# Leadership in Canadian and French high security prisons expectations and perceptions

Martine Herzog-Evans, Rosemary Ricciardelli, Jérôme Thomas

► To cite this version:

Martine Herzog-Evans, Rosemary Ricciardelli, Jérôme Thomas. Leadership in Canadian and French high security prisons expectations and perceptions. European Journal of Probation, 2023, 15 (3), 10.1177/20662203231212600. hal-04293308

HAL Id: hal-04293308

https://hal.science/hal-04293308v1

Submitted on 9 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Leadership in Canadian and French high security prisons expectations and perceptions

European Journal of Probation
2023, Vol. 15(3) 189-217

© The Author(s) 2023

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/20662203231212600

journals.sagepub.com/home/ejp

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Sage

**Martine Herzog-Evans**

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Université de Reims-Champagne-Ardenne, France

**Rosemary Ricciardelli**

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada

**Jérôme Thomas**

Université de Reims, France

## Abstract

The literature has yet to study the ideal type of prison leadership in the eyes of frontline staff. Methodologically, most studies draw upon written questionnaires distributed to governors, not to their staff and analyse their data without using management or human needs theories. This study contrasts with the extant literature inasmuch as it is comparative (France/Canada) and draws upon Appreciative Inquiry interviews. It also draws upon three strands of literature and their variables: the general theory of management, self-determination theory and legitimacy of justice-procedural justice theories. The study finds that French and Canadian prison officers have needs in areas uncovered in this literature: competence, relatedness, autonomy, general fairness, respect/dignity and care. Our samples have mixed feelings about their local hierarchy; they are very critical regarding their national hierarchies. Prison officers describe their managers as being essentially either laissez-faire or as transactional. Limitations and institutional policy implications are explored.

## Keywords

Prison officers, prison governors, self-determination theory, legitimacy of justice, leadership

**Corresponding author:**

Martine Herzog-Evans, Law Faculty, Université de Reims, 57 bis rue Pierre Taittinger, CS 80005, Reims
51100, France.

Email: martineevans@gmail.com
Introduction

It has been said that ‘the management of prisons is an intriguing and largely unexplored subject for study’ (Coyle, 2008: 231). The relevant strands of literature (management studies, prison studies and legitimacy of justice studies) regarding prison leadership remains scarce (Bryans, 2000) even though prison governors are key actors in keeping prisons orderly, clean and safe (DiIulio, 1987, 1991; Herzog-Evans, 1998).

Most research on prison governors has focussed on their professional satisfaction. Initially DiIulio (1987, 1991) found both the classic importation (individual) and the environment hypothesis influenced job satisfaction. Cullen and colleagues (1993) surveyed United States (US) governors in 1989 and found that 90% were satisfied with their job and were significantly more satisfied than their prison officers (hereafter POs).

The literature has also investigated governors’ views on a number of subjects, and, for instance, rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 1993), supermax prisons (Mears and Castro, 2006) or prison rape (Moster and Jeglic, 2009). However, this literature may be outdated in view of the systemic changes – notably New Public Management (NPM)/Managerialism/ McDonaldisation of Society phenomenon (Ritzer, 2021) and austerity policies (Ismael, 2020) – which have affected non-anglophone jurisdictions from anglophone nations. In the United Kingdom (UK), Carlen (2002) has described a ‘deluge of paperwork’ ending in the shredder and leading to a ‘confetti revolution’ (Carlen, 2002: 37), a great number of rules, standards and financial targets (also see: Phillips, 2011) and a pyramidal system where the main rule is ‘never to embarrass the minister’ (Carlen, 2002: 31). This has also led, according to Bennett (2015) to increasingly tight managerial control over governors. These nefarious changes, although not necessarily universal (Cheliotis, 2006), have become a ‘global phenomenon’ (Pivaty and Johnston, 2023a: 1). They have affected, for instance, Belgium (Kennes and Van de Voorde, 2015), New-Zealand (Dale, 2006), China, England and Wales, France, Greece, the Netherlands, (Pivaty and Johnston, 2023b) and Australia (Hall, 2017). The managerial metastasised cancer (Klikauer, 2013) is now hard to resist (Cheliotis, 2008), although, in the Anglo-Welsh context, significant individual variations were still perceptible just 15 years ago (Ibid). In some jurisdictions, such as Greece (Chioti-Chotouman, 2023) and France (Dubourg, 2015), these trends are more recent, and they take place in vastly different contexts to those of anglophone jurisdictions. In particular, managerialism in French criminal justice (CJ) and corrections started to take hold at the end of the 1990s, but really spread as of 2001 with a managerial financial act (Chatelain-Ponroy and Sponem, 2008) in a historically highly bureaucratic and centralised environment (Suleiman, 1974; Knapp and Wright, 2006), where the state, its technocrats (Fougeyrollas 1960), its bureaucracy and its branches are worshipped (Murphy, 2014). These historical traits have accentuated managerialism’s dystopian nature and negative impact. In corrections, managerialism explains in part why so many French governors leave the profession (Bessière, 2014) or, when they do not, choose to embrace self-centred and ‘protective professional practices’ as opposed to their core business of public safety and rehabilitation (Garcia, 2014: 41; Coura, 2013).

Managerialism has also spread to Canadian correctional services, where, as in France, it takes the form of micro-management of staff (Poirier et al., 2008). However, this ‘new
world' did not have a historical tradition of dystopian bureaucracy like France. It notably emerged in the early 1990s within the police (Ontario, 1992) and has been tied to innovations in government practices (e.g. related to technology and staff accountability; Kaul, 1997). The essence is the introduction of new forms of surveillance being embedded in 'opportunities' provided under the introduction of NPM (see, e.g., Sanders and Langan, 2018). Despite these interpretations, research on NPM related to prisons in Canada is limited, if existent.

Nevertheless, another consequence of managerialism is the reduction of the quality of governors' leadership (Dale, 2006). NPM affects governors like the frontline staff (Riter, 2021), by depriving them of their autonomy (Bessières, 2017), deskilling and distancing them from both their frontline staff and the landings as they have to spend their time in their office dealing with bureaucracy for which they are accountable (Dale, 2006; Coura, 2013).

Thus far, the literature has primarily focussed on the advancement of managerial prison practices from a management perspective, notably examining the roles of prison governors. However, scholars have yet to explore the expectations of POs in a context that is, both traditional (e.g. prisoner violence) and evolving (managerialism) in relation to their leadership, although prison management is 'primarily... about people, staff and prisoners' (Coyle, 2008: 241). Rarely do such studies ask, 'what makes a good governor' (Crewe and Liebling, 2015: p.3) and much less how what their staff expectations are in this regard. If one ventures beyond anglophone shores, the PO literature has become quite vast (Benguigui et al., 1994; Gras, 2007; Guilbaud, 2020) and diverse (e.g. Denmark: Kolind, 2015; Korea: Koo and Kim, 2006; and Spain: Güerri, 2020; Hernández Martín, Fernández Calvo, Ramos Campos and Contador Castillo, 2006). Yet, scholars have yet to examine the ideal type of prison leadership in the eyes of frontline staff. The perspective of practitioners on their frameworks is vital information within the managerial context, as it has the potential to induce professional stress and challenge professional identity (Jacobsson et al., 2020). Moreover, some have argued if front-line staff perceive managerialism and bureaucatisation are increasing, then it becomes essential to support their psychological capital and well-being (Dudeau, Kominis & Brunetto, 2020).

Most studies on the subject have focussed on English-speaking jurisdictions. Additionally, studies relating to prison management tend to investigate governors' governance, or coping (e.g. Barry, 2020), with the exclusion of regional or national commandment.

Methodologically, most studies draw upon written questionnaires distributed to governors themselves, not to their staff, and many ask neutral or negative questions. Very few of these studies have investigated middle management (but see Brookes et al., 2008). Moreover, the studies are usually conducted within one jurisdiction only. Lastly, with a few exceptions (Slate and Vogel, 1997) studies do not work within the framework of an empirically supported theory.

We want to address all these gaps. First, in contrast with previous research, the present study asks what POs' perceptions of their local, regional and national managers are, and how this compares with their perceived ideal management style. Second, to do so, we conceptualise prison management as including local governors and commandment staff,
regional/state and national/federal management. Third, we use qualitative interviews with POs rather than a questionnaire and we interview governed staff rather than governors.

Fourth, we draw upon comparative interviews using the same grid, in both Canada and France. Comparative work, a requisite element in academic discourse (Cavadino and Dignan, 2006) ‘is a research strategy that transcends divisions and established territories’ (Dupré et al., 2003: 7). As Jucquois (2000) argued, comparativism is simultaneously methodology, epistemology and ethics. We use it as our method by drawing upon validated theoretical models, with the goal to contribute to the theoretical and ethical understanding of prison management issues. A comparative approach can help comprehend the rapidly evolving field of criminal justice and prison studies. In this regard, particularly essential is to delve into non-Anglophone jurisdictions, which are prevalent in penological literature. The contrast between Anglophone and non-Anglophone countries can unveil both common trends and fundamental differences, challenging any artificial belief in the universality of specific penological or professional (Lallement and Spurk, 2003) phenomena. Specifically, it is useful to see the impact of the global managerial movement on leadership, with variations and nuances, to possibly resistant agents. Therefore, and following the recommendations of Nelken (2010), the present study brings together authors from two jurisdictions, one Anglophone (Canada: Author 2), the other Francophone (France: Author 3), as well as an author (Author 1) who possesses a deep understanding of both the Anglophone and non-Anglophone worlds. For our data to be comparable we conducted our study in a similar type of prison setting, that is, a high security establishment set with a colourful history and much interconnection between staff and the community within which the prison exists.

Lastly, we use Appreciative Inquiry techniques (Liebling et al., 1999), as part of a wider research pertaining to values, coping, and legal socialisation (Herzog-Evans and Thomas, 2021a, 2021b), so as not to contaminate our interviews with a critical posture and to give our interviewees a chance to contrast what they experience with what they aspire to experience. Fifth, we draw upon three strands of literature to analyse our data: the general theory of management, to understand which type of leadership is intrinsically the best; self-determination theory (SDT), because our data consistently reveal the utmost importance of fundamental human needs; and, finally, legitimacy theories as they apply to the criminal justice system insofar as they have points of contact with SDT and management theories and add key variables.

# Literature

## Management theories

Management is a descriptive term, which refers to the tasks managers must embrace while leadership suggests that managers possess certain skills. Leadership is the term of choice for theorists, referring to ‘the process of influencing others to work towards goals’ (Dale, 2006: 99). Leadership includes (Northouse, 2016) group processes (the group within which the influence is exercised) and is about personality traits (the ability to exercise such influence) and behaviour (the behaviour that makes influence possible).
The difference between management and leadership also pertains to attitudes. In a prison context, managers tend to focus on security, control, accounting, and accountability. They relate to people in role terms and are formal in their interactions. Conversely, leaders make others feel competent, strong, committed, empowered, and enthusiastic. They are inspirational and forward thinking (Cohn, 1998; Powls, 1990; Wright, 1991). Thus, a leader must possess certain traits such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability (Northouse, 2016). They must possess human and spiritual qualities (Fairholm, 1998) and make employees feel valued.

Management theories include a range of models. The first modern typology, by Lewin, Lippitt and White (1939), distinguished between democratic, authoritarian, and laissez-faire leaders. Burn (1978) and Bass (1985, 1990) reformulated this tryptic as transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire (Northouse, 2016). Laissez faire leadership is consistently considered as being the worst type of management, followed by transactional leadership, this, both in terms of job performance (Lai, Tang, Lu, Lee & al., 2020) and job satisfaction (Dumdum et al., 2013).

Essentially, laissez faire managers leave their staff to their own device without guidance, control, or support and are otherwise physically absent. Laissez faire management is just as detrimental as need thwarting behaviour (Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2023). Transactional leadership evokes classic operant conditioning theory: either relying on monitoring, control and sanctions, or on rewards and incentives. Self-determination theory shows transactional leadership is only associated with formal compliance and temporary results, because it externalises motivation, making it dependent on control, sanctions and rewards and disappearing when they are lifted (Kohn, 1993). It also leads to 'social loafing', that is, putting far less effort when individuals are part of a group. Conversely, this does not happen with transformational leaders (TLs) (Kahai et al., 2003). TLs are competent, reliable, do not hesitate to make decisions, and can solve problems that arise. The traits possessed by TLs are idealised influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualised consideration. TLs appeal to values are goal oriented and respect their staff's autonomy. Because TL taps into fundamental human needs, staff performance improves (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Kovjanic et al., 2013; Lai et al., 2020) and satisfaction increases (Lowe et al., 1996; Dumdum et al., 2002). TL also reduces staff stress (Chin, 2007; Harms, Crede, Tynan, Leon & al, 2017).

Organisational culture is to a great degree responsible for the type of leaders recruited and how they can express their leadership style (Kotter and Heskett, 1992; March and Olsen, 1976). To be fully transformational, TLs need their own hierarchy to comprise TLs (Trépanier et al., 2012).

In spite of the specificities of the carceral context, specialised literature has yielded similar results: POs who have TLs suffer from less job stress (Cullen et al., 1985; Waters, 1999; Armstrong and Griffin, 2004). Similarly, governors who feel they demonstrate fewer TL traits report higher levels of job stress (Atkin-Plunk and Armstrong, 2013).

Unfortunately, NPM/managerialism/McDonaldisation have made it difficult for prison governors to be transformational (Crewe and Liebling, 2015). The tight control their own hierarchy exercises upon them, the control, bureaucracy, and paperwork they are smothered with (Carlen, 2002) mean that they either become bureaucrats or 'new public
managers' (Bryans, 2008: 230) distant from the wings (Bennett, 2015), or resist and refuse to 'do their job by the book' (Crewe and Liebling, 2015: 7). 'What this means in practice is that good governors are somewhat under-compliant' (Ibid, 8) and become 'rebel leaders' (Downton, 1973). To our knowledge, unknown is which type of leadership is dominant in correctional services. This question has, however, been empirically tested in US probation, where TL was dominant (Lee et al., 2010).

## Self-determination theory

Since we ask what POs' expectations are, we then turn to the fundamental human needs literature, finding self-determination theory (SDT) is the most validated model. Cross-cultural validations have consistently found that other than immediate needs (eating, sleeping, breathing...) humans have three main needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These needs reflect 'in the deepest sense, the essence of human thriving' (Ryan and Deci, 2017: 5). In practical terms, SDT means that managers must: listen, care, and respect (relatedness); give choice and nurture agency (autonomy); and provide clear rationale when they give orientations and command (competence) (Sheldon and Joiner, 2013). Thus, SDT overlaps with the management theories' understanding of TL. The SDT literature also explains why transactional leadership does not work: it thwarts autonomy by externalising motivation (Gagné et al., 2017). As Judge and Piccolo's meta-analysis (2004) has found, in SDT terms, TL is by far the best form of leadership, because it enhances followers' self-efficacy and self-esteem (competence), their identification with the leader and (work) group (relatedness), and it empowers them (autonomy & competence; Hetland et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2008; Kovjanic et al., 2012).

This literature has been applied in professions close to correctional services. A Canadian study (Otis and Pelletier, 2005) found that the more police officers perceived their immediate supervisor as autonomy supportive, the more self-determined at work and the less stressed they were. Another study, relative to a psychiatric setting found that when managers were trained to be more autonomy supportive staff felt safer and used less restraints with patients (Lynch et al., 2005).

In correctional services, the literature has addressed 'participative' management, a form of TL, but without applying SDT theory. Researchers found participative leadership reduced stress and reduced POS' decision to quit the job (Slate and Vogel, 1997) and that when governors themselves felt more autonomous, they experienced less work-related stress (Leip et al., 2017; Schiff and Leip, 2019).

Outside of the SDT literature, PO's lack of autonomy has also been linked to their emotional exhaustion, feelings of ineffectiveness, and to inmate depersonalisation (Griffin & al, 2012; Armstrong and Griffin, 2004).

## Legitimacy of justice-procedural justice

Since our study focusses on leadership, both the management and SDT literatures are necessary references. However, the correctional context also falls within the realm of criminal justice and, as such, requires us to draw upon another body of literature. In this
regard, one of the most valuable literatures examines not only the expectations of service users and victims and defendants and other service users towards the actors of CJ (De Mesmaeker, 2014) but also those of the practitioners within these institutions in their interactions with their managers (Howard and Wakeling, 2019). The perception POs have of their managers impacts their view of their own legitimacy, which, in turn, affects the extent to which they support prisoner rehabilitation (Akoensi and Tankebe, 2020) and resort to the use of force (Hacin and Meško, 2020). For these reasons, we next turn to legitimacy of justice-procedural justice.

Legitimacy of justice-procedural justice (LJ-PJ) literature originates in Thibaut and Walker's work (1975). They found litigants could be unsatisfied even when they had won their case, a finding which was later consistently validated across different contexts. In turn, Tom Tyler (2006a, 2013) divided LJ-PJ into four principles.

The first principle is Voice, that is, ‘a forum in which [people] can tell their story’ (Tyler, 2013: 21) and can have an active part in the procedure. In the management context, voice means managers have to explain decisions made about staff that bear consequences, and staff can express their opinion. In behavioural terms, voice means practitioners must truly and ostensibly listen to the parties. Thus, in SDT terms, voice is about autonomy and competence.

The second principle is Neutrality. In procedural terms, neutrality means that individuals who are the object of decisions must be treated without prejudice and based on facts (De Mesmaeker, 2014). In SDT terms, neutrality is about relatedness. A third principle, Respect, sometimes referred to as dignity, is essentially behavioural. Respect is very close to SDT inasmuch as it is grounded in relatedness. Said differently, disrespectful treatment activates the brain alarm system (Eisenberger et al., 2003) which causes actors to feel very strong negative emotions. A fourth principle is Care, refers to individuals’ needs being cared for and for carer to manifest good intentions and preoccupation for the person and his/her circumstances. SDT is thus also connected to relatedness.

Overall, when LJ-PJ principles are observed by managers, frontline staff tend to deliver better quality service to users (Knies et al., 2018). Bacha and Walker (2013) found a partial relationship between employees’ perceptions of fairness and TL and that procedural and interactional fairness were strongly associated with TL.

## Why a reliance on these three literatures?

In reflection, we found it was necessary to anchor our qualitative data within a robust theoretical framework. Such a framework could not solely be derived from prison studies. Validated models related to management and human behaviour in both prison and CJ contexts were required to truly nuance our findings. In response, these three literatures, although distinct, complement each other, and their findings corroborate one another.

Although they originate from entirely separate literature, LJ-PJ principles are interconnected with SDT principles. Specifically, Voice relates to both respecting individuals’ autonomy (they can actively participate) and respecting their competence (they are capable of doing so), while Respect is primarily connected to Relatedness (it signifies the inclusion of the individual in the relevant human group). The literature has extensively
demonstrated how adhering to SDT principles is correlated with professional well-being (Van Den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, 2016)) and that intrinsic motivation (in the SDT sense: Gagné and Deci, 2005; Gagné et al., 2017) to comply with orders and instructions is linked to procedural fairness. These two literatures, in turn, have extensively intersected with that related to leadership (e.g. Huyghebaert-Zouaghi et al., 2023; Hough et al., 2010), as such we refer to all three.

## Research questions

Our main goals were to ask Canadian and French POs working in the difficult high security environment, which type of management they wanted and whether they benefitted from such leadership.

## Method

The present article is based on wider research initiated in 2016 at the request of the Ministry of Justice of France. A highly politicised decision had been made to close a historically (in)famous high security prison located in the countryside within the walls of a former monastery (hereafter The Abbey). The Ministry gave us the task to document The Abbey's POs' unique professional experience' before it disappeared into the abyss of history. In 2018, we elected to replicate the study in a maximum-security prison in an Atlantic Canadian province, which we referred to as 'Glenwood'.

In both locations, with the active help of criminal justice students, we conducted semi-structured interviews. We were authorised to tape record these interviews, which were transcribed verbatim. The perception of the local, regional or national managers by POs was one of the themes exploited in our questionnaire and could therefore be explored in depth. For consistency between samples, we created both a French and a Canadian code book.

To constitute our samples, we used primarily a snowball method. All the interviews took place onsite. The full French sample comprised 20 POs (F-PO1 to F-PO20), two senior officers (F-senior PO1 and F-senior PO2), two higher middle managers (F-MM1 and F-MM2), two prison governors (the current one and a former one), and a retired 80-year-old former officer. Our sample mostly comprised male officers (85%), which is representative of the PO population. If one excludes the retired 80-year-old PO, the average of their professional experience was 19.4 years, 16 of which on average at the Abbey Indeed, it is generally experienced POs who work in high security prisons.

The full Canadian sample included 25 POs, of whom eight self-identified as female and 17 as male. They had worked from 29 years to 2 years as POs, with most having worked at the local prison, Glenwood, for the duration of their occupational tenure. The average age of respondents was 41, with the youngest participant being 26 and the oldest 63 years of age.

For our interviews, we used a themed qualitative interview grid that the first author had developed in 2011 for a previous investigation (Herzog-Evans, 2015a, 2015b). Using this tool, the questions were categorised into domains, each corresponding to one of the values
uncovered by Liebling in Prison and their moral performance (2004) and her further studies (e.g. Liebling et al., 1999). AI is a ‘strength-based approach’ (Liebling, 2015: 252) to qualitative research which relies on ‘the power of the unconditional positive questions’ (Ibid, 253). Thus, we systematically asked our questions in a positive manner, asking, for example, ‘what is a good prison governor?’ The interview grid explored POS’ perceptions of and experiences with local and higher management.

To code our data, we constructed and used a manual codebook. The codebook was initially developed in the French language and then translated into English. The codebook encompassed the themes we intended to explore and also revealed, as interviews were conducted on both sides of the Atlantic, new themes or subthemes emerging over time. Subsequently, we utilised the theoretical models presented in the ‘literature’ section to categorise the findings within the framework of the key variables identified by these models, doing so in a comparative manner.

# Findings

## *Expectations*

We first turn to the management literature. Not a single interviewee referred to criteria corresponding to transactional or laissez-faire management. Of the TL elements cited, notably absent were references to clarity of goals, moral alignment, and intellectual stimulation. However, interviewees regularly drew attention to various dimensions of competence (i.e. general proficiencies, decision-making, problem-solving, and protecting POs' safety) and character (i.e. authority, credibility, role-modelling, confidence, and honesty).

Regarding competence, POs frequently referred to general proficiencies tied to the administrative role; they expected managers to possess management skills like being ‘well organised’ (C-PO24) and ‘good at multi-tasking’ (C-PO 15). Interviewees expected their superiors to manage the prison population, through decisions such as visitation rights, disciplinary sanctions, and so on as part of their skills:

> He’s someone who knows how to manage his prison population, that’s for sure (F-PO7).

Other skills included managing staff:

> Well, a competent officer… It’s someone who knows how to manage a team of POs. That’s it for a start. And that’s not easy… (F-PO1)

Some French POs expressed, as scholars have demonstrated (Chauvenet et al., 2008) that managing POs is harder than managing the prisoner populations:

> the most difficult thing is to manage the staff… the time he takes to deal with personal conflicts, the nafs, and so on, is time he doesn’t have to manage the [institution]’.(F-PO3)
To be successful at managing both populations, managers must understand what their staff's job entails and must exude comprehensive institutional knowledge:

> Well, somebody who has a large amount of knowledge about the institution and the gist of the job. (C-PO20).

Frontline staff understands that being a competent manager is a challenging task. They also agree with the TL literature which considers that a competent leader is one who 'is a team leader' (C-PO 15) and '... a decision maker...' (C-PO1). POs also expect their superiors to have problem-solving skills that result in actionable items:

> cares and ... gets shit done! (C-PO21)

> [the good manager] will [immediately react to] the smallest thing (F-PO7)

Ideally, across samples, staff want to be able to count on their leaders and thus for their leaders to be present whenever necessary:

> Whatever the circumstances are, be with his staff if there's a problem (F-PO6)

Our samples felt that to be able to count on their leaders, leaders had to come from the rank rather than through external routes – in France both options exist.

> One or two times we had a situation where the super intendent was an outsider. Coming in it never worked well. It always created drama amongst the ranks. (C-PO3)

> I come from the ranks... For me it's important... because if an officer has a problem on a landing, well I may have experienced it too (F-Senior 1)

In Canada, however, others find it near impossible to make change or modernise correctional practices when management is overly ingrained in the workings of the current prison.

Risk is inherent to the PO occupation (Ricciardelli et al., 2021; Ricciardelli and Power, 2020). Precisely, a crucial dimension of competence in TL terms pertains to staff safety. In this respect, a good manager is defined as someone who is expected to prioritise staff safety above all other consideration:

> There's more officers being assaulted. And that's our number one... and I certainly think that people that come to work here deserve it more than anything (C-PO4)

At the Abbey, risk is understood as being part and parcel of the job and there is a fatalistic approach to adverse events which are enshrined in Great history itself and have thus become part of the identity of the setting (Herzog-Evans and Thomas, 2021a). What is thus expected from managers is to prevent situations from becoming volatile.
[a good senior] is someone who is able to pacify situations in a peaceful manner (F-PO3)

Inevitably, then, seniors and higher managers must not shy away from getting physical and from being seen in the wings and landings:

> He cannot be afraid of the prison population. We've seen some of them who were afraid...
(F-PO14)

Protecting staff is also about guiding them through rough or uncertain times:

> ... lead you correctly through the worst times" (emphasis added) (C-PO3).

Both samples then turned to character. Unsurprisingly, they referred to martial, militaristic, and even macho/stoic characteristics. They first mentioned authority. Being authoritative is both a character trait and a skill and can be proven through action. In other words, a transformational prison leader, as in other militaristic contexts (Brunacini, 1985; Keegan, 1987), is one whose competence is expressed through command and character.

> It's someone who's operational in crisis situations. That's when you see people, what their true values are... (F-PO4)

Whilst in Canada, charisma (TL) is linked to decision making and leadership towards the staff, in France, the vision of the chief manager is more paternalistic and traditional (e.g. 'He knows how to command, and knows how to give us a beating whenever necessary' (F-PO11)). They are a militaristic leader with gallons, stripes, and virile strength:

> [Someone] who blows up the stripes but in the right way, not unnecessarily (...) who has a grip, who leads men. I've also known some who were pussies (F-PO4)

> You have to lead men... Eehm, it's not a war in a way it's [a war] F-PO5

French PO unions fought to obtain status equality with police officers and gendarmes and are very attached to the outward signs of this equality:

> [proudly] I have a uniform that now resembles that of my colleagues in the police or gendarmerie... it is... important to have a uniform, and you have to know how to wear it well.
(F-Senior PO1)

A present but not as prominent theme in the Canadian sample, POs also wear military-like uniforms and badges and, like their French counterparts, seniors are referred to by military terms such as superintendents or captains. The paramilitary correctional culture also has macho underpinning, evidenced in that every single answer given to us relative to superiors in the French sample was through the use of masculine gender 'he/him'.
Another character trait expected from prison leaders is being a role-model. This, too, is part of the TL literature (Bass, 1985, 1990):

A competent senior is someone who leads by example... (F-PO6)

In both French and Canadian settings, many POs live nearby with their families. Thus, POs tend to refer to long retired historical mentors who represent points of comparison with more recent managers, the latter paling in comparison.

When I see former boss, who've retired a long time ago, but he's still my boss, I mean, he's still one of my references (F-Senior PO1).

Next, and attached to TL charisma, is confidence:

Well, I mean he has to be confident as well. (C-PO11)

POs also refer to honesty (which in TL terms relates to integrity – Bass and Riggio, 2006)

I believe that the person who has, is able to do their job effectively, correctly and honestly at the end of the day is a- is a good senior officer. (C-PO3)

We now turn to the SDT literature and the three main human needs. Thus, first, good leaders nurture intrinsic autonomy. However, in the highly constraining and militaristic prison environment, the need for autonomy was not frequently mentioned. When it was, it was described as the ability to delegate and listen to staff:

A person who does not delegate all its work to POs, but who, precisely... comes and sees us, and asks how, how's it going on the wings and what's our take on this (F-PO12)

Thus, it is also about another SDT component, competence. Here, competence refers to nurturing and adequately leaning on staff's skills and strengths.

He [the senior] knows how to recognise each POs' competence... weaknesses and strengths and to use these weaknesses and strengths (F-PO16)

SDT literature has found that feedback should generally speaking be positive. Both French and Canadian POs seem to regret that when they do good, they are not praised or encouraged.

you know, you're like 'oh, you're doing a good job' (C-PO18)

If inevitable, negative feedback generally thwarts intrinsic motivation as it is perceived as punitive. There are, however, ways of limiting its negative impact: the feedback
statement includes instructional details on how to improve; criterion-based standards are used; feedback is delivered in-person. Prisons are settings which, generally speaking, nurture extrinsic motivation through sanctions, and to a lesser degree through rewards. Our sample did refer to the need to give negative feedback in person, and accept that feedback might be stern but should not be humiliating:

> we do not do this job to be broken...unless we do deserve it (F-PO19)

The third SDT component is relatedness. Here, leaders are expected to generate team spirit and teamwork:

> A good senior is someone who connects [people] (F- senior PO 2)

> They are also expected to embody relatedness by being approachable:

> Somebody... who's approachable and who's there not just... as a body in another building somewhere (C-PO20)

Lastly, we turn to the LJ-PJ literature and its four components. Interviewees did not spontaneously mention the more procedural components of LJ-PJ, and when voice was referred to, it was, in actual fact, in connection to respect and care. Therefore, three components emerged strongly from our sample: Fairness in broader terms; respect; and care.

Generally speaking, LJ-PJ is a literature about Fairness. Fairness was extremely important to our interviewees. One dimension of fairness which was repeatedly referred to was consistency, which was also related to safety, and the need for certainty. Consistency was also mentioned relative to fairness. Our interviewees wanted consistency regarding how staff was treated by management:

> There's no consistency in how they treat different people and different scenarios. There's no leadership I don't think. (C-PO 14).

> So long as he's consistent, eehm, then the troops follow (F-PO5).

However, if interviewees aspire to consistency and predictability, quite contradictorily they want somebody who does not blindly follow the rules. Thus, they want a 'super leader' (Bass and Riggio, 2006) or a 'servant' leader (Greenleaf, 1997), who understands how to enforce, but at times, bend the rules, if only to make them enforceable. This is consistent with previous sociological and legal literatures (Chauvenet et al., 1994; Herzog-Evans, 1998).

A competent governor is someone who listens, who does not stupidly implement norms, without having given it some thoughts (F-Senior PO1).
POs had much to say about the LJ-PJ component of respect. Respect includes ‘dignity’, which is described in great detail by a French middle manager who refers both to what she expects from herself and what she expects from the governor and other superiors. Her words echoed what we heard from French POs, who are very attached to formal military presentation and labelling:

> The other half [of the job] is to be clean, to speak, to communicate, to have a good vocabulary... not necessarily strongly but sternly... We represent our institution. (F-MM 1).

In the French sample as well as Canadian, POs expect to be recognised individually, to be greeted, appreciated, and acknowledged, which is a central component of both individual consideration in the TL literature and respect in the LJ-PJ-T literature. In France, this includes the sacred use of ‘bonjour’ when greeting staff members. In the French culture, not saying bonjour is extremely disrespectful. This bonjour has to be meaningful and to be validated by tone, words and body language.

> As far as I am concerned, a good governor is one who says bonjour and who asks, ‘are you OK?’ and who looks me in the eye’ (F-PO15)

In both samples, respect was connected to loyalty. Loyalty means clearly siding with POs; not with prisoners. This is an important part of the ‘them and us’ prison culture where siding with one prisoner means being disloyal to the whole prison staff community (e.g. Chauvenet et al., 1994; Herzog-Evans, 1998) even when prison staff do wrong. Thus, loyalty and respect mean, as mentioned before, backing POs no matter what:

> she’s gonna back you one hundred percent (C-PO7)

> I mean when we did something stupid, when we made a mistake or something stupid in the landings, he would support us (F-PO11).

Perhaps less controversial, is LJ-PJ component ‘care’, which also points to the core of SDT human need for relatedness. Care has several interpretations in English: care about; care for; to be under the care of. Thus, care is about attitude, feelings, responsibility, and action. Probably because of the machismo culture we did not hear a lot about feelings; but we did hear about attitudes and action.

Regarding attitudes, whereas the word care cannot be translated into French, proxies are ‘écoute’, and ‘à l’écoute’ which refer to actively listening, paying attention to, and been available. Ecoute is probably also correlated to voice, in LJ-PJ theory. Ecoute was plebiscited by the vast majority of the French sample.

> It’s someone who listens [à l’écoute] to his staff; who must be present (F-MM2)

> This aspect of care was also present in the Canadian sample:
Either professionally or even personally, I feel like they should have an ear for you (C-PO17)

At a more subtle level, being à l'écoute is also about LJ-PJ respect and about SDT competence: the managers make themselves available to POs because they respect their professional skills and show that they listen and take action.

someone who... who listens [à l'écoute]. As soon as there's a problem and you go and tell him 'So, this inmate here, this or that has happened', he listens and takes it into consideration (F-PO2)

Listening also represents a form of telepathic ‘sense’ or understanding of what goes on and what his/her staff feels and needs, without the need for formalities. What is expected is pragmatic responses. Paperwork and rules are paradoxically, for a law enforcement corps (Herzog-Evans and Thomas, forthcoming) disrespected and dismissed by POs. Thus, responding in kind would be perceived as a sign of disrespect towards them:

> It's the senior who listens and when you tell him, he does not need to write it down (F-PO9)

In a similarly pragmatic and no-nonsense fashion, care and écoute are also about organising a system where people can easily access managers. In Canada an ‘open door policy’ was mentioned as in France, albeit in a slightly more formal way:

> I mean if there's a problem, even a personal one regarding what goes on in the outside world, we ask him for a one-to-one meeting and he gives us one (F-PO10)

Expectations, whilst formal and concrete are nonetheless quite high and, as we have seen, somewhat contradictory. As such, are they met in practice?

## Perceptions

Generally speaking, we found that French and Canadian POs were usually happy with their local managers, baring a few individuals, but, in France, were strongly unsatisfied with their national hierarchy – a similar finding to Author 1, 2011 study (Herzog-Evans, 2015a, 2015b).

On the basis of leadership theory, we found both positive, but also negative responses. Some managers were credited for being hands on, pragmatic, and problem-solvers, but this was presented in contrast to others:

> There are many who are happy when he is there, because they know that he, he will jump in at any time, whenever there is a problem (F-PO7)

Bearing in mind that both samples were located in similar high security prisons safety was a constant concern. Canadian POs expressed that their leaders did not to put in place the procedures which would protect their safety:
I mean there are incidents down there where you know they need—our emergency response team need to be deployed....The place is almost falling apart down there (C-PO19)

The feeling, unfortunately, was that the institution as a whole, and the hierarchy in particular, did not care about their safety. For instance, C-PO14, like others, voiced concerns about drones and contraband being thrown over the fence, feeling that staff safety was far from the concern of management who had yet to introduce related policy. He also spoke of staff writing to the former Justice Minister with a strategy to reduce the introduction of contraband through mail, but 5 years later, his request was still unanswered.

Such lack of concern and action eroded staff trust in management and created more vulnerabilities in an already high-risk occupation. For their part, roughly half of our French sample related safety issues to the loss of the 'Good Olde Days':

> Regarding strip searches... I say that we've gone backwards... with the POM [Portail à Ondes Milimétriques: Millimètre Wave Portal] (F-PO17)

That being said our sample was evenly divided, with other POs appreciating the added human dignity:

> [POMs] are usually used, so strip searches and pat down searches, it's only if there's ground for suspicion... and that, for starters, is a good thing for human dignity... (F-PO 18)

In Canada, interviewees had negative viewpoint of Good Olde times and seemed to prefer modern approaches:

> You know like so there's not really room- you know new ideas... this place has been running for the past 200 years, whatever you know, pretty much the same (C-PO18)

Nevertheless, Canadian POs were not expecting new ideas to come from the top; they wanted their own ideas to be put in place. Like their French counterparts, they dismissed so called novelty coming from the top:

> there needs to be somebody who actually puts forth into what correctional officers actually do (C-PO23)

Occasionally, an individual manager contrasted with this general apathy and was plebiscited:

> I mean this person we had, eehm, time passed and, eehm, there's been no riots, no nothing (F-PO13)

POs stated that some managers would get their hands dirty and took physical risks, in line with the machismo culture, but this was rare:
Some people [are] like: 'yeah well we gotta go in and we gotta fuckin pile buddy up in a cell'. But then when the time comes, they're like right in the back there. (C-PO12).

In France, the Abbey governor recounted an event, in a previous prison, where he personally took a serious risk to his life but was chastised by his own hierarchy for doing so. It thus seems that French prison managers are caught between a rock and hard place. Female officers are expected to display similar physical courage:

> I have an example in mind, a woman, and I never saw anybody better than she was (...). She was fresh out of university... She would know how to act on the ground (F-senior PO 2)

LJ-PJ components yielded far more spontaneous responses from POs then SDT components, particularly the three LJ-PJ behavioural (rather than the procedural) components: General Fairness, Respect, and Care.

Generally speaking, our Canadian sample was quite negative regarding general fairness. The following PO speaking to senior management at HMP, describes management as wanting:

> [her] hands in everything, but sometimes she's not fair and I think she has – this is all like she has a few particular people that she doesn't like, so she's not fair. (C-PO4).

Here, accusations of favouritism relate to the exact opposite of neutrality. Additionally, we saw previously how POs conceptualised fairness in terms of consistency. They deplored that there saw very little of it:

> There's no consistency in how they treat different people and different scenarios. (C-PO14)

This dimension was rarely mentioned in the French sample which, conversely, referred to respect. If, regarding one particular governor the feeling, generalised, was that he was rather disrespectful:

> [about the governor]) At first, when we took our shift, he would say bonjour, now he turns his head, and I don't like that (F-PO7)

In general, POs were quite happy with their hierarchy's formal dignity (e.g. 'It's someone who really knows how to speak' (F-PO7)) and respect in the sacred form of 'bonjour' (e.g. 'Apart from that, when she comes to our wing, she comes and says hello. So, it's not much, but it's important for POs. It's a mark of respect' (F-PO11)).

Respect, like care are individual dependent and change in management can have considerable repercussions (Herzog-Evans, 1998). In France and Canada, interviewees were at times happy, at times dissatisfied.

When I passed the competitive exam, she [the deputy governor] sent me a little email (F-PO7)
I got injured two years ago... never had a phone call from a manager while I was off... It was just like, pretty well, you're—go fuck yourself, kind of thing... I didn't ask for much...
(C-PO25)

In this militarised and stoic masculinist context, we can hypothesise that some managers are not comfortable with showing care for their staff. Although POs working in high-security facilities, such as those in our sample, are at risk of suffering severe attacks and trauma, they complain that their superiors are generally indifferent to the consequences of such attacks:

> Our managers don't give two fucks about us, man (C-PO14).

> And there was something that really shocked us with my colleague: we went out [after going through a hostage situation], and we were all alone. We were the last two and we were completely abandoned (F-Senior PO 2)

At a less traumatic level, care is also about ensuring POs' working conditions are decent:

> So, he [the governor at the time] got electricity installed, got rid of the wood stove. He got radiators installed along with water, both hot and cold (F-PO13)

In France, prisons are usually in very poor condition, but high security prisons are typically better kept. When we conducted our interviews, the Abbey had just been refurbished for a sum total of 12 million euros, even though it had been decided to close it down by December 31, 2022.

In the Canadian setting, the prison itself, which is to be replaced, was, conversely old, mould infested, and deplorable (Poirier, et al., 2008). Nearly all interviewees referred to challenges within the physical prison environment comprising silver fish, rats, mice, mould, lead, and poor air quality.

> We're the ugly stepsister of the Department of Justice. We're the one who nobody cares about. We have vans that have eight hundred thousand kilometres on it, and they won't replace it. (C-PO9)

Canadian interviewees spoke of managements inactions with 'fixing things' as another way management compromises staff safety.

> most things that we need and a lot of that stuff is even for safety of officers and inmates. But they don't come up with most times they don't come up with the money. (C-PO8)

At a psychological level, whereas some individual managers did not meet the écoute expectation, others did:
She truly listens [à l'écoute] ; She really cares when we are in trouble. So, I mean I had problems, I got a transfer and then did not want it anymore. She helped (F-PO11)

## National hierarchy

We now turn to POs' expectations and perception of their national hierarchy, in Canada, referring to the role of the provincial government in their conditions of work. The national hierarchy yielded the most negative comments on the part of both samples. If at least some individuals were lauded locally, national (or federal) or regional (state level) hierarchies are typically considered as being impersonal and cannot prove their worth in the field. With the bureaucratic and managerial trend in place in most western world jurisdictions, higher management is perceived as only pushing for evermore rules and constraints which are disconnected from reality and as showing disrespect and lack of care for local staff. Here, local managers and local staff share the same fate:

> Frankly, personally, I sometimes wonder whether they listen [are à l'écoute] [laughter]... I mean there comes a point where one must travel, see people, see prison premises. Because... you cannot lead in this way if you actually do talk to people' (F-senior PO2)

Likewise in Canada, the perception is that the former justice Minister is not hearing POs' voices, and occasionally uses them for political gain and publicity:

> Every time he comes down here it's just to whether it's a photo-op or you know if there's an election, something new coming out. They don't listen to corrections (C-PO10)

Like their French counterparts, Canadian POs expect their higher hierarchy to listen, and this means delegating and trusting the locals. Higher authorities may be needed to implement wider change – but mostly they are expected not to meddle in local affairs (and this also goes to the SDT need for autonomy) as they unfortunately do in the NPM/ Managerialism era:

> I think government and departments are putting their hands in too much of the day-to-day operations. (C-PO 21)

As the aforementioned literature has pointed out, there is some level of awareness that local management tries its best to raise concerns with their own higher hierarchy, which also falls on deaf ears:

> I'm sure upper management is voicing their concerns on a daily basis as well (C-PO11)

This could contribute to the fact that they tend to be happier with their local bosses than with their national hierarchy. In France, POs felt that national hierarchy had proven its inability to care and listen, when they had decided to close The Abbey, creating huge trauma, family disruptions, and unemployment in the area (Herzog-Evans and Thomas,
2021b). Meanwhile, in Canada, politicians have decided to build a new prison (which may never actually materialise):

> It's a, it's a political move really (C-PO20)

At an individual level, in France, POs would lament that they would receive a lame letter from their headquarters or a medal when they nearly escaped with their life an adverse event, but they would not be praised for more regular successes:

> I passed the competitive exam [to become a senior officer] and [they] never sent me an email to congratulate me. Little things like this, well they do get to you. (F-PO7)

## Conclusion/discussion

We set out to uncover what the expectations of a total of 45 POs, 25 Canadian and 20 French POs and 8 senior officers or middle managers working in high security settings were regarding their local and national management. Secondly, we wanted to know whether their perceived reality met their expectations. Using appreciative inquiry (AI), we asked open ended questions: ‘what is a good manager?’; ‘what is a good governor?’

We found that French and Canadian POs spontaneously referred to some of the needs which have been uncovered in the three strands of literature, management theories, SDT, and LJ-PJ which were our analytical compass for this study.

Regarding SDT, interviewees essentially focused on competence and partially on relatedness; and far less on autonomy. Regarding LJ-PJ, interviewees mostly mentioned general fairness, respect/dignity, and care; and when they mentioned voice and neutrality this was essentially by reference to care and respect, rather than as separate entities. Regarding the leadership literature POs mentioned some of the more pragmatic attributes of TL (competence, management, knowledge, decision-making, and problem-solving) and character traits (authority, role modelling, confidence, and honesty), but left out perhaps higher aspects such as value alignment, goals, idealised influence, and inspirational motivation or intellectual stimulation.

Conversely, POs were specific in describing what the TL component of competence entailed: the leader would keep their staff safe, allow them to have decent work conditions, and get their hands dirty. This also reflected, in these highly volatile environments a need for certainty, bearing in mind that when individuals trust authorities, they are more tolerant of uncertainty (Tyler, 2006b, see also Ricciardelli et al., 2021). They thus expected their local hierarchy to display command, a TL competence component that is specific to prison and other militaristic settings (Brunacini, 1985; Keegan, 1987). Command was necessary to prevent and react quickly and adequately to danger. Like authority, command was also linked to the hypermasculine stoic prison culture. Perhaps, then, at a more theoretical level, future researchers might well also refer to the Need for Closure literature, which demonstrates that individuals exposed to danger tend to look for authoritarian figures and contexts which provide them with the certainty which danger reduces (Kruglanski and Webster, 1996). This may explain why, in spite of the expressed
need for ‘écoute’, collaboration and respect, prison staff need strong figures, who will provide them with much-needed closure (Jackson, 2015). Additionally, because they find themselves in life and death situations on a regular basis, and unpredictably so, POs may well be more sensitive to very basic needs (Doyal and Gough, 1991) and notably to the need for personal safety. As Maslow put it many years ago, so long as such basic needs are not met, other more refined needs may remain dormant (Maslow, 1943). At a more prosaic level, another explanation might be that POs’ militaristic environment being extremely constraining, POs have an acquired external locus of causality, meaning their volition is mostly extrinsic (Ryan and Deci, 2017).

Overall, our Canadian and French samples had similar expectations. In both juris-
dictions, these expectations appeared at times contradictory, with, for example, the need
for authority and enforcement, but at the same time, as the literature has shown
(Chauvenet et al., 1994; Herzog-Evans, 1998) and again (e.g. Morrison and Maycock,
2021), the desire for rules to be, in some cases, bent. In contrast, we did notice a stronger
penchant for change in Canada, compared to a desire to stick to tradition and paternalism
in France.

Generally, our two samples had mixed feelings regarding their local hierarchy, re-
flecting how strongly local hierarchy can depend on individual leadership (Herzog-Evans,
1998). Conversely, they were very critical regarding their national hierarchies which
perceived as lacking effective leadership in terms of overall governance (funding; bu-
reaucracy; closing their prison; modern technology), as being disconnected from the
ground, and as lacking care for local staff. POs described their actual managers as being
essentially either laissez-faire, notably by being absent from the wings, or, conversely, and
at times, as being transactionally focussed on control and sanctions. Some individual
managers, however, appeared to embody part of the attributes of transformational leaders.

Another finding is that our two samples’ POs did not seem to be aware of the managerialism shift of public services in general and in prisons in particular. They were, however, indirectly conscious of what they saw as disconnected bureaucratic nonsense and how it affected themselves and, to a degree, their local leaders.

Our findings must nonetheless be taken with precaution. Our study was qualitative and
exploratory in nature. It only pertained to two prison settings and both were high security
establishments. Additionally, we focussed on expectations and personal impressions; we
did not investigate what our sample’s reality was. In spite of this, our exploratory study
has uncovered interesting theoretical questions pertaining to prison staff needs. We also
feel that the three literatures which were used to analyse our data were particularly useful.
The issue of prison management has become more pressing than ever before, because the
COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the crucial need for optimal management. In particular,
our study findings suggest that what is needed is not ‘simply’ transformational leadership,
and the nurturing of sophisticated human needs, but ‘super’ (Bass and Riggio, 2006) or
‘servant’ (Greenleaf, 1977) leadership (Fernandez and Shaw, 2020) and its core skills
made of decision-making, foresight, care, and community building.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Martine Herzog-Evans https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2437-6753

Rosemary Ricciardelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0905-8968

References

Akoensi TD and Tankebe J (2020) Prison officer self-legitimacy and support for rehabilitation in Ghana. *Criminal Justice and Behavior* 47(1): 22–38.

Armstrong GS and Griffin ML (2004) Does the job matter? Comparing correlates of stress among treatment and correctional staff in prisons. *Journal of Criminal Justice* 32: 577–592.

Atkin-Plunk CA and Armstrong GS (2013) Transformational leadership skills and correlates of prison warden job stress. *Criminal Justice and Behavior* 40(5): 551–568.

Bacha E and Walker S (2013) The relationship between transformational leadership and followers' perceptions of fairness. *Journal of Business Ethics* 116: 667–680.

Barry C (2020) ‘You can’t tell anyone how you really feel’: exploring emotion management and performance among prison staff who have experienced the death of a prisoner. *International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice* 61: 100364.

Bass BM (1985) Leadership: good, better, best. *Organizational Dynamics* 13(3): 26–40.

Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision. *Organizational Dynamics* 18(3): 19–31.

Bass BM and Riggio RE (2006) *Transformational Leadership*. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Benguigui G, Chauvenet A and Orlic F (1994) Les surveillants de prison et la règle. *Déviance et Société* 18(3): 275–294.

Bennett J (2015) Managing prisons in an age of austerity. *The Prison Journal* 222: 15–24.

Bessière L (2014) Carrières et trajectoires professionnelles des directeurs des services pénitentiaires. *Dossiers thématiques*. CIRAP. ENAP.

Bessières L (2017) Les cadres de l'administration pénitentiaire et l'autorité Variation des positions dans l'espace social pénitentiaire. *CIRAP. ENAP. Dossiers thématiques*.

Brookes S, Smith K and Bennett J (2008) The role of middle and first-line managers. In: Bennett J, Crewe B and Wahidin A (eds), *Understanding Prison Staff*. London: Willan Publishing, 262–276.

Brunacini A (1985) *Fire Command*. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association.
Bryans S (2000) Governing prisons: an analysis of who is governing prisons and the competencies which they require to govern effectively. *The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice* 39(1): 14–29.

Bryans S (2008) Prison governors: new public managers? In: Bennett J, Crewe B and Wahidin A (eds), *Understanding Prison Staff*. Willan Publishing, 213–230.

Burns JM (1978) *Leadership*. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Carlen P (2002) Governing the governors: telling tales of managers, mandarins and mavericks. *Criminal Justice* 2(1): 27–49.

Cavadino M and Dignan J (2006) *Penal Systems. A Comparative Approach*. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Sage.

Chatelain-Ponroy S and Sponem S (2008) Comme l'entreprise l'Etat doit adopter une culture du résultat. In: Pezet A and Sponem S (eds), *Petit bréviaire des idées reçues en management*. La Découverte, 257–267.

Chauvenet F, Orlic F and Benguigui G (1994) *Le monde des surveillants de prison*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Chauvenet A, Rostaing C and Orlic F (2008) Violences entre détenus et personnels. In: Chauvenet A, Rostaing C and Orlic F (eds), *La violence carcérale en question*. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 255–314.

Cheliotis LK (2006) Penal managerialism from within: implications for theory and research. *International Journal of Law and Psychiatry* 29: 397–404.

Cheliotis LK (2008) Resisting the scourge of managerialism: on the uses of discretion in late modern prisons. In: Johnston E and Pivaty A (eds), *Efficiency and Bureaucratisation of Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge, 247–261.

Chin J (2007) Meta-analysis of transformational school leadership effects on school outcomes in Taiwan and the USA. *Asia Pacific Education Review* 8: 166–177.

Chioti-Chotouman C (2023) Introducing abstaining from prosecuting and plea bargaining in Greece. Reforms towards the quest for efficiency. In: Johnston E and Pivaty A (eds), *Efficiency and Bureaucratisation of Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge, 55–68.

Cohn AW (1998) The failure of correctional management rhetoric versus the reality of leadership. *Federal Probation* 62(1): 26–31.

Coura B (2013) *Le DPIP face à la prévention de la récidive: l'appropriation délicate d'une responsabilité en évolution*. *Mémoire de recherche et d'application professionnelle*. DPIP, 5e promotion.

Coyle A (2008) Change management in prisons. In: Bennett J, Crewe B and Wahidin A (eds), *Understanding Prison Staff*. Willan Publishing, 231–246.

Crewe B and Liebling A (2015) Governing governors. *Prison Service Journal* 222: 3–10.

Cullen FT, Link BG, Wolfe NT, et al. (1985) The social dimensions of correctional officer stress. *Justice Quarterly* 2: 505–533.

Cullen FT, Latessa EJ, Kopache R, et al. (1993) Prison wardens' job satisfaction. *The Prison Journal* 73(2): 141–161.

Cullen FT, Latessa EJ, Burton VS, et al. (1993) Prison wardens' job satisfaction. *Criminology* 31(1): 69–92.
Dale MP (2006) Probation practice, leadership and effective delivery: a qualitative study of the perspectives of probation officers and service managers in New Zealand probation service. PhD Thesis in Social Work. Palmerston North: Massey University.

De Mesmaecker V (2014) *Perceptions of Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge.

DiIulio J (1987) *Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management*. New York, NY: Freedom Press.

DiIulio J (1991) Understanding prisons: the new old penology. *Law & Social Inquiry* 16: 65–99.

Downton JV (1973) *Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charisma in a Revolutionary Process*. New York, NY: Free Press.

Doyal L and Gough I (1991) *A Theory of Human Need*. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Dubourg E (2015) *Les services pénitentiaires d'insertion et de probation à l'aune de la prévention de la récidive: fondements juridiques, évolution, évaluation et avenir*. PhD Dissertation. Reims: Université de Reims.

Dudau A, Kominis G and Brunetto Y (2020) Red tape and psychological capital: a counterbalancing act for professionals in street-level bureaucracies. *Journal of Professions and Organization* 7: 334–350.

Dumdum UR, Lowe KB and Avolio BJ (2002) A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and extension. In: Avolio BJ and Yammarino FJ (eds), *Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead*. Oxford: JAI/Elsevier, 35–66.

Dumdum UR, Lowe KB and Avolio BJ (2013) *A meta-analysis of transformational and transactional leadership correlates of effectiveness and satisfaction: an update and extension*, transformational and charismatic leadership: the road ahead 10th anniversary edition (monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 5). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 39–70. DOI: 10.1108/S1479-357120130000005008.

Dupré M, Jacob A, Lallement M, et al. (2003) Les comparaisons internationales : intérêt et actualité d'une stratégie de recherche. In: Lallement M and Spurk J (eds), *Stratégies de la comparaison internationale*. CNRS Éditions.

Eisenberger N, Lieberman M and Williams K (2003) Does rejection hurt? an fMRI study of social exclusion. *Science* 302(5643): 290–292.

Fairholm GW (1998) *Perspectives on Leadership. From Science of Management to its Spiritual Heart*. Westport: Quorum Books.

Fernandez AA and Shaw GP (2020) Academic leadership in a time of crisis: the coronavirus and Covid19. *Journal of Leadership Studies* 14(1): 39–45.

Fougeyrollas P (1960) Bureaucratie et technocratie' [Bureaucracy and Technocracy], *Arguments* 4(17): 31–362.

Gagné M and Deci EL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. *Journal of Organizational Behavior* 26(4): 331–362.

Gagné M, Deci EL and Ryan RM (2017) Self-determination theory applied to work motivation and organizational behavior. In: ones DS, Anderson N, Sinangil HK, et al. (eds), *The Sage Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology*. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garcia A (2014) L'évaluation de l'action des SPIP ou la complexité d'une nécessité pratique confronté à une pluralité d'enjeux. Quel impact sur la pratique du DPIP et sur la mission de
prévention de la récidive. *Mémoire de recherche et d'application professionnelle*. DPIP, 6e promotion, 80.

Gras L (2007) *La prison vue de l'intérieur: regards et paroles de ceux qui travaillent derrière les murs*. Albin Michel.

Greenleaf RK (1977) *Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness*. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Griffin ML, Hogan NL and Lambert EG (2012) Doing “people work” in the prison setting: an examination of the job characteristics model and correctional staff burnout. *Criminal Justice and Behavior* 39(9): 1131–1147.

Güerri C (2020) *De carceleros y ayudantes. El rol de los funcionarios de interior en los centros penitenciarios españoles*. Atelier.

Guilbaud F (2020) *La socialisation professionnelle des surveillants de prison 1993–2018: une perspective longitudinale, quantitative et qualitative*. Amiens: Université de Picardie Jules Verne. [Rapport de recherche] 17-07, Mission de recherche Droit et Justice.

Hacin R. and Meško G. (2020) *The dual nature of legitimacy in the prison environment: An inquiry in Slovenian prisons*. Springer.

Hall M (2017) *The Lived Sentence. Rethinking Sentencing, Risk and Rehabilitation*. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Harms PD, Crede M, Tynan M, et al. (2017) Leadership and stress: a meta-analytic review. *The Leadership Quarterly* 28(1): 178–194.

Hernández Martín L, Fernández Calvo B, Ramos Campos F, et al. (2006) Burnout, expectativas de control y afrontamiento en un grupo de funcionarios de prisiones. *Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica* 11(3): 155–164.

Herzog-Evans M and Thomas J (2021a) « He ended up like a merguez sausage » Trauma in a high security prison. Krimonologie – Das Online. *Journal* 3(3): 180–197.

Herzog-Evans M and Thomas J (2021b) Finding beauty in a French rural prisons. How prison officers operate rurality. *International Journal of Rural Criminology* 6(1): 43–64.

Herzog-Evans M (2015b) *Surveillants: Professionnalisme, « bonne distance », soins, écoute et émotions*. Ajpénal, 583–588.

Herzog-Evans M (1998) *La gestion du comportement du détenu. Essai de droit pénitentiaire*. Paris: L'Harmattan.

Herzog-Evans M (2015a) Les surveillants expérimentés: satisfaction, relations, émotions et légitimité professionnelle: tester en France l'appréciative inquiry. In: Mbanzoulou P (ed). *Criminologie et pratiques pénitentiaires: une voie vers la professionnalisation des acteurs?* Les Presses de l'ENAP, 173–196.

Herzog-Evans M and Thomas J (forthcoming). French prison officers' legal socialisation: 'The law, yes, prisoners' rights, no'. In Arnold H, Maycock M and Ricciardelli R (2021) *Prison Officers: International Perspectives on Correctional Work*. London: Palgrave Macmillian.

Hetland H, Hetland J, Schou Andreassen C, et al. (2011) Leadership and fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs at work. *Career Development International* 16(5): 507–523.

Hough M, Jackson J, Bradford B, et al. (2010) Procedural justice, trust and institutional legitimacy. *Policing* 4(3): 203–210.

Howard FF and Wakeling H (2019) Prisoner and staff perceptions of procedural justice in English and Welsh prisons. *Analytical Summary*. HM Prison & Probation Service.
Huyghebaert-Zouaghi T, Morin AJS, Ntoumanis N, et al. (2023) Supervisors' interpersonal styles: an integrative perspective and a measure based on self-determination theory. *Applied Psychology* 72(3): 1097-1133.

Ismael N (2020) Deterioration, drift, distraction, and denial: how the politics of austerity challenges the resilience of prison health governance and delivery in England. *Health Policy* 14: 1368-1378.

Jackson J (2015) Cognitive closure and risk sensitivity in the fear of crime. *Legal and Criminological Psychology* 20(2): 222-240.

Jacobsson K, Wallinder Y and Seing I (2020) Street-level bureaucrats under New Managerialism: a comparative study of agency cultures and caseworker role identities in two welfare state bureaucracies. *Journal of Professions and Organization* 7: 316-333.

Johnston E and Pivaty A (eds), (2023b) *Efficiency and Bureaucratisation of Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge.

Jucquois G (2000) Le comparatisme, éléments pour une théorie. In: Jucquois G and Vielle C (eds), *Le Comparatisme dans les sciences de l'homme. Approches Pluridisciplinaires*. De Boeck Université, 17-46.

Judge TA and Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. *Journal of Applied Psychology* 89: 755-768.

Kahai SS, Sosik JJ and Avolio BJ (2003) Effects of leadership style, anonymity, and rewards on creativity-relevant processes and outcomes in an electronic meeting system context. *The Leadership Quarterly* 14: 499-524.

Kaul M (1997) The new public administration: management innovations in government. *Public Administration and Development* 17(1): 13-26.

Keegan J (1987) *The Mask of Command*. London: Jonathan Cape.

Kennes P and Van de Voorde R (2015) Governing the governors? the impact of new public management on Belgian prison governors' leadership. *The Prison Journal, November* 222: 52-57.

Klikauer T (2013) *Managerialism. A Critique of an Ideology*. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Knapp A and Wright V (2006) *The Government and Politics of France*. 5th edition. London: Routledge.

Knies E, Leisink P and Kraus-Hoogeveen S (2018) Frontline managers' contribution to mission achievement: a study of how people management affects thoughtful care. *Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance* 42(2): 166-184.

Kohn A (1993) *Punished by Rewards. The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, as Praise and Other Bribes*. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kolind T (2015) Drugs and discretionary power in prisons: the officer's perspective. *International Journal of Drug Policy* 26(9): 799-807.

Koo JW and Kim H-J (2006) The factor affecting job stress and psychosocial well-being of prison officers. *International Congress Series* 1294: 175-178.

Kotter JP and Heskett JL (1992) *Corporate Culture and Performance*. New York, NY: Free Press.

Kovjanic S, Schuh SC, Jonas K, et al. (2012) How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees' needs as mediating links. *Journal of Organizational Behavior* 33(8): 1031-1052.
Kovjanic S, Schuh SC and Jonas K (2013) Transformational leadership and performance: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction and work engagement. *Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology* 86(4): 543–555.

Kruglanski AW and Webster DM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. *Psychological Review* 103(2): 263–283.

Lai F-Y, Tang H-C, Lu S-C, et al. (2020) *Transformational Leadership and Job Performance: The Mediating Role of Work Engagement*. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage Open. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019899085.

Lallement M and Spurk J (eds), (2003) *Stratégies de la comparaison internationale*. CNRS Éditions.

Lee WJ, Koenigsberg MR, Davidson C, et al. (2010) A pilot study linking personality, leadership style and leadership success among probation directors in the U.S. *Federal Probation* 74(3): 34–42.

Leip LA, Stinchcomb J, Schiff M, et al. (2017) Job satisfaction and work-related stress: results from a national survey of prison wardens. *Criminal Justice Review* 42(4): 400–410.

Lewin K, Lippitt R and White RK (1939) Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climates”. *The Journal of Social Psychology* 10: 269–299.

Liebling A (2004) *Prisons and Their Moral Performances*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Liebling A (2015) Appreciative inquiry, generative theory, and the ‘failed state’ prison. In: Miller J and Palacios WR (eds), *Advances in Criminological Theory*. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 251–270.

Liebling A, Price D and Elliott C (1999) Appreciative inquiry and relationships in prison. *Punishment & Society* 1(1): 71–98.

Lowe KB, Kroeck KG and Sivasubramaniam N (1996) Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. *The Leadership Quarterly* 7(3): 385–425.

Lynch MF, Plant R and Ryan RM (2005) Psychological needs and threat to safety: implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. *Professional Psychology: Research and Practice* 36(4): 415–425.

March JG and Olsen JP (eds). (1976) *Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations*. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.

Maslow A (1943) A theory of human motivation. *Psychological Review* 50: 370–396.

Mayer DM, Bardes M and Piccolo RF (2008) Do servant leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. *European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology* 17(2): 180–197.

Mears DP and Castro JL (2006) Wardens’ views on the wisdom of supermax prisons. *Crime & Delinquency* 52(3): 398–431.

Morrison K and Maycock M (2021) Becoming a prison officer: an analysis of the early development of prison officer cultures. *The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice* 60(1): 3–24.

Moster AN and Jeglic EL (2009) Prison warden attitudes toward prison rape and sexual assault. findings since the prison rape elimination act (PREA). *The Prison Journal* 89(1): 65–78.

Murphy P (2014) The enigma of capitalism and the French cul-de-sac. *Thesis Eleven* 124(1): 71–89.

Nelken D (2010) *Comparative Criminal Justice: Making Sense of Difference*. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.
Northouse PG (ed), (2016) *Leadership: Theory and Practice*. 7th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ontario. Strategic Planning Committee on Police Training and Education (1992) *A Police Learning System for Ontario: Final Report and Recommendations (Chair-man: D. Scott Campbell)*. Toronto: The Committee.

Otis N and Pelletier LG (2005) A motivational model of daily hassles, physical symptoms, and future work intentions among police officers. *Journal of Applied Social Psychology* 35(10): 2193-2214.

Phillips J (2011) Target, audit and risk assessment cultures in the probation service. *European Journal of Probation* 3(3): 108-122.

Pivaty A and Johnston E (2023a) The move towards efficiency and managerialism in criminal justice. A global phenomenon. In: Johnston E and Pivaty A (eds), *Efficiency and Bureaucratisation of Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge, 1-15.

Poirier S, Brown GR and Carlson TM (2008) *Decades of Darkness Moving towards the Light: A Review of the Prison System in Newfoundland and Labrador*. Retrieved from St. John's.

Powls J (1990) Leaders and followers – training managers and staff for participation and involvement. *Prison Service Journal* 80: 31-33.

Ricciardelli R and Power NG (2020) How “conditions of confinement” impact “conditions of employment”: the work-related well-being of provincial correctional officers in Atlantic Canada. *Violence & Victims* 35(1): 88-107.

Ricciardelli R, Mitchell M, Taillieu T, et al. (2021) Pervasive uncertainty under threat: mental health disorders and experiences of uncertainty for correctional workers. *Criminal Justice and Behavior*. doi: 10.1177/00938548211050112

Ritzer (2021) *The McDonaldization of Society. Into the Digital Age*. 10th edition. Newcastle upon Tyne: Sage.

Ryan RM and Deci EL (2017) *Self-determination theory. Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness*. New-York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Sanders CB and Langan D (2018) New public management and the extension of police control: community safety and security networks in Canada. *Policing and Society* 29(5): 566-578.

Schiff M and Leip LA (2019) The impact of job expectations, workload, and autonomy on work-related stress among prison wardens in the United States. *Criminal Justice and Behavior* 46(1): 136-153.

Sheldon KM, William G and Joiner T (2013) *Self-Determination Theory in the Clinic: Motivating Physical and Mental Health*. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Slate RN and Vogel RE (1997) Participative management and correctional personnel: a study of the perceived atmosphere for participation in correctional decision making and its impact on employee stress and thoughts about quitting. *Journal of Criminal Justice* 25(5): 397-408.

Suleiman EN (1974) *Politics, Power, and Bureaucracy in France: The Administrative Elite*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Thibaut J and Walker L (1975) *Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis*. Erlbaum.

Trépanier SG, Fernet C and Austin S (2012) Social and motivational antecedents of perceptions of transformational leadership: a self determination theory perspective. *Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement* 44(4): 272-277.

Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. *Annual Review of Psychology* 57: 375-400.
Tyler T (2006a) *Why People Obey the Law*. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tyler T (2013) Legitimacy and compliance: the virtues of self-regulation. In: Crawford A and Hucklesby A (eds), *Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice*. London: Routledge, 8–28.

Van den Broeck A, Ferris DL, Chang C-H, et al. (2016) A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. *Journal of Management* 42(5): 1195–1229.

Waters JE (1999) The impact of work resources on job stress among correctional treatment staff. *Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling* 20: 26–34.

Wright KN (1991) Prison leadership. *Federal Probation* 2(3): 5–10.

## Author biographies

Pr. Martine Herzog-Evans (PhD) teaches criminology and reentry and probation law at Université de Reims-Champagne Ardennes, France. Her majors are sentences, probation, prisons and reentry. She has published extensively (see http://herzog-evans.com). She regularly trains CJS practitioners and helps criminal justice agencies develop offender treatment programmes. Her current studies pertain to French Drug Court Programmes and Domestic violence

Dr. Rosemary Ricciardelli is Professor in the School of Maritime Studies, and Research Chair in Safety, Security, and Wellness, at Memorial University's Fisheries and Marine Institute. Elected to the Royal Society of Canada, her research centers on evolving understandings of gender, vulnerabilities, risk, and experiences and issues within different facets of the criminal justice system.

Dr Jérôme Thomas is a lecturer in information and communication sciences at the university of Reims Champagne-Ardenne / IUT de Troyes (France). His work focuses on the forms of expression, speech, and communication that occur in institutions of deprivation of liberty and control, such as psychiatric hospitals and prisons. His research centres on professional practices (psychiatrists and prison officers) as well as on the experiences of patients and prisoners. His methodology is primarily ethnographic and qualitative. In collaboration with Prof. Martine Herzog-Evans, he has published articles on the professional culture of prison officers and on prisoners’ political capital. He has been organising and participating in political debates with groups of prisoners for several years. Currently, he is conducting comparative research between France and Spain on prisoner radios as tools for empowerment and as opportunities for public expression among prisoners, using the concept of a communication contract.