationships exist. Sias (2008) builds upon this work by categorizing these relationships into functions, development, and outcomes, emphasizing their roles in mentorship, information-exchange, and social support. Factors like shared tasks and communication styles influence relationship quality, in turn affecting individual and organizational wellness, including motivation, commitment, stress, and turnover. Sias’ (2008) work encompasses all the different aspects of coworker relationships, and it is a useful framework when trying to gain a complete understanding of workplace relationships.
Carceral Literature: Coworker Relationships
Carceral staff culture is often a focal point for researchers, policymakers, unions, and carceral administrators. Early studies depict staff as brutal, insensitive, and unintelligent (Barnes & Teeter, 1945), but later research highlights the immense stress and emotional toll of the job (Higgins et al., 2024). Staff face challenges like insufficient staffing and resources (Martin et al., 2012), violent assaults (Fusco et al., 2021), and suicide by incarcerated people and peers (Frost & Monteiro, 2021). Carceral work is often stigmatized and viewed as “dirty” or “morally tainted,” leading to feelings of societal isolation (Eriksson, 2023, p. 325; Garrihy, 2022). This environment often fosters solidarity and a “code of silence” among staff (Crawley & Crawley, 2013). Solidarity also guarantees protection by teammates against danger (Palmen et al., 2022). To establish solidarity, staff must “prove themselves” to their peers (Carbonell & Ricciardelli, 2023). Indeed, central to staff culture are the relationships that staff hold with one another (Liebling et al., 2011). However, relationships are a commonly referenced—but poorly understood—aspect of working in carceral settings (Crawley & Crawley, 2013; Ingel, 2020).
Prior quantitative research has considered coworker relationships as a predictor of outcomes like job stress and satisfaction (e.g., Cheeseman Dial & Johnson, 2008; Lambert et al., 2016), organizational commitment (e.g., Lambert et al., 2021), and burnout (e.g., Lambert et al., 2010). These scholars typically conceptualize staff relationships as the practical and social support that people receive from their coworkers. Coworker relationship scales are often comprised of several items that evaluate relationship quality. For instance, Lambert and colleague’s (2016) six-item index of coworker support included questions like “The people I work with are friendly” and “I am able to discuss problems with my coworkers.” Some scholars use dichotomous response formats as an indicator of whether staff felt as though their coworkers care about them (e.g., Cheeseman Dial & Johnson, 2008).
These conceptualizations do not address how these relationships are formed and fractured. Asking only about current relationships, and not about the factors that shape them, limits our understanding of why and how relationships influence personal and organizational outcomes. For instance, from Lambert and colleagues (2016) study, we learn that coworker support is positively associated with organizational commitment. However, this finding leaves more questions than answers. Why does this occur? And how is this support formed to begin with? Disentangling the mechanisms underlying the connection between relationship quality and outcomes is vital in improving carceral theory, research, and practice. Theoretically, we do not know much about how and why coworker relationships are influenced. These relationship quality indicators are often used as predictor variables instead of being the focus of the study, further limiting how much we know about them. Practically, administrators and researchers can only work to improve relationships (and then perhaps personal and organizational outcomes) if they understand how and why relationships are maintained or damaged.
Although existing scholarship is limited, researchers have begun to address the gaps highlighted above. For example, Cheeseman’s (2006) study found that in some carceral institutions, a pseudo-family coworker culture exists, where coworkers act more like friends. Demographic factors appear to influence staff social groups. Staff members sometimes favor working with others of the same race (Camp et al., 2001), leading the majority group to intentionally or unintentionally exclude “others” from the main group (Morgan, 2018). Likewise, machismo culture runs deep in carceral spaces (Crawley & Crawley, 2013) creating a gendered divide (Compton & Brandhorst, 2021). However, the tension does not exist only between men and women. For instance, some women hold negative views of other women because they view them as overly emotional, naïve, flirty, and untrustworthy (Rader, 2005). Other scholars find that perceptions of coworker relationship quality (involving communication, trust, and respect) vary by race, position, and institution (Ingel, 2020).
This research suggests that various demographic and workplace factors influence relationship quality. While prior research begins to unpack staff-coworker relationships, these findings are sporadic and do not provide a holistic account of the factors that affect relationships. Several scholars (e.g., Carbonell & Ricciardelli, 2023; Rudes & Magnuson, 2019) argue that existing research inadequately considers how and why cultures and relationships vary. We aim to fill this gap by examining why coworker relationships exist, how they are influenced, and what the outcomes of relationship quality are. We use the functions (why relationships occur), development (how they are formed), and outcomes (impact of relationships) framework outlined by Sias (2008) to provide a comprehensive account of peer-coworker relationships.
Method
The data presented here comes from a multi-state qualitative study aimed at understanding the experiences of people living and working in carceral settings. The larger project addresses a variety of topics including living/working conditions, space, culture and relationships, COVID, coping, policies, violence, programs, reforms, substance use, and language. We interviewed 183 staff and 447 incarcerated people working and living in eight state prisons and five county jails 1 across eight U.S. states (Florida, Kansas, Michigan, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas). With the exception of two medium-security facilities, all of the facilities that we visited could 2 house individuals up to maximum security. 3 Data collection for this project occurred from September 2022 until March 2024.
Data and Sample
For this analysis, we focus only on staff members. As this article is centered solely on staff’s responses, only the protocol for staff recruitment and interviews is discussed (i.e., we do not describe interview/recruitment protocol for incarcerated people here). The research team visited each facility for two full days. In the weeks before data collection, the lead researcher worked with facility administration to distribute recruitment flyers in staff break rooms and on bulletin boards. The flyer explained the nature and purpose of the study and instructed interested staff to come to the in-facility location for an interview. The sampling method includes both convenience sampling (volunteers) and purposive sampling, where the lead researcher worked to include staff in a variety of positions and with a variety of experience (Palinkas et al., 2015).
Staff interviews took place in various locations, such as offices, program rooms, and recreation spaces. In large rooms like gymnasiums, researchers set up tables in different corners of the room, about 40 feet apart. These rooms were large and had fans going, which helped to suppress noise. In this way, the study protocols provided participants with confidentiality but not anonymity. Seating was available for staff to wait for their turn, and interviewers signaled readiness for the next participant by raising their hand. In some facilities, staff and incarcerated individuals were interviewed at separate times, while in others, they were interviewed simultaneously at different tables. Staff interviews often coincided with times when incarcerated individuals were unavailable (e.g., during scheduled counts or meals). Before each interview, researchers obtained verbal informed consent from participants. All protocols were approved by Sam Houston State University’s Institutional Review Board (#IRB-2022-144).
Researchers used a semi-structured interview guide to ensure systematic data collection while allowing for rapport building and casual conversation (Newman, 1958). As some institutions prohibited recording equipment, we took handwritten notes during the interview, which also helps maintain a conversational tone (Newman, 1958). Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour, and afterward, notes were completed to capture the detail provided by the participant. Following data collection each day, notes were typed using Microsoft Word.
Analysis
After data collection concluded, researchers linked all transcripts to the qualitative management program Atlas.ti. In the first round of data analysis, the research team used both iterative open and focused coding to conduct analysis informed by the interview questions. This process allows for a priori themes to emerge (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Both prior to and during coding, the team met to discuss coding and check coding consistency among the coders. After the first round of coding, the lead author merged project files into a master file, merging and renaming codes for clarity. In the second round of coding, the lead author refined existing codes and conducted focused coding on themes of relationships and culture using a phronetic iterative approach (Tracy, 2019). This method integrates theories, self-reflexivity, context, and thick description. Themes were further developed through analytical coding, employing the constant comparative method to compare data and refine the analysis (Charmaz, 2014).
After this, the lead author queried the data to look for patterns and connections. This was followed by pulling all quotes for a given topic and selecting representative quotes for inclusion in this article. For reading ease, confidentiality, and to protect against de-personalization of the data, we provide a pseudonym for all interviewed individuals. We chose pseudonyms that reflect people’s racial/ethnic identity (see Hurst, 2008). To distinguish between staff types, we use “CO [Last Name]” to refer to custodial line staff, “Supervisor [Last Name]” to refer to custodial middle/upper management staff, and “Mr./Ms. [Last Name]” to refer to non-custodial staff. 4
Participant Demographics
As displayed in Table 1, of the 183 staff interviewed, 5 62% hold custodial positions (e.g., correctional officer [CO]) and 38% hold non-custodial roles (e.g., case management). The majority are line staff (77%; for example, CO), while some work in middle management (21%; for example, supervisors), and 2% work in upper administration (e.g., Superintendents, Captains). Most have worked in corrections for one to nine years (40%) and have been at their current institution for the same period (57%). The majority are aged 30 to 49 (49%), identify as a man (58%), as White (66%), and have earned a degree beyond a high school or GED diploma (67%).
Staff Demographics (N = 183)
Findings
We explore the “why,” “how,” and “so what” of coworker relationships in carceral settings. The “why” addresses the functions of these relationships, revealing that staff rely on strong bonds for security, practical, and social support. The “how” examines how these relationships are formed or fractured by demographic, personality, and organizational factors. The “so what” highlights the outcomes of relationship quality. We find that when relationships are disrupted, staff often experience lower job satisfaction and commitment and higher stress and turnover intent. On the contrary, positive relationships lead to greater job satisfaction and retention.
The ‘Why’: Reasons for Coworker Relationships
Staff rely on coworkers for security, practical, and social support. They view relationships as essential for safety, particularly in protecting against violence. Coworkers also provide each other with practical support in the form of training/mentorship and help with daily duties. They may also offer each other emotional support though mutual understanding, emotional aid, and humor. Among 154 staff who discussed this, 73% mentioned practical support, 68% social support, and 41% security support, suggesting that practical and social support is especially important to staff. Further analysis indicates that demographics (e.g., gender) do not influence the type of support that staff seek.
Practical Support
Staff rely heavily on practical support, or direction on policies/procedures and assistance with tasks. CO Brown and CO Smith explained that policies are often communicated via “word of mouth.” Similarly, people describe relying on coworkers for training. CO Garcia recalled his early days at the facility, relaying, “As someone new, it is easy to get along with others. The staff is good with answering questions . . . They try to support you and help; they don’t just throw you in and say, ‘it’s sink or swim.’” Staff also rely on their relationships with coworkers to carry out daily duties. For instance, Mr. Miller shared that program staff rely “on the wing staff and the gang officers to tell [them] who can’t be together when [they] put classes together.” If Mr. Miller did not have this connection with his coworkers, he would not have this insight. In sum, staff view relationships as necessary in retaining practical support.
Social Support
Staff also rely on their coworkers for social support. Social support manifests in three forms: mutual understanding, emotional aid, and humor. For mutual understanding, many view their coworkers as “family” because they witness the same events and endure the same stressors. For instance, CO Jackson felt closest to other restricted housing unit (RHU) staff because “When you go through that shit together, tackling guys, you bond, you get more personal.” This shared understanding fosters a unique sense of solidarity, with CO Blanchard noting, “We see a lot of fucked up shit . . . we all talk to each other” and Ms. Tucker adding, “I do a lot of debriefing by talking to my team after work. My coworkers know exactly what I’m saying.”
Emotional aid is also crucial. For instance, CO Anderson remarked that “We hold each other up, we do what we can when we see them breaking. Nobody goes through [our carceral system] unscathed” and CO Clancy said, “If you see someone down, you help them. If it weren’t for them, I don’t know how we’d make it through the day sometimes.” Others shield coworkers from distress, as Supervisor White did when responding to a person who died by suicide. She recalled, “I started CPR because I knew the optics. Four officers were watching. I started CPR on a dead man . . . I knew he was dead, but I had to help the other officers deal with it.” Supervisor White tried to prevent her coworkers’ distress by performing CPR, even though she knew it would not revive the person. Her story exemplifies the trauma of carceral work and the ways in which staff rely on each other to cope with these experiences.
Finally, staff use humor to cope and bond with coworkers. Supervisor Conroe explained, “We have a humor that is very callous here. If we have a severe incident, we can joke about it while still taking it seriously. We are not not traumatized, but cracking jokes with each other helps the coping” and Mr. Johnson said “We joke around a lot . . . If we stayed serious the whole time, we would go insane.” For these staff, humor is a necessary element of relationships. CO Blanchard explained the connection he feels to his coworkers through humor, relaying “We all have that dark humor here. That’s how you find ways to connect. Our humor is dirty and dark.”
Security Support
Finally, staff view relationships as essential to maintaining security. Many staff believe their coworkers “always watch out for each other” and, in serious incidents, would “lay down their lives” for their peers. Below, CO Anderson describes the trust he has in his “family,” My [work] family is just as important as my real family. If it comes to it, I would lay down my life for my brothers and sisters. Even if they barely know me, if they see me get hurt, they come running. Sometimes you don’t need a hero, but a bigger, badder monster.
As this excerpt clarifies, CO Anderson’s feelings of trust and connection with his peers are strong. Other officers agreed. CO Carter said, “As staff we try to be a family so we can all walk out at the end of each day” and CO Ramirez remarked, “They [coworkers] are your ride or die. They will jump in a fight with you.” These staff perceive their coworkers as a necessary form of protection against violence.
The ‘How’: Forming and Fracturing Relationships
Despite the numerous ways in which staff describe benefiting from strong relationships, they also focused attention on the ways varying factors shape—and oftentimes fracture—their relationships. Of the 171 people who commented on coworker relationship quality, 54% described their relationships as not good or mixed and 46% believe their relationships to be good. Looking at state differences, two states have particularly poor relationships; 80% of Nevada staff and 78% of Pennsylvania staff describe their coworker relationships as bad. Two states had more positive relationships than others; 61% of Michigan staff and 67% of New York staff described their relationships as good. Staff working in the remaining states equally described their relationships as good or bad. This suggests that relationship quality varies across states. However, the remainder of this analysis presents people’s experiences in the aggregate because the issues described below were brought up in every state and in every facility. Notably, there are no remarkable differences between jail and prisons staff’s perceptions of relationships, suggesting that jail and prison staff share a similar experience regarding relationships.
Relationships are shaped by demographic characteristics, personality characteristics, and organizational factors. Demographic characteristics, such as age, race, and gender, shape people’s interactions with one another and often create divisions that lead to “cliques” or a small group of friends. Personality factors include laziness and gossip, while organizational factors include position (custodial vs. non-custodial), rank (line, middle management, and upper administration), staffing shortages, turnover, inadequate hiring standards, and a lack of training. The following section describes how these factors influence negative relationships and relationship “cliques” or small groups of friends.
Demographic Characteristics
Age and tenure
Staff reported a clear divide between younger, newer staff and older, senior staff, affecting workplace relationships. While opinions about relationships varied across age groups, those aged 40 to 49 viewed them most negatively—64% of the 42 staff in this range described their relationships as not good. A similar trend appeared with tenure, with 61% of staff with 10+ years of experience describing their relationships as mixed or bad. Older staff often attributed this divide to a generational gap. They described younger staff as lazy, disrespectful, and lacking commitment. Supervisor Conroe stated, “The older guys prioritize earning a living, being devoted, and are dedicated to the work. The younger guys have no commitment, [are] more likely to call out sick, abuse sick time, little things like that.” Supervisor Barlowe noted, “It’s hard to supervise some of these guys that are my son’s age . . . I just don’t understand them as well. They weren’t born when I started.” Ms. Levine added, “They’ll give ultimatums and threaten to leave if they don’t get their way. It makes it harder for all of us . . . we’re just trying to work hard and do our jobs.” Some viewed younger staff as unprepared, with CO West stating, “When you’re dealing with this level of mental health, young staff don’t know how to handle it.” Supervisor Jenkins shared, “19-year-old boys supervising 34-year-old grown men is not a great idea. The boy lacks maturity. They need to be able to actually do the job.”
Conversely, young staff described older, tenured staff as stubborn, arrogant, and guarded. CO Kelly said, “They think they can get away with it . . . they don’t want to do it because it takes time.” Ms. Adams noted, “They don’t always listen to us younger people when we try to explain the correct way to do things.” Young staff also felt excluded, with Ms. Harper explaining, “It reminded me of going back to high school where people are like ‘we have been here longer, you’re a newbie’ . . . It’s like you have to pass this initiation and they have to deem you worthy.” These conflicting views reveal how staff often socialize with those of similar age or experience.
Race
Some staff noted that race affects their workplace relationships. Several described “racially tense” environments where staff mainly associate with coworkers of their own race. This was most common in Texas prisons, where recent recruitment initiatives brought in many African immigrants. One CO observed, “It is racially divided, most don’t get along . . . you can feel the tensity in the room,” while another noted, “At my old unit, it was the Nigerians vs. the Americans.” Racial issues are not limited to Texas. Across states, non-white staff experience microaggressions, and some described incidents of overt racism in the form of “racial cliques.” Ms. Lopez, a non-white staff member, described feeling isolated due to this, “They treat you like you’re an animal in the zoo . . . When I first got here, they’d ask me if I speak Spanish . . . They always wanted me to translate. I don’t speak Spanish . . . But I was always asked.”
On the contrary, some staff admit to using racism to bond with coworkers. CO Jackson, who identifies as White, said, “You can make racist jokes with your friends. One guy is from Puerto Rico, and we call him ‘Mexican’ or ‘Wall Climber.’” While we do not know how this particular Hispanic man perceives this “joke,” it is an overt example of racism that potentially also affects bystanders who hear it. In addition, some staff believe that language barriers and “the race card” affect their own ability to do their jobs. For instance, CO Forest stated that “There are language barriers here with the newly hired staff, and that can cause issues” and Ms. Diaz believes that “They need to hold staff accountable. They’re afraid to say things because of the blowback, for example to a person of color who might play the race card.” These instances show how race affects relationships among coworkers, and specifically, that racist attitudes often prevent institution-wide camaraderie.
Gender
Gender led to a divide among coworkers, with many women feeling ostracized, harassed, undervalued, and often unsafe around their male colleagues. Of the 71 women who discussed their relationships, 56% described them as troubled, especially with men. Women often supported one another, with Supervisor Bernard noting that women “share stories with each other and learn from each other. We talk about how women cannot let the male officers protect you. We tell women to thank them but let them know that you can handle it.” This may be because men feel as though women depend on their advice or guidance. For example, CO Blanchard believes, “There’s a time and place when a male is needed. Women handle situations differently. They’re more vulnerable in this profession. They look to us males as leaders. They feel safe with us. You can take pride in that.”
Other women spoke about how men did not value their input. Ms. Hodge said, “There is no grace with women like there is for men . . . Men don’t like to be told what to do and they think they can just talk to you however they want.” Harassment was another common issue. Ms. Meyers stated, “I don’t have problems with inmates . . . It’s the male staff I have a problem with and feel unsafe around.” Ms. Lopez agreed, adding, “Women go to the men’s pod . . . but the men harass them. Not the inmates, the male COs.” Such experiences left many women feeling they had to “prove themselves.” Ms. Meyers remarked, “I do my job and do it well, but I still have a target on my back.” Ms. Lopez added, “They act like we can’t do their job, but we do it better.”
However, some women saw other women as part of the problem. Supervisor White said, “Women . . . need to learn how to hold their own . . . Women are, honestly, their own worst problem. They have created a situation where they look weak and lazy.” CO Leap echoed this, “Some women have gotten complacent with inmates . . . that only makes it harder for the rest of us.” Whether man- or woman-initiated, this gender divide often prevents collaboration and solidarity.
Personality Characteristics
People’s personalities also shape relationships. Personality factors include job laziness and propensity for gossip. Participants blame “lazy” staff for interrupting proper implementation of daily duties and for sometimes making their jobs more dangerous. For example, CO Monroe said, “Some are just lazy. For example, they don’t do in-and-out at the right time or they won’t do security checks and they won’t strip search” and CO Jackson stated, “My coworkers give me more stress than the inmates. They don’t do enough. They don’t have anything else to do and they still don’t do enough.” Other participants point out that some staff try to avoid their duties, like CO Daniels who relayed that, “A lot of staff will go hide in the bathroom so they don’t have to work, and the supervisors just ignore all that stuff.” CO Hughes also shared that during COVID, “staff would abuse sick time and leave,” ultimately leaving other staff scrambling to make up for their coworkers (unnecessary) absence. This inattentiveness caused many staff undue stress and led to safety concerns. CO Maya spoke to the experience of many when she said, “You work with people who put your life in danger every day . . . And you can’t beat their ass for putting you in danger.” This lack of confidence undermines the security function of relationships.
Staff also discussed a lot of staff members who gossip and create unnecessary workplace drama, which fosters divide. In fact, Mr. McGill shared that he trusts “less than 50 percent of the staff [because] the officers talk about [him] behind [his] back.” Other staff offered more detail, like Supervisor Markel, who said, “People in here are nice to your face and backstab you and throw you under the bus.” Gossip often led to “cliques” or small groups of friends which does foster certain relationships but ultimately prevents camaraderie among all staff.
Organizational Factors
Finally, relationships are inevitably shaped by organizational factors, including position (custodial vs. non-custodial), rank (line staff, middle management, or upper administration), staffing shortages, turnover, inadequate hiring standards, and a lack of training.
Position
Custodial and non-custodial staff in our study often experience strained relationships, with 57% of custodial staff and 48% of non-custodial staff reporting poor relationships. This tension primarily stems from a divide between the two groups rather than conflicts with direct coworkers. Non-custodial staff often feel devalued, perceiving that custodial staff prioritize security over treatment. As Mr. Purnell explained, “Security and treatment are at odds with each other as far as how things can run . . . There is a philosophically driven difference of opinion.” Ms. Walker offers an example, “We know that lockdown just makes people’s mental health worse, but [custodial] staff say it’s necessary for safety, and that we’re putting them at risk by asking them to stop locking people down.” She emphasized that while they can sometimes move past these differences, “some staff here are really difficult to interact with.” Mr. Holiday shared a more severe experience, stating, “COs will try to act like other staff are insignificant. They make comments like ‘you’re just pussy counselors.’” Such attitudes reinforce divisions between custodial and non-custodial staff, hindering a unified work culture.
Rank
Staff members’ rank appeared to influence their relationship quality. Staff in middle-management positions (e.g., sergeants, lieutenants, and supervisors) experienced greater strife than line staff or upper administration. Middle managers, who must balance competing demands from upper-administration and line-staff, overwhelmingly (79%) perceive their relationships with coworkers to be negative. Middle managers focused on how understaffing, turnover, and personality issues (e.g., stubbornness, laziness) affected their relationships. Other middle managers discussed how becoming a supervisor has created a divide between themselves and line staff. Supervisor Dunfey said, “I can pretty much work with anyone but becoming a supervisor has made that harder. The officers treat me differently now and feel like they have to be careful around me or they have become distant.” It is worrisome that this group of employees, who influence daily operations and unit culture, feel disconnected from their coworkers.
Staffing shortages
Staff noted that staffing shortages have decreased camaraderie, increased stress, and disrupted support among coworkers. CO Kelly shared that “People are cutting corners because they feel overwhelmed because of the short staff” and CO Cosgrove said, “We are so short on staff . . . we don’t have enough people to cover each other’s backs.” Other staff described the pressure administration was placing on them to properly do their jobs with limited staffing, like CO Kipnis who said, “When one person has to do the job of two people, the administration complains that not everything is done or done correctly . . . we’re not given all the resources we need.” CO Kipnis spoke to the experience of many when he described the pressure he is under to perform well with limited resources, which in turn worsens his relationships. In addition, non-custodial staff noted that staffing shortages are interrupting their ability to provide resources to incarcerated people. For instance, Ms. Walker explained, I have to tiptoe in asking for certain things from detention officers because they now have to do everything—they have their normal duties, now plus programs, plus all this other stuff that they didn’t use to have to do. You can see the frustration on their face when you go in there and ask them for something, they have so much on their plate.
Ms. Walker feels as though she is bothering custodial staff when she asks for their assistance. From her view, this creates a divide between custodial and non-custodial staff. Moreover, stress from staffing shortages is often compounded by burnout due to mandatory overtime, which is instituted because of unfilled positions—creating a vicious cycle. CO Stevens said that the administration has “the probability of pushing the staff over the edge with all that overtime. They are exhausted, tired, and are not as supportive.” CO Phillips echoed a similar sentiment, relaying “I have more problems with my coworkers than inmates . . . [people] are tired and stressed. I worked 16 and a half hours yesterday and several other days.” Being unable to rely on staff for practical and safety support often led staff to feel resentful of their peers.
In addition, staff share that the COVID pandemic severely exacerbated staffing shortages, compounding an already difficult situation. The strain of covering shifts due to frequent staff absences led to increased overtime and widespread exhaustion. Some staff also reported that hiring has stagnated since COVID, with fewer new recruits and prolonged hiring and training delays. Supervisor Wilson explained, “Everyone is tired of everyone. Being tired is kind of a regularity now . . . COVID stopped it all. The hiring stopped. The training stopped. At one point, we had 16 officers out on COVID with 14-day quarantines.” Hiring and training stalled, leaving facilities struggling to recover. However, despite these challenges, COVID also fostered adaptability and camaraderie among staff. Employees who had never interacted before worked together in new roles, with non-uniformed staff assisting in the kitchen. Many demonstrated a willingness to step outside their usual duties. In these ways, the crisis highlighted the staff’s resilience and strengthened some workplace relationships.
Turnover
Staff consistently mentioned that turnover had a negative impact on their relationships. Ms. Meyers explained that “Morale here is terrible. Everybody is jumping ship and interviewing elsewhere. It’s very toxic.” This also ties back into the age/tenure divide—older staff do not see value in getting close to young staff because they believed they were likely to quit soon. For example, CO Davis told our team that staff are “like a family back here, but that bond is kind of broken when people leave . . . I’m more likely to stick it out, but there’s nothing really tying [young staff] here.” The COVID pandemic fueled staff turnover, creating a “perfect storm” of factors pushing employees to leave. Long hours, severe staffing shortages, health risks, and dissatisfaction led many to resign or retire. As a result, COVID not only worsened staffing shortages but also accelerated turnover, making it even harder for facilities to maintain stable operations. The frequent turnover described by Ms. Meyers and CO Davis, among others, left staff feeling as though there was no purpose in forming new relationships. This suggests that relationships do not even stand a chance because they are (often) never pursued to begin with.
Hiring standards and training
Staff felt that poor hiring standards and inadequate training left them without reliable support from coworkers, undermining safety. Many believed new hires were often unqualified, citing poor social skills, negative traits, and lack of fitness. CO Baker warned, “They’re pushing people through that have no business here . . . They need to vet people, or they are going to get someone killed.” Supervisor MacDonald echoed this, saying, “There is no agility testing anymore . . . This puts everyone at risk . . . It lowers trust and you keep wondering if someone is gonna have your back.” When staff doubted their coworkers’ competence, it strained relationships, as mutual support is a foundation of workplace bonds.
Regarding training, staff blamed institutional and state administrations for not properly training staff. CO Cramer criticized the state academy, stating, “We need a lot stricter academy . . . They come out to us and they’re illiterate.” Supervisor MacDonald noted that at the facility level, “It’s too easy to just float here . . . There are too many lazy staff.” CO Kipnis discussed how many new hires do not gain necessary working experience in the academy or on the job, relaying that “Some don’t even intervene when there’s a code and just stand there and watch, or even hinder the response process or stop another responder from coming in. Sometimes they freeze up too.” COVID further disrupted training, with in-service sessions canceled and cadet training reduced, leaving staff without critical skills. The combination of poor hiring and disrupted training created an unprepared workforce, eroding trust among coworkers.
The ‘So What?’: Outcomes of Relationships
As outlined above, various factors shape relationships, which, when disrupted, can interrupt their security, practical, and social support roles. Here, we explore how the factors described above influence organizational and personal outcomes.
Staffing shortages, laziness, and inadequate hiring standards and training severely affected people’s feelings of safety, which in turn affects their perceptions of their own well-being, stress, burnout, and job satisfaction. Many felt physically at risk, blaming coworker inexperience or incompetence. Staffing shortages were a central concern, raising safety fears and lowering morale. Supervisor Porter noted how staffing shortages create tension, recalling that “When it was fully staffed it used to be camaraderie with long term bonds . . . we were like family. Now it’s like in-and-out. It is hard to develop bonds.” Supervisor Markel explained that low morale and staffing shortages lead to decreased job commitment, saying, “I try to care but my coworkers say why do you even do that?,” while Supervisor Dunkel echoed, “I just come to work and go home. The general consensus is morale sucks.” These excerpts demonstrate how staffing issues reduce camaraderie, which in turn lowers job satisfaction and heightens stress.
Demographic factors like age, tenure, race, and gender appear to indirectly influence organizational outcomes via the ways in which they unify some staff and isolate others. For instance, older staff struggle to trust younger coworkers, increasing their stress and reducing their satisfaction, while younger staff feel disrespected by older colleagues, creating a challenging work environment. Job characteristics (e.g., position and rank) also shape job satisfaction. Custodial and non-custodial staff often maintain good relationships within their own staffing groups but struggle with each other, leading to a poor working environment and lower satisfaction. Middle managers face heightened stress and reduced satisfaction due to handling the challenges of understaffing, turnover, and personality issues.
Finally, relationship quality appears to directly influence turnover intention, with negative relationships increasing the likelihood of leaving and positive ones encouraging retention. Mr. Arnold noted, “People don’t last when they have personality and attitude issues,” suggesting that non-team players often leave. Some staff also leave due to specific coworker issues; for example, Ms. Lopez said that “There used to be two others [people of color]. One left because he couldn’t handle all the requests to translate and the questions.” CO Ramirez expressed plans to leave, citing a lack of trust and safety, saying, “nobody cares about the officers or safety.” Conversely, positive relationships inspire retention. For instance, CO Munich said, “The relationships I have with my coworkers make me wanna stay” and CO Graves said “At times I hate it, but it’s never bad enough . . . My relationship with my coworkers is like a family. I can’t leave this family.” These examples highlight how relationships drive turnover intentions.
Discussion
This article unpacks how and why coworker relationships exist among carceral staff and the outcomes of relationship quality for staff and their workplace perceptions. Examining why relationships occur is a fundamental aspect of understanding workplace relationships (Sias, 2008). Building on prior carceral research, we find that staff rely on coworkers not only for security (also documented by Palmen et al., 2022), but also for practical and social support—areas that have been largely overlooked in previous studies. By delineating the different types of support, we highlight that staff depend on each other for more than physical protection.
Understanding how relationships are affected is also a crucial aspect of understanding these relationships (Sias, 2008). We find that relationships are affected by demographic, personality, and organizational factors, leading to sub-groups and limiting institution-wide camaraderie. Some of our findings align with prior literature, while others are novel and prompt areas for future research. Our findings about race, gender, and staffing shortages align with prior research. To elaborate, prior research describes how carceral staff favor working with others of the same race (Camp et al., 2001; Morgan, 2018). Staff in our study describe “racially tense” environments where staff associate mainly with coworkers of their own race, echoing these earlier findings. Likewise, studies have captured a gender divide and issues between staff of the same gender (Compton & Brandhorst, 2021; Crawley & Crawley, 2013; Rader, 2005). Women in our study describe similar experiences, including feeling ostracized, harassed, and undervalued by men, and many also had issues with other women. Finally, prior research (e.g., Martin et al., 2012) draws attention to the negative impact of staffing and resource shortages on staff well-being and organizational outcomes, and our findings build upon this discussion by exploring how these factors influence relationship quality. This research also adds to the growing literature on the impact of COVID-19 on carceral environments by highlighting the (mainly negative) impacts of COVID on staff-coworker relationships. On the contrary, our findings about age, tenure, gossip, laziness, position, rank, turnover, and inadequate hiring standards and training are novel. To the best of our knowledge, these phenomena have not been extensively studied or explicitly discussed in the existing literature on carceral coworker relationships. These findings introduce new areas for future study. For instance, age and tenure could be further explored, particularly as recent hiring initiatives bring younger, less experienced staff into carceral environments. By considering how relationships are formed and fractured, we fill a critical knowledge gap.
Finally, coworker relationship quality has numerous implications for personal and organizational outcomes (Sias, 2008). We find that when relationship functions are disrupted and staff feel in conflict with their coworkers, many describe experiencing heightened stress, decreased job satisfaction, lower job commitment, increased intentions to quit, and burnout. These outcome findings align with prior organizational (e.g., Andrews et al., 2024; Simon et al., 2010) and carceral (e.g., Cheeseman Dial & Johnson, 2008; Lambert et al., 2016, 2021) scholarship. However, our work goes beyond that of prior scholarship by considering three questions, (a) why does the connection between relationship quality and organizational outcomes occur? (b) how are relationships formed to begin with? and (c) how do relationship-forming factors (and coworker relationship quality broadly) directly or indirectly affect personal and organizational outcomes? Through our focus on how demographic, personality, and organizational factors influence relationship quality, our analysis builds on prior studies such as Lambert and colleagues (2016) which have found that diminished coworker relationships are related to poorer organizational/personal outcomes. By addressing these questions, we gain deeper insights into the impact of coworker relationships on personal and organizational outcomes. Our findings underscore how popular conceptualizations of coworker relationships limit knowledge growth because they do not consider how the environment and other influences shape relationships. We hope that these findings inspire researchers to consider the intricacies of coworker relationships and the implications of this for their findings.
Practical Implications
This work highlights areas for policy and practice change within carceral settings. If administrators are interested in increasing camaraderie, they could target organizational factors. While demographic and personality factors are typically static, our research suggests that improving organizational factors like hiring standards and training may improve relationships. Administrations may also improve coworker relationships by utilizing the numerous trainings, webinars, and/or eLearning courses on leadership and teamwork in carceral settings. These practices also benefit administrations as we find that improved relationships may decrease turnover and raise job satisfaction. This may help alleviate the staffing shortage that is plaguing institutions across the U.S. (Heffernan & Li, 2024) and also reduce turnover-related organizational costs (Cloutier et al., 2015). In addition, in the face of staffing shortages, some institutions may feel it necessary to lower training and hiring standards. In several states we studied, carceral systems are hiring individuals without high school diplomas and with little/no experience. Placing individuals like these into environments where staff already have, at times, strained coworker relationships only exacerbates an already debilitating problem. While administrators must balance hiring competent applicants and filling necessary positions, our findings suggest that hiring unqualified candidates will likely decrease safety and staff camaraderie, which carries many negative outcomes, including turnover. To improve staff culture and relationships, carceral organizations may consider adopting or improving staff mentorship programs (e.g., pairing custodial and non-custodial staff) to facilitate understanding/appreciation of each other and improve teamwork. Finally, administrations could work to ensure effective mediation of issues among coworkers through improved training of mid- and upper-level supervisors and creation of a robust mediation committee.
Limitations and Future Research
This research has several limitations and identifies important topics for future studies. First, while our study sites spanned several states and facilities, the results from this study are not generalizable for all states and all facilities. Moreover, our findings are reflective of the experiences of the staff in our sample. Staff whom we did not interview may have different experiences and perspectives. Future research could investigate this further and see if any additional “how,” “why,” or “so what” findings emerge. Second, there are likely other functions, influential factors, and outcomes of coworker relationships that were not discussed by staff in our study, and scholars should explore this further. Third, we did not directly ask staff what factors they believe influence their relationships or how their coworker relationships influence personal and organizational outcomes. While this came up organically in many conversations, future research could explore this in more depth. It also would be practically useful to understand staff perspectives on ways to improve relationships, which we did not inquire about. Future research could consider asking for staff insight into this practice change.
Conclusion
This study explores why coworker relationships exist among carceral staff, how these relationships are formed and fractured, and the personal and organizational outcomes of relationship quality. We find that staff depend on strong relationships for security, practical, and social support. Relationships are influenced by demographic, personality, and organizational factors. When staff feel disconnected from their coworkers, they often feel lower job satisfaction and job commitment and higher job stress and turnover intent. Some of our findings align with prior literature, while others are novel and prompt areas for future research. Above all, our research suggests that coworker relationships are highly variable, and we hope that researchers consider the implications of this when making sense of their findings.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note:
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose. The funder of this study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of this manuscript. This research received funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (15PBJA-22-AG-00031-MUMU).
