< Previous20 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY 2021). Assuming a projected 10% population growth over the next decade, the total staffing needs for the hypothetical agency would increase to 22.70 staff (a net staffing increase need of 8.70). Discussion In recognition of the historical and current staffing issues in probation and parole, the current study presents an evidence-based and enhanced staffing analysis approach for probation and parole using mixed methods. This novel staffing analysis approach was informed both by the prior literature (APPA, 1991; Burrell, 2006; DeMichele, 2007; DeMichele & Payne, 2007) and guidance from existing staffing analysis models (Miller et al., 2016; Vose et al., 2020). The results from this exercise using hypothetical data have implications for staffing in probation and parole agencies going forward, and a concomitant impact on recruitment and retention. Several of these implications are summarized below. Traditional approaches to staffing in probation and parole agencies focus on a manpower analysis largely based on the size of the caseload and/or budgetary resources. The problem with this approach is that these factors fluctuate over time, and, more importantly, these staffing projections are not rigorous and evidence-based decisions accounting for shift relief factors, differential workload distributions, optimal caseload size, and population growth projections. Agency priorities in regard to workload distributions also matter and need to be taken into account as well, and the evidence-based and enhanced staffing analysis approach does this. Moreover, it allows modifications based on agency-to-agency variations. For example, the number of staff within the same position category may need to be adjusted when performing the analysis if an agency has a lesser or greater number of supervisors, PPOs, and/or civilian staff; if there are staff members with specialized caseloads (such as sex offenders); if some staff work 10- or 12-hour shifts versus 8-hour shifts or work weekends, nights, or graveyard shifts; and/or if shift relief for meal breaks needs to be taken into account. As mentioned previously, PPOs have very challenging occupations, as they have to balance offender supervision and punishment with providing a support system for offender rehabilitation and reintegration. Their multiple, and at times conflicting, demands coupled with high and increasing caseloads raises the likelihood for a host of negative job-related outcomes for PPOs, ranging from burnout to depression to a low sense of personal accomplishment, as described in the introduction. Clearly, applying an evidence-based and enhanced staffing analysis approach such as the one proposed here can go a long way toward addressing the chronic understaffing and excessive caseloads that affect PPO recruitment and retention. Nonetheless, some of the structural issues and mental health challenges facing PPOs can be best remedied by organizational adaptations and innovations. In this regard, it is useful to consider how the COVID-19 pandemic has had and continues to have a profound impact on society and on the criminal justice system (Jennings & Perez, 2020), including community corrections (Viglione et al., 2020). Community corrections was forced to quickly adapt policies, protocols, and agency priorities to promote public health, keep the staff and offenders safe, and continue to manage caseloads. Examples of these dramatic (and innovative) adaptations include decreasing face-to-face supervision practices, implementing tele- supervision (video conferencing, telephone calls, emails, texts, etc.), reducing drug tests, reducing technical violations and revocations, not issuing violations for late fees, and prioritizing the supervision of high-risk offenders (Viglione et al., 2020). While not backing off from prioritization of offender accountability, some of these practices may certainly be worth considering as a permanent adaption to community corrections and caseload management. For instance, the prioritization of high-risk clients, the availability and utilization of tele- supervision practices, and the reduced administrative and paperwork associated with reducing technical violations and revocations for minor non-compliance issues all have the potential to relieve some of the burdens on PPOs. Still, appropriate staffing—and the ability to accurately calculate staffing needs—is still of crucial importance. All in all, the application of an evidence-based and enhanced staffing analysis approach for probation and parole such as the one proposed here has the potential to address a number of the problem areas that in the past have negatively affected PPO recruitment and retention. Applying this improved staffing analysis approach and implementing innovative adaptions versus just doing “business as usual” will allow community corrections agencies to effectively manage their caseloads with evidence-based practices, recruit and retain a high-quality workforce, and leverage and request financial resources to reach optimal staffing levels.21 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY American Probation and Parole Association. (APPA, 1991). Caseload standards: APPA issues committee report. Perspectives, Summer, 34-36. Burrell, W. (2006). Caseload standards for probation and parole. American Probation & Parole Association. Association. Retrieved on December 1, 2021. DeMichele, M. (2007). Probation and parole’s growing caseloads and workload allocation: Strategies for managerial decision making. Lexington, KY: American Probation & Parole Association. DeMichele, M., & Payne, B. (2007). Probation and parole officers speak out--caseload and workload allocation. Federal Probation, 71, 30-35. Finney, C., Stergiopoulos, E., Hensel, J., Bonato, S., & Dewa, C. S. (2013). Organizational stressors associated with job stress and burnout in correctional officers: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 13, 82. Jennings, W. G., & Perez, N. M. (2020). The immediate impact of COVID-19 on law enforcement in the United States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 690-701. Kirk, D. S., & Hardy, M. (2014). The acute and enduring consequences of exposure to violence on youth mental health and aggression. Justice Quarterly, 31, 539–567. Lewis, K. R., Lewis, L. S., & Garby, T. M. (2013). Surviving the trenches: The personal impact of the job on probation officers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 67–84. Miller, J. (2015). Contemporary modes of probation officer supervision: The triumph of the “synthetic” officer? Justice Quarterly, 32, 314–336. Miller, R.C., Wetzel, J.E., & Hart, J. (2016). Jail staffing analysis, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. Ohlin, L. E., Piven, H., & Pappenfort, D. M. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. National Probation & Parole Association Journal, 3, 211–225. Page, J., & Robertson, N. (2021). Extent and predictors of work-related distress in community correction officers: a systematic review. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-28. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 17, 281-335. Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (2016). Moving away from social work and half way back again: New research on skills in probation. British Journal of Social Work, 46, 1131–1147. Schaufeli, W. B., & Peeters, M. C. W. (2000). Job stress and burnout among correctional officers: A literature review. International Journal of Stress Management, 7(1), 19-48. Slate, R. N., Wells, T. L., & Johnson, W. W. (2003). Opening the manager’s door: State probation officer stress and perceptions of participation in workplace decision making. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 519–541. Spiess, G. J., & Johnson, E. H. (1980). Role conflict and role ambiguity in probation: Structural sources and consequences in West Germany. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 4, 179–189. United States. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society: A report. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. Viglione, J., Alward, L. M., Lockwood, A., & Bryson, S. (2020). Adaptations to COVID-19 in community corrections agencies across the United States. Victims & Offenders, 15, 1277-1297. Vose, B.J., Miller, J.M., & Koskinen, S. (2020). Law enforcement manpower analysis: An enhanced calculation model. Policing: An International Journal, 43, 511-523. Wilson, H. W., Berent, E., Donenberg, G. R., Emerson, E. M., Rodriguez, E. M., & Sandesara, A. (2013). Trauma history and PTSD symptoms in juvenile offenders on probation. Victims & Offenders, 8, 465–477. References22 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY Author Bio Wesley G. Jennings, Ph.D., is Gillespie Distinguished Scholar, Chair, Professor, and Director of the Center for Evidence-Based Policing & Reform (CEBPR) in the Department of Criminal Justice & Legal Studies in the School of Applied Sciences and a Faculty Affiliate at the School of Law at the University of Mississippi. He has over 275 publications, his h-index is 60 (i-index of 166), and he has over 12,000 citations to his published work. He has been recognized as the #1 criminologist in the world in previous publications based on his peer-reviewed publication productivity. His major research interests are quantitative methods, longitudinal data analysis, and experimental and quasi-experimental designs. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Society of Criminology, the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing, and a Lifetime Member of both the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the Southern Criminal Justice Association. He is also a Fellow of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. Finally, he is a past President of the Southern Criminal Justice Association. 24 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 BY JOHN T. EGGERS, PH.D. LEADING AND RETAINING STAFF in Dangerous and Dynamic Context25 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY LEADING AND RETAINING STAFF IN DANGEROUS AND DYNAMIC CONTEXTS Introduction Leaders always face challenges. However, being a leader in potentially dangerous or extreme environments, such as jails, prisons, and community corrections settings, is different from being a leader in less potentially risky or volatile contexts. Because probation, parole, and other forms of community supervision are incredibly dynamic, they can border on extreme in terms of mental if not physical stress. An extreme context is an environment where one or more extreme events are occurring or likely to occur that may exceed the organization’s capacity to prevent and result in an extensive and intolerable magnitude of physical, psychological, or material consequences to—or in close physical or psycho-social proximity to— organization members (Hannah et al., 2009, p. 898). Based on what I’ve learned in my 20 years of working for the Nebraska Department of Corrections, including 14 years at the penitentiary, and from examining work cultures in jails, prisons, and community corrections, it is my position that even the perception of danger may occasionally constitute an extreme context. In any case, I have long believed that performing as a leader in corrections “adds an element of complexity not experienced by leaders and managers outside such an environment” (Eggers et al., 2011, p. 274). Leaders in corrections have the special task of supporting a company culture that must work hard to make its foundational values clear, especially relating to each staff member’s occupational identity and the “noble purpose the organization serves” (Sweeney et al., 2011, p. 10). Nonetheless, the special challenges for corrections leaders do not exempt them from a responsibility they share in common with leaders in vastly different environments: It is still crucial for each and every leader to create a working environment and culture that promotes employee satisfaction and minimizes staff turnover. In this article, I will try to provide leaders and other readers a better grounding in what is now understood about factors that affect retention and turnover. Those include the elements of toxic/abusive leadership, job demands/resource theory, and employee burnout. I will also discuss transformational, transactional, and ethical leadership relating to creating a working environment and culture that supports staff retention. Definition and Characteristics of Employee Retention and Turnover Retention refers to the ability of an organization to keep qualified staff and is generally indicated by levels of job satisfaction (Gladwin & McConnell, 2014; Nink, 2010). When we talk about retention, we want to understand why employees stay with their organization. According to Reitz and Anderson (2011), the “reasons why a person stays at a job are not the reverse of the reasons why that same person might leave” (p. 323). Factors such as compensation, appreciation of work performed, challenging work, opportunities for promotion and development, positive relationships with colleagues, and good communications are reasons why employees stay on the job (Walker, 2001). Supervisor support is also a key element in why people stay with an organization. When speaking of compensation, it is important to realize that staff need to make enough money to live on. In some locations, providing inadequate pay and benefits may be a reason for the inability to recruit and retain staff. March and Simon, in their 1958 book, Organizations, created the first formal model on turnover. They proposed that turnover occurs whenever the employee believes their contributions to the organization outweigh their return on investment, resulting in a change in organizational equilibrium; that is, the “employee- employer relationship becomes out of balance. This causes the employee to consider how easy it would be to move to another organization (i.e., perceived ease of movement” (Grotto et al., 2017, p. 446). Accordingly, should employee dissatisfaction be strong enough and alternative jobs exist, the individual most likely will leave the organization. Russo (2019) shares that “correctional officer vacancy rates in some prisons approach 50%” and that “probation and parole officer vacancy rates have been reported as high as 20%” in some jurisdictions (p. 20). There is no question that the recruitment and retention of professional correctional employees has been an ongoing concern. Turnover may be voluntary (the employee decides to quit) or involuntary (employee is terminated by the organization). The focus of this paper 26 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY will be on reducing voluntary turnover by increasing employee retention through effective leader practices and behaviors, but let’s first take a look at why employees may exit the workplace. Why Employees Leave an Organization Toxic/abusive Leadership If you are working in an environment that saps your energy on an ongoing basis and where it seems like your supervisor could not care less about your physical and psychological well-being, chances are that you are employed in a toxic workplace. It is difficult enough to deal with difficult coworkers, but having a problematic supervisor or other superior is even worse. Lipman- Blumen (2005) states that the term “toxic” is a “global label for leaders who engage in numerous destructive behaviors and who exhibit certain dysfunctional personal characteristics. To count as toxic, these behaviors and qualities of character must inflict reasonably serious and enduring harm on their followers and their organizations (p. 18). Such destructive leadership is exhibited in the “leaders’ pursuit of destructive goals (i.e., goals that contradict the legitimate interests of organizations) and destructive leadership style (i.e., style that involves the use of harmful methods of influence with followers)” (Krashikova et al. 2013, p. 1309). Toxic leadership can result in job dissatisfaction, staff absenteeism, non-ethical behavior leading to forms of corruption, stress that may result in burnout, employee intent to turnover, and actual turnover. Organizations need to “neutralize the negative impacts of toxic leaders to retain employees, remain competitive and mitigate financial loss associated with high employee turnover” (March, 2015, p. 5). This may be easier said than done, as it is difficult to terminate an employee, particularly in federal, state, county, and city government employment. March interviewed individuals who had previously worked in a consulting firm but left due to toxic leadership. His study participants reported that under toxic leadership they dreaded to go to work and suffered physically and psychologically, with decreased satisfaction as well as motivation both in and outside the workplace. If you have ever experienced a toxic supervisor, you can relate to the constant worry and concern that comes from being in this type of workplace environment. Organizational structure and culture are factors, as workplaces with bureaucratic or mechanistic features, including centralized authority and divisions between departments, may be more prone to facilitating dysfunctional leadership. In effect, problematic supervisors may be somewhat insulated as they exhibit controlling behavior (Rose et al., 2015). Moving away from such bureaucratic, mechanistic workplace structures may assist in limiting that insulation and make it more difficult for toxic leaders to thrive. However, correctional environments, based on organizational structure, may face challenges in transitioning away from the bureaucratic/mechanistic way of doing business. Job Demands and Resources A Job Demand/Resource Model was created by Demerouti and her colleagues (2001). The theory underlying this model is that whenever job demands are high, and job resources are low, stress and burnout may increase. In this context, job demands are “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are, therefore, associated with physical and/or psychological costs” (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007, p. 122). Job resources, as described by Chavarria (2016) in his doctoral dissertation focusing on Juvenile Probation/Parole Officers, are “those physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that (a) are functional in achieving work- related goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, and (c) stimulate personal growth and development” (p. 122). Chavarria found that “job resources were statistically predictors of employee engagement and that job resources and job demands were statistically significant predictors of employee exhaustion” (p. iv). As one can imagine, whenever your work demands exceed your resources for a prolonged period of time, your willingness to stay in that environment may diminish as well. The above-mentioned correlation between having adequate resources and increased employee engagement is noteworthy, as engagement with one’s job is another key factor impacting employee retention. Employee engagement can be viewed as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002; pp. 4-5). The absorbed employee is one who is “fully concentrated and happily engrossed in work, such that time passes quickly” (Bakker, 2011, p. 265). Bakker 27 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY & Demerouti (2012) also commented that when staff have resources, both job-related and personal, that are adequate to accommodate the demands of their job, they have increased employee engagement—again making it more likely that the employee will stay with the job. The extent to which staff have sufficient personal resources is also a factor. Hobfoll and colleagues (2003) suggest that “personal resources” are “aspects of the self that are generally linked to resiliency and refer to individuals’ sense of their ability to control and impact upon their environment successfully” (p. 632). For staff to be allowed at least some autonomy with regard to controlling their work area is a component of this, and endeavoring to provide such autonomy to followers is another function of a good leader. Overall, it is clear that leaders have a double challenge with regard to negotiating job demands and resources. Specifically, they need to do whatever is possible to increase job resources, thereby increasing the likelihood of engagement, vigor, and dedication. At the same time, they need to do whatever is possible to increase employee resources, such as instilling resiliency, self- efficacy, and optimism. Employee Burnout Freudenberger (1974) coined the term “job burnout” to describe the condition of an employee who has become psychologically exhausted because of excessive work demands involving working with clients. Maslach and his colleagues (2001) define burnout as “overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job, a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment” (p. 399). In this context exhaustion consists of feelings of “being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources” and cynicism consists of “negative, cynical attitudes and feelings about one’s clients” (p. 99). Moreover, having reduced efficacy, they argue, creates “feelings of incompetence and a lack of achievement and productivity at work” (p. 399). They go on to express a belief that “a person has the ability to enter a state of burnout by being over-engaged (doing too much), from work-overload (high workload with few resources), from under-load (becoming bored and not challenged with work), or by suffering from the end results of chronic job stressors” (p. 405). In a subsequent paper, Maslach (2003) described burnout as the “chronic strain that results from an incongruence, or misfit, between the work and the job” (p. 198). In reflection, I’ve asked myself whether I had any impact on the rehabilitation of individuals I supervised, and to what extent those concerns wore me out. Did I become cynical, thinking that I wasn’t really making a difference? These may be questions that correctional staff wonder about every day. A toll is exacted when these concerns and questions become chronic. Leaders need to be aware of how these factors affect them, as well as their staff. Leaders should examine whether they are doing too much with inadequate resources, whether they are not being challenged, and whether job stressors are getting them in over their head, as well as their staff. In essence, this involves self-awareness and self-regulation. Leaders should ask themselves what they can do that will have a positive impact on reducing stressors that lead to staff burnout. Supervisory support through positive leader behaviors may reduce employee job demands that lead to such burnout. To reduce role conflict and role ambiguity, supervisors should ensure their employees know what job they need to do and how to do it. Management support, sometimes referred to as administrative or organizational support, can send a positive message to staff that they are valued and respected (Lambert et al., 2010). Pines and Keinan (2005) reported that burnout is associated with employees feeling unappreciated at work. Accordingly, leader support is predicted to provide correctional staff a sense of being appreciated at work. Indeed, Carlson and Thomas (2006) found a lack of management support was linked to burnout in correctional caseworkers. Moreover, Lambert et al. (2010) reported that “supervisors can serve as a buffer to an often overwhelming and stressful prison environment. Additionally, management can reduce emotional exhaustion that correctional staff experience by providing the resources needed to complete the requirement of the job successfully” (p. 1230). Transactional and Transformational Leadership and Retention Leadership plays a significant role in organizational turnover (Kouzes & Posner, 2012). An example of this would be ensuring that correctional agencies are properly staffed to ensure the safety and security of both staff and client. This certainly relates to the retention of experienced and well-qualified staff. The emphasis in this section is on how transactional, transformational, 28 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 46, NUMBER 1 HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY and ethical leadership can reduce turnover and increase retention. Transactional leadership focuses on managerial efforts to maintain the status quo inside the workplace. It is based on a series of exchanges between the leader/follower whereby the follower is rewarded for achieving tasks and goals. Agencies that are mechanistic and bureaucratic, exercising top-down supervision based on administrative regulations, operational memorandums and posted orders, typify transactional leadership (management). Bass (1985, p. 11) described transactional leaders in relation to their subordinates as: 1. Recognizes what it is we want to get from our work and tries to see that we get what we want if our performance warrants it. 2. Exchange rewards and promises of reward for our effort. 3. Is responsive to our immediate self-interests if they can be met by our getting our work done. Through ongoing positive exchanges between the leader/ follower, trust begins to develop in the relationship. Here, we can see how trust building at both the transactional and transformational leadership level can reduce turnover and increase retention. If I have a positive, trusting relationship with my boss, it will be more difficult for me to exit the organization. Transactional leadership focuses on two styles: Contingent-Reward (rewards goal achievement) and Management-by-Exception (Active), which monitors deviations and mistakes. Leaders exercising Contingent- Reward (rewarding achievement) behavior ensure that followers understand what is expected of them and reward them when they successfully achieve the assigned task. Leaders show appreciation when followers meet expectations, and they provide them assistance in exchange for their efforts. Leaders exhibiting Management-by-Exception (Active) behaviors monitor deviations and mistakes. Leaders are constantly on the lookout for deviations from what is expected and focus their energy on mistakes made by their followers. Those making the mistakes may be punished for being out of compliance. In taking corrective action, leaders educate the follower so the same mistake will not be made again. This type of behavior could be considered to be micro-management and may be needed in “high-reliability organizations” where mistakes can be extremely costly. Examples might be aircraft carrier operations, air traffic control, and certain correctional environments. (Bass, 1985) Transformational leadership was first coined by Burns (1978) in his seminal book, Leadership, and expanded upon by others (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1997; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Sosik & Cameron, 2010). The “transforming leader recognizes and exploits an existing need or demand of a potential follower. But beyond that, the transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower” (Burns, 1978, p. 4). Transformational leaders are characterized by the following actions according to Burns (1978) and Bass (1985): 1. Raising the level of awareness of followers regarding the importance of achieving valued outcomes, a vision, and the required strategy. 2. Motivating followers to look beyond their own self- interest for the teams’ sake; and 3. Enlarging followers’ arena of needs by raising their awareness to improve themselves and what they are attempting to accomplish. Transformational leaders encourage followers to both develop and perform at levels above and beyond their own expectations (Bass & Avolio, 1990). Transformational leadership promotes a sense of duty in employees (Hannah et al., 2014) and motivates positive behavior that results in followers identifying with their values or with what they are representing (Ashforth et al., 2008). Let’s now break down the four components of transformational leadership (the “4 I’s”) proposed by Bass and Avolio in the early 1990s in their Full Range Leadership Model. The components are: • Idealized Influence-Attributed: Leaders exhibiting this behavior build trust in their followers. They place the good of the organization above their own self-interests and assist followers in doing same. Accordingly, these leaders work to create respect between themselves and their staff. They use power appropriately and establish relationships whereby followers want to follow them. Again, we see this resulting in follower staying-power based on liking their boss. 29 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION HUMAN RESOURCE ISSUES IN AN EBP AGENCY • Idealized Influence-Behaviors: When leaders exercise this type of behavior they act with a high degree of integrity. They share their important beliefs, values, and personal vision for the workplace with their staff. These leaders show a true sense of purpose (why we’re here) with their followers. When leaders do this, followers get to know their leader. Accordingly, followers can buy into their role in the workplace. Leaders exercising idealized influence behave in ways that result in them functioning as role models for followers. They are respected and trusted. Leaders consider the needs of others over their own and can be counted on to do the right thing (Avolio, 1999). • Inspirational Motivation: Leaders behave in a way that motivates followers by providing meaningful and challenging work. They involve their followers in thinking about future states and can inspire others by what they say and do (Avolio, 1999). Leaders practicing inspirational motivation convince followers that they are capable of contributing to an organization’s pursuit of its goals (Ng, 2017). As suggested by Hannah et al. (2014) and Jung and Avolio (2000), inspirational motivation can inspire goals, unity, and a sense of “we-ness.” Leaders practicing inspirational motivation encourage others by talking about the future in optimistic ways. Leaders show up with confidence in themselves and build confidence in their staff. This type of behavior is certainly needed in the correctional environment to counteract negativity and pessimism. Employee retention will be enhanced if leaders can create a follower environment that provides meaning as well as a degree of autonomy that ensures followers have some ability to make decisions on their own. • Intellectual Stimulation: Leaders stimulate their followers’ efforts to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations with new methods and perspectives (Avolio, 1999). Liao and Chuang (2007) suggest that intellectual stimulation inspires followers to improve themselves and look for excellence by choosing tasks or pursuing goals that are outside of their comfort zones. It is important that leaders create a culture comprised of psychological safety whereby followers are not made to look silly or foolish for bringing up ideas that don’t match those of the leader or team members. Leaders who involve their staff in coming up with new ways of doing business can develop follower buy-in to the workplace, thus increasing retention levels. Of note, I have observed that for those in corrections the intellectual stimulation scores on the MLQ5X 360-degree instrument are generally the lowest of the 4 I’s of transformational leadership. (This leadership questionnaire was developed by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio in the early 1990s to measure leadership styles and outcomes. It assesses transformational, transactional, and non-transactional leader behaviors using an individual’s answers on the questionnaire as well as ratings from the participant’s supervisor, peers, subordinates, and others. The instrument is used in conjunction with the Full Range Leadership Development model developed by Avolio and Bass (1991).) • Individualized Consideration: Leaders give special attention to “follower needs” by functioning as a mentor, coach, facilitator, or teacher. Two-way communication is promoted and the leader is aware of individual concerns that the follower may have (Avolio, 1999). Leaders that exercise individual consideration get to know their followers. They establish positive relationships by asking their staff about their needs, expectations, and wants (NEWs) and do everything they can to address them. These leaders develop their followers in a way that has them elevate the good of the organization above their own self interests. Leaders don’t just treat their staff as a member of the team; they consider each follower as an individual. “Leaders’ individualized consideration makes a follower see working for the organization as enjoyable” (Ng, 2017, p. 388). Accordingly, if staff experience job satisfaction and supervisory support, staying with the organization seems much easier. When leaders practice the types of behaviors inside the 4Is, followers can appreciate their leader and are willing to go above and beyond what is expected. As a result, job satisfaction increases, extra effort is realized, and staff effectiveness is experienced. Next >