Why Leadership Styles Require Adjustment in Different Prison Environments

Why Leadership Styles Require Adjustment in Different Prison Environments

There are numerous policies and measures in law enforcement. In different departments, there is various documentation describing every possible scenario that offers are likely to face in the line of duty. The aim of implementing the different diligent guidelines is to minimize the exposure to liability which officers encounter every day (Lee, 2019). The possible liability that officers may have from correctional leaders may include legal liabilities, such as in the use of Neck Restraints. It is considered a valuable but controversial method for the use of force that is employed by the correctional personnel. The method is vital when correctional officers are near suspects or prisoners. While it can be very effective, it requires motor skills training, and attempts at such holds without proper training can turn an improperly applied hold into an air choke (Lee, 2019). This is especially the case when a subject attempt to resist the hold, such as by attempting to turn around, inadvertently putting pressure on their airway when none was intended. When improperly applied, neck restraints can turn into chokeholds and restrict the intake of breath can and have, in some instances, resulted in tragic consequences, including death or permanent disability.

There are also likely causes of civil liabilities. Jails and prisons are constitutionally mandated to provide adequate medical care to those in their care since prisoners and detainees cannot seek medical treatment on their own (Vaughn, 1997). Deliberate indifference to the need for treatment of a known serious medical problem can result in civil liability. Several cases have made it clear that included in this requirement is the treatment for eye and vision problems.

Why Leadership Styles Require Adjustment in Different Prison Environments

Correctional environments require officers to be flexible in their methods of management. Correctional officer leadership is often fluid according to the situation (Gonzalez, 2018). Relationships between inmates and correctional staff are central to institutional security, and while inmates are strongly grouped by ethnic similarities, correctional staff must identify in some manner to establish relationships among inmates. Leadership is contingent on the situation, and different situations will require different forms of leadership.

The inmates assigned to a specific security level facility usually assume a distinct behavior appropriate to their facility environment. Thus, creating different behavior patterns different from another facility, for instance, individual inmates in maximum security camps assume different traits from minimum-security camp (Gonzalez, 2018). Thus, supervisors must also alter their leadership styles when dealing with such camps.

Different correction facilities are managed by different policies. The policies in a given correction facility might not match the leadership style employed in another facility. In this case, there will be a need for the officer to change their leadership styles in accordance with the established policy in a specific correction center (Gonzalez, 2018).

It is also clear that different correction facilities have different cultures. These cultures are either developed by the inmates or the officers, and they influence the kind of leadership that operates in these institutions (Gonzalez, 2018). For instance, there are correction facilities that every communication between an inmate and officer occurs through yelling. In other facilities, yelling does not match the inmates’ behavior patterns (Gonzalez, 2018). Thus, these situations will require alteration in the leadership style to match the environment.

How to Handle Officers’ Ethical Issues, Such as Not Reporting Inmate Altercations as Required

The correction department expects of its members’ unfailing honesty, respect for the dignity and individuality of human beings, and a commitment to professional and compassionate service. Correctional officer codes of conduct and ethics outline expectations for treating prisoners as well as for fostering professionalism among facility staff and within correctional departments. It is vital to understand that no officer is perfect. We all make mistakes. Sometimes we realize we have made a bad decision or done something we should have done differently. If an officer presents an ethical issue such as a lack of report for altercations issues within the facility, as a correctional leader, I will seek out the reasons for this and plan corrective action, for instance, demotion (Ross, 2013). Again, the code requires correctional officers and others to report unethical behavior to the proper authorities.

Most correctional leaders are naturally timid about reporting the deviance of coworkers. Those who choose to remain silent often do so out of fear of retaliation from fellow officers and administrators. Once members consider a colleague to be a snitch, that individual may find himself or herself without the necessary support in dangerous situations. One major deciding factor comes into play when correctional leaders anticipate that not reporting their colleagues’ deviant behavior may later wind up implicating themselves; in such a case, the correctional leader may feel a stronger obligation to inform appropriate-level superiors of an infraction (Ross, 2013).

From a strictly moral or ethical point of view, the failure to report an act of deviance can be almost as bad as committing the act in the first place. Most codes stress that employees have a duty to report infractions. Some ways are better than others for the reporting of violations of norms, policies, and practices. Face-to-face or confrontational situations are not always the best means and methods of communication. The more experience a correctional leader has ways to report wrongdoings so that they will not be caught in an undesirable situation in the future (Ross, 2013). Sometimes, this may mean talking to the offending person in private.