1. Introduction

The role of organizational culture in enhancing organizational performance has been underscored by the literature (Soltani, Shramyn-Clement, & Houshang, 2011; Aripin, Salim, Setiawan, & Djumahir, 2013). It is the imperative of every organization to understand its own dynamic culture so that managers can capitalize on the insights generated by the cultural perspective to wield greater control over their organizations (Andish, Yousefipour, Shahsavaripour, & Ghorbanipour, 2013). This view is echoed by Hsu (2009) who stresses that the impact of an organization’s culture on its operations determines its success.

In CAR, law enforcement is one of the criminal justice system’s key components. In order to ensure effective performance of the law enforcement sector, law enforcement officers’ Job Satisfaction and Organization Commitment need to be enhanced (OSAC, 2017). If this is not ensured, the criminal justice system will continue to underperform, irrespective of whatever other available resources.

There are two national police agencies in CAR that are modelled after the French system of law enforcement: gendarmerie and civil police (Andrade, 1985, p.41). Officially referred to as the Sûreté Nationale, the National Police is based in Bangui and is in charge of civil public safety law enforcement in major urban districts. As suggested by its title, the National Police operates on the national, rather than the local, level and works under the control of a central Direction des Services de Sûreté Nationale (Andrade, 1985, p.41). As a result of limitations in terms of resources and manpower, the National Police has been mostly limited to Bangui itself; with very nominal influence outside Bangui (Yoshida, 2014).

These constraints have been compounded by the eruption of the 2012 civil war which came to further frustrate the law enforcement agencies’ capabilities in remote settlements, infested by armed militias (Yoshida, 2014). Due to low discipline levels and recurrent salary payment delays, the National Police has been plagued by constantly increasing corruption (Yoshida, 2014). This has resulted in a low public approval rating as well as perceived police inability to carry out its mandate in general, and particularly in the North-eastern part of CAR (Yoshida, 2014).

A military component, the CAR Gendarmerie is in charge of ensuring internal security throughout all rural districts outside major settlements and towns (Becker & Becker, 1997). It operates as the sole law enforcement agency in the CAR’s least developed regions and has functioned both autonomously and under the control of the CAR Armed Forces throughout CAR’s history (Andrade, 1985). Consisting of four battalions and three specialist commands, the CAR Gendarmerie is led by a Director-General and has a white-collar crime investigation division, a function that is normally performed by the civil police in most countries (Berman & Lombard, 2008).

The Gendarmerie and the National Police have generally remained in equal proportions in terms of their size, fluctuating between 1,000 and 2,000 officers (Berman & Lombard, 2008). In the aftermath of the eruption of the 2012 civil war, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission (MINUSCA), in collaboration/partnership with both the European Union and the African Union, provided support in reorganizing and retraining the Gendarmerie (Luengo-Cabrera, 2016).

The CAR law enforcement officers are the most visible and identifiable elements of the criminal justice system. They are entrusted with a special authority and power that can have a profound influence on many aspects of individual’s lives (OSAC, 2017). No matter where you live in the world, or in which situation a law enforcement officer is performing their duties, it involves extensive discretion in critical decisions, even at the lowest level of police departments’ organizational hierarchies (Gultekin, 2014; Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013). It is therefore imperative to ensure that the Police Culture provides appropriate motivational support to these police officers for improved performance (Aripin et al., 2013).

According to Domoro & Agil (2012, p.34), “the concept of Police Culture includes the merging of two main elements: the image of objective and professional crime fighters and a system of informal beliefs and behaviors”. Embracing and elaborating on this argument, Loftus (2010) note that – because of the nature of their working environment - police officers cultivate a certain ‘working personality’. This is also backed by McDermott & Hulse (2012), who maintain that individual, organizational and environmental factors affect officers’ understanding of their organizational culture, which in turn helps shape their orientation towards police work and, subsequently, their satisfaction with the work itself and commitment to the organization. In CAR, the police performance has often generally been deemed inadequate by the local population. Given that organizational culture has been proven to have a significant influence on organizational outcomes (Tong, 2015; Farokhi, Bahrami, Esfandnia, Parvaresh, Moradi, Esfandnia, 2016; Habib, Aslam, Hussain, Yasmeen, Ibrahim, 2014), is this the same in the Central African police context?

While several scholars have demonstrated a positive influence of an organization’s culture on its employees’ Job Satisfaction and commitment to the organization (Loftus, 2010; Domoro & Agil, 2012; Soltani et al., 2011), there is a dearth of empirical research in this regard in the CAR law enforcement context. This implies that in this context, the link that is believed to be existing between these aspects is rather presumed than evidence-based. Thus, this study seeks to lessen the literature gap in this regard.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Defining Organizational Culture

The culture of an organization is defined as “the invariant patterns of organizational behaviour, considered as a whole that connect, inform, and provide a context for even the most diverse actions of individual managers right across an organization that help to distinguish behaviour in that organization from behaviour in others, and are not directly encoded in the organization’s formal rules” (Davoodalmousavi, 2013, p.391). While this definition above seems to be more comprehensive and has been chosen for the purpose of this study, various authors have defined organizational culture in different ways and consensus is yet to be reached about a general definition.

However, it is generally agreed among scholars that organizational culture has multiple levels, whether or not they are accessible to observers (Andish et al., 2013, Zakari, Poku, & Owusu-Ansah, 2013; Davoodalmousavi, 2013). The most prominent model explaining the levels of organizational culture was developed by Schein (1992), who has suggested that organizational culture consists of three main levels: artefacts, espoused values, and basic underlying assumptions.

This model is also supported by Andish et al. (2013) who describe artefacts as various types of cultural symbols that are first seen and felt in a new, unfamiliar cultural environment. They note that artefacts would include visible aspects of organizations, such as architecture, technology, language, rituals and ceremonies, myths, values, and so on. Adding to this, Bellou (2010) cautions that, although this cultural level is easy to spot, it is hard to decode. According to Shoaib-Ch et al., (2013), espoused values refer to beliefs and values that rationalize the behaviors of the members of the organization. They stress that much of the behaviour at the artifactual level can be predicted by values at this level of culture. Basic assumptions consist of postulations that determine how group members feel, think, and perceive (Zakari et al., 2013). The members of an organization take for granted basic underlying assumptions; such taken-for-granted assumptions are unconscious but more powerful than espoused values, because they are less debatable and less easily confronted than espoused values (Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013). Agreeing with this argument, Andish et al. (2013) underscore that fundamental assumptions comprise the core of, and are the most important element of, organizational culture.

Another model – referred to as the 5-level model of organizational culture - was proposed by Hawkins (1997). This model has been supported and echoed by several other scholars. According Xiaoming & Junchen (2012), the first cultural level consists of artefacts, the most noticeable level of culture, including logos and buildings. The second level consists of behaviors, which are also observable and reflect the organization’s values in action (Tong, 2015). On the third level, mind-sets reflect the belief systems of organizations (Farokhi et al., 2016). The fourth level is the emotional ground or climate, which is produced by mind-sets (Habib et al., 2014). The final level is the motivational roots of the organization that represents the degree of association between motivations of individuals and organization as a whole (Belias & Koustelios, 2014). This study is underpinned by the dimensions of the second level as these are likely to be the dimensions of police organizational culture that are most associated with Job Satisfaction and job commitment.

While organizational culture is viewed on multiple levels in the literature, any culture is likely to have numerous subcultures that generate different cultural dynamics. There is consensus among scholars that organizations include multiple subcultures that either create internal conflicts or coexist in peace (Zakari et al., 2013; Soltani, 2014; Davoodalmousavi, 2013).

2.1.1. Police Culture

In this study, Police Culture (PC) is defined as a “set of ideas, customs, accepted practices, information and rules of conduct, and core skills that define ‘good police work’ and give meaning to police work” (Gultekin, 2014, p.509). According to Lawson (2012), the difference between Police Culture and other organizational cultures lies in the pressures that are associated with the police work environment.

According to Vukonjanski & Nikolić (2013), an organization with a long, intense, and varied history generally has a strong and easily distinguishable culture, and such a culture is correspondingly challenging to reshape. Police organizational culture, given its lengthy and dramatic history, strongly shapes individual police officers’ characteristics. As a result, police organizational culture is often difficult to change (McDermott & Hulse, 2012). In the words of Domoro & Agil (2012, p.35), “many police leaders must confront cultural barriers in their departments when attempting to introduce a change in the organization or implement a new program”. Echoing this proposition, Loftus (2010) emphasizes that - as a result of this resistance - the discussion of police organizational culture in the literature has mostly focused on the potential negative effects it bears on police officers and on the organizations to which they belong.

What is interesting is the suggestion by Lawson (2012) that police departments have distinctive organizational cultures that strongly influence the behavior of individual officers. He further underlines a number of general characteristics of organizational culture in a police department: formal and informal norms that support a challenging, rigid style of policing; a promotion and evaluation system that functionally favours illegal uses of force by not enforcing established management policies; a work environment that tolerates and even encourages discriminatory and violent attitudes; and language that may contribute to aggressive and discriminatory conduct (Lawson, 2012). This suggestion is backed by Domoro & Agil (2012, p.36) who advance that “despite formal norms and policies, the informal message that Police Culture conveys is a stronger one, suggesting that aggressive policing will be rewarded even if it results in violent incidents and illegal conducts.”

Gultekin (2014) notes that – along with formal rules and regulations – police behavior is driven by informal codes that are stronger than the formal rules in most police departments. This is supported by Vukonjanski & Nikolić (2013) who add that failing to comply with established informal codes often results in being sanctioned by other members of the police organization, and those who fail to conform to the practices of the Police Culture are often isolated by their co-workers. Also concurring with this submission, McDermott & Hulse (2012) note that while this informal system of sanctions can prevent police deviance in some police organizations, it can also promote police deviance in others.

According to Domoro & Agil (2012), negative and deviant practices among police are the inevitable consequence of cultural deviancy in police organizations. Loftus (2010) concurs and stresses that cultural deviancy in a police organization occurs when officers ignore and disregard official and organizational rules in their daily activities. Here, it worth to notice that both Loftus (2010) and Domoro & Agil (2012) place great emphasis on human interaction as the major influential factor in organizational and cultural deviancy. Therefore, aiming to harness the motivational energy of police officers is a vital strategy for law enforcement managers in achieving organizational success.

Aripin et al. (2013) advance a further thought-provoking submission that Police Culture dimensions also include the coping mechanisms that police officers use to overcome the stress and strain they experience in their two different working environments: the occupational environment and the organizational environment. Aripin et al. (2013) stress that “the occupational environment consists of interactions with citizens, and includes potential dangers inherent to police work and the exclusive authority that officers exert; and the organizational environment consists of interactions with superiors and includes the uncertainty of the police role and the unpredictability of managerial supervision” (p.44). This is futher echoed by Vukonjanski & Nikolić (2013) who posit that police officers resort to the prescriptive coping mechanisms of the Police Culture to relieve and overcome the strain and anxiety created in these two environments.

While much of the discussion in the literature assumes that there is a single culture in a police organization, Aripin et al. (2013) emphasize that police organizations may have multiple subcultures. Lawson (2012) agrees and explains that subcultures thrive in an organization according to the extent that subgroups create and develop their own norms, language, time horizons, and standpoints on the mission of organization. This existence of multiple subcultures within police organizations is also echoed by McDermott & Hulse (2012) who submit the subculture identified with senior officers is primarily characterized by rational bureaucracy, while the other subculture, represented by constables, is characterized by individualism and traditional conceptions of police work.

A number of studies (Belias & Koustelios, 2014; Shurbagi & Zahari, 2012; Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013; Hamidi, Mohammadibakhsh, Soltanian, & Behzadifar, 2017; Dwivedi, Kaushik, & Luxmi, 2014; Firuzjaeyan, Firuzjaeyan, & Sadeghi, 2015) have revealed that organizational culture positively influences employee Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment which are discussed the next sections.

2.2. Job Satisfaction

According to Bakotić (2016, p.119), Job Satisfaction is defined as “a pleasant emotional state which results from an individual’s job or job experience consideration.” This definition is echoed by Georgellis, Lange, & Tabvuma (2012) who posit that Job Satisfaction is commonly known as how pleased a person is with his or her work, and can be defined as how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs.

An organization needs to ensure enhanced Job Satisfaction of its employees for several reasons. To begin with, Job Satisfaction can to some extent reflect how employees are treated with regards to respect and fairness (Tuzun, 2012). Also, it can be an indicator of an employee’s psychological and emotional health (Rehman, Rehman, Saif, Khan, Nawaz, & Rehman, 2013). Finally, it can affect the behaviour of the employee, and thus the organizational functions and productivity. Moreover, Job Satisfaction can be a reflection of the organizational performance, where differences between groups can lead to future problems within the company (Bwire-Mc, Ssekakubo, Lwanga, Ndiwalana, 2014). A general consensus is yet to be reached about the constructs of Job Satisfaction, but Awang, Ahmad, J. H., & Zin (2010) caution that this not easy to given the complex nature of Job Satisfaction. Most scholars use both personal and environmental aspects to conceptualize Job Satisfaction.

Job Satisfaction is usually described using the Needs-and process theories, even though these concepts are traditionally applied to describe motivation (Tuzun, 2012). According to Chandrasekar (2011), Job Satisfaction is a result of inner motivation, as it could be an indicator of an employee’s psychological health. Thus, Job Satisfaction is connected to motivational theory. Although they are not the same concepts, motivation and Job Satisfaction are so similar that they sometimes defined synonymously (Georgellis et al., 2012, p.466).

On their part, Mafini & Pooe (2013, p.3) underline that “Job Satisfaction is an individual’s affective orientation towards work roles that he or she is presently occupying, and it is driven by his/her level of valence or expected utility.” A positive relationship between organizational culture and employee Job Satisfaction has been evidenced by a number of studies (Belias & Koustelios, 2014; Shurbagi & Zahari, 2012; Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013). And consistent with the literature (Chandrasekar, 2011; Tuzun, 2012; Mafini & Pooe, 2013), it goes without saying that law enforcement managers would prefer to work with law enforcement officers who have a positive view and feel positively about their work and workplace.

2.3. Organizational Commitment

According to Kashefi, Adel, Abad, Aliklayeh, Moghaddam, and Nadimi (2013, p.52) Organizational Commitment refers to “a psychological state that binds an employee to an organization, thereby reducing the incidence of turnover.” Organizational Commitment is mainly conceptualized based on the Three-Component Model developed early on by Meyer & Allen (1991), which emphasized that Organizational Commitment echoed a need, desire, and onus to continue being a member of an organization. Thus, it is argued “that commitment manifests itself in three relatively distinct manners: affective commitment; continuance commitment; and normative commitment” (Meyer & Allen, 1991, p.62). Affective commitment refers to the degree of an individual’s identification with, involvement in, and membership satisfaction in an organization. According to Nagar (2012), employees with affective commitment want to remain with an organization, and affective commitment has been most strongly linked to positive work-related behaviors (such as attendance and organizational citizenship behaviour).

Continuance commitment means that one chooses to remain with an organization because he/she is of the opinion that leaving the organization would be costly (Suma and Lesha, 2013). This type of commitment echoes the ‘side-bet theory’ of Becker (1960). What is interesting and worth noting here is the fact that the employee does not stay because he/she enjoys being a member of the organization but because there are no better alternatives and the cost of leaving would be higher. Suma and Lesha (2013) emphasize that lack of alternatives or an inability to transfer skills and education to another organization are the primary antecedents of continuance commitment. Logically, faced with lack of better alternatives underlined by Suma and Lesha (2013), the employee’s need to stay with the organization increases. Employees with high levels of continuance commitment also have increased levels of role conflict and role ambiguity, as well as low withdrawal cognitions (Ahmad, 2014). Here, it should be noted that for both the employee and the organization, this is likely to be lose-lose situation, whereby Organizational Commitment is solely based on lack of better options. In such a case, there is a risk of the employee contaminating the work team. Such probable risks provide support to the suggestion by Tolentino (2012, p.52) that “the effectiveness of an organization depends on much more than just a stable workforce.”

Normative commitment refers to a situation where an employee feels morally obliged to remain with the organization. The employee feels some kind of indebtedness towards the organization and deems it necessary to remain for reciprocity (Dost & Ahmed, 2011). According to Suma and Lesha (2013), normative commitment may develop when an organization offers employees rewards in advance, such as paying college tuition, or if the organization goes to great length or cost to hire or train the employee. This possibly supports the ‘reciprocity’ theory advanced by Gouldners (1960). Normative commitment is also influenced by organizational tenure (Memari, Mahdieh, & Marnani, 2013), and thus it is not surprising for an employee to feel obliged to remain with an organization over long-term employment. Undeniably, it has been submitted that “normative commitment may best indicate the degree to which employees align themselves with organizational goals, a measure of how employees pull in the same direction as the company” (Ahmad, 2014, p.85). A fascinating finding was by Dost & Ahmed (2011) who discovered a significantly negative association between normative commitment and employee’s education level, suggesting that less-educated employees are more committed to the organization. With regards to work experiences, Suma and Lesha (2013) advance that work aspects such role clarity and organizational support, are among the main determinants of normative commitment.

The significance of normative commitment is the fact that it is associated with low “withdrawal cognitions” (Memari et al., 2013, p.166). This proposition makes sense because an employee who feels morally obliged to remain with the organization is unlikely to regularly engage in withdrawal thoughts. In fact, one would tend to agree with Suma and Lesha (2013) who posit that the forces that shape a person’s obligation to an organization also spur that person to ensure that the organization’s goals are met, even if such a commitment involves taking action not prescribed in an employee’s role. Several studies found that Organizational Commitment is positively influenced by organizational culture (Hamidi et al., 2017; Dwivedi et al., 2014; Firuzjaeyan et al., 2015). This points to the need to investigate the existence of this relationship in the under-researched field of law enforcement in CAR.

2.4. Literature Gap

Despite heightened interest by scholars in exploring the influence of organizational culture on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment (Belias & Koustelios, 2014; Shurbagi & Zahari, 2012; Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013; Hamidi et al., 2017; Dwivedi et al., 2014; Firuzjaeyan et al., 2015), there is a dearth of literature in this regard in the CAR law enforcement context. Hence a literature gap to be filled. By proposing a model of organizational culture and its influence on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the CAR police, this study offers a notional support and contribution in filling the prevailing research gap in this regard.

3. Research Model and Hypotheses

Grounded on the problem statement and the literature reviewed, this study seeks to expand the body of knowledge in the area of law enforcement by advancing and analysing a model which hypothesizes organizational culture as a determinant of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in the CAR police. The research model is presented in Figure 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1. Research Model (adapted from Nzitunga, 2015)

Several scholars (e.g. Vukonjanski & Nikolić, 2013; Bellou, 2010) have demonstrated a positive influence of organizational culture on Job Satisfaction. Therefore, the first hypothesis is thus deduced:

Ÿ H1: Police organizational culture is likely to be positively associated with police officers’ Job Satisfaction.

Given that the importance of organizational culture in enhancing Organizational Commitment has been underlined by the literature (Shoaib-Ch. et al., 2013; Hamidi et al., 2017), it would be justified to presume that this also the case in CAR police context. Hence the second hypothesis:

Ÿ H2: There is a positive relationship between police organizational culture and police officers’ Organizational Commitment.

4. Methodology

This study used a quantitative experimental design approach. In an experimental design, the researcher actively tries to change the situation, circumstances, or experience of participants, which may lead to a change in behaviour or outcomes for the participants of the study (Bernard & Bernard, 2012). The researcher randomly assigns participants to different conditions, measures the variables of interest and tries to control for confounding variables (Punch, 2013).

The population for this study comprised police officers operating in Windhoek. A sample of 60 gendarmes and 60 national police officers were picked using purposive sampling approach (Palys, 2008) and a Likert scale questionnaire survey was administered to them. The questionnaires were physically distributed to respondents and collected the following day. From the 120 questionnaires distributed, only 100 questionnaires were successfully completed and returned. The questionnaire was administered in French but its English version is attached. The response rate was 80%.

4.1. Validity and Reliability

By using previously validated measures (Davoodalmousavi, 2013; Chandrasekar, 2011; Nagar, 2012) and refining them where necessary, faced validity was ensured for this study. Then consistency-reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (Walters, 2011; Cooper and Schindler, 2011). For satisfactory reliability, the alpha value should be above 0.70 (Cooper and Schindler, 2011). Table 4.1 presents the reliability statistics for the measuring instrument used for this study, which indicate satisfactory reliability.

Table 4.1. Reliability statistics for the scale used in this study

5. Findings and Discussion of Results

5.1. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation, are presented in this section. The first step was to compute a composite score for each variable. To do this, the individual scores were totalled and an average score was calculated. Descriptive statistics of the composite variables are summarized in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Descriptive statistics of the composite variables (n=100)

Given that the descriptive statistics above show that the average maximum scores were below 3 for all the variables, the average mean score percentages presented in Table 5.1 represent the respondents that showed low satisfaction levels for each variable.

5.2. Correlations

Given that ordinal data was collected, the relationships among the study variables were described using Spearman's correlation. According to van Elst (2015, p.9), correlation analysis “refers to the degree to which changes in one variable are associated with changes in another.” It seeks to establish the potential existence of a linear connection between variables. Table 5.2 presents the correlation coefficients (ρ) and p-values thereof.

Table 5.2. Spearman correlation coefficients and p-values (n=100)

According to Table 5.2, there is statistically significant correlation between police organizational culture and Job Satisfaction (ρ = 0.740); and between police organizational culture and commitment (ρ = 0.598).

5.3. Partial Least Squares (PLS) Regression Analysis

Grounded on Abdi & Williams (2013) who recommend this method as the most suitable method to analyse multivariate relationships, Partial Least Squares regression analysis was used as inferential statistics. Another advantage of PLS regression is the fact that it does not necessitate a vast sample or data which is normally distributed.

In a PLS model, the significance of the paths and path coefficients is assessed using the bootstrap confidence intervals. The bootstrap confidence intervals used to determine the statistical significance for the paths and path coefficients in this study are presented in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3. Bootstrap confidence intervals and paths coefficients (PLS, n=100)

A depiction of the paths and path coefficients is presented in figure 5.1 below.

Figure 5.1. Path, strength and significance of the path coefficients assessed by PLS (n=100)

5.4. Summary of Key Findings

5.4.1. Influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction

The first hypothesis, which advanced that police organizational culture is likely to be positively associated with police officers’ job satisfaction, was confirmed by statistically significant path coefficients (γ = 0.867). The managerial implications are that ensuring that suitable police organizational culture will lead to even more positive police officers’ perceptions/feelings about “task identity; task significance/meaningfulness of work; skill variety; autonomy/job flexibility and personal freedom; and feedback/recognition.” These findings are consistent with the literature reviewed in Section 2.

5.4.2. Influence of Organizational Culture on Commitment

Consistently with the literature reviewed in Section 2, the second hypothesis, which suggested that there is a positive relationship between police organizational culture and police officers’ organizational commitment, was also confirmed by statistically significant path coefficients (γ = 0.682). This means that appropriate police culture will enhance “police officers’ identification with the goals and values of the organization; involvement in its work activities; and desire to maintain membership in the organization.”

6. Summary

This study had two objectives and they have all been accomplished. The first objective was to determine the influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction of law enforcement officers in CAR. In this regard, the findings indicated a positive influence of Organizational Culture on Job Satisfaction which was confirmed by statistically significant PLS path coefficients. These findings are consistent with the literature reviewed in Section 2.

The second objective was to assess the link between Organizational Culture and Commitment for law enforcement officers in CAR. A positive relationship was found in this regard, which was also evidenced by statistically significant PLS path coefficients. These results are in line with the literature reviewed in Section 2.

7. Conclusions

There is an imbedded recognition by the literature that organizational culture is one of the key drivers of performance. To ensure enhanced performance in law enforcement agencies, it is imperative to ensure that police organizational culture contributes in enhancing job satisfaction and commitment of laws enforcement officers. If this is not ensured, the criminal justice system will continue to underperform, irrespective of whatever other available resources. Known the shortage of literature in this regard in the CAR law enforcement context, this study has contributed in supplementing the body of knowledge in the field of criminal justice in CAR. This study is expected to serve as a tool for law enforcement managers, policy-makers, MINUSCA, UNCT, EU and all other pertinent stakeholders for expanded alertness in this regard, leading to potential development of better-quality law enforcement policies, interventions, and other support mechanisms.

The findings of this study show a strong positive influence of police organizational culture on police officers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results also revealed low satisfaction levels for all the three variables. Without further refinement of organizational strategies aimed at enhancing these factors, the achievement of organizational objectives and goals is not likely to be adequately achieved.

Based on the findings of this study, managerial interventions should focus on enhancing/refining organizational culture in the CAR Police. Steps that can be immediately taken to improve the status quo could include – but are not limited to - ensuring the enhancement of the following: rules, policies & practices; leadership & management style; employee & management reward structures; feedback and recognition; continuous learning; operational resource mobilization; and strategic planning incorporated into all stages and aspects of law enforcement.

The United Nations’ law enforcement interventions in CAR should be based on an Integrated Strategic Framework (ISF) to ensure the articulation of a common vision, priorities and responsibilities of the UN in support of peace consolidation, including the linkages to national priorities, strategies and plans, in line with the most recent UN policy on Integrated Assessment and Planning, approved by the Secretary-General on 9 April 2013.

These recommendations will only be effective if there is strong desire and commitment on the part of law enforcement managers and policy-makers to actively work towards improvement in this regard. It is the hope of this study that by evaluating the present law enforcement practices in CAR, an avenue for continued improvement is possible.

8. Opportunities for Future Research

Given that only CAR national police officers and gendarmes in Bangui were studied, the outcomes cannot be generalised to all other criminal justice system components in and/or outside CAR. Future research should cover other law enforcement and criminal justice system components in and/or outside CAR. It would be worthwhile to replicate this study in other countries in the region to establish the extent to which police organizational culture influences police officers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Future researchers should use the measurement instrument developed and verified in this study as it was shown to be reliable. Nevertheless, a refinement of the instrument, through the use of bigger samples and enhanced measures may lead to improved results.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation and gratitude to the CAR National Police and Gendarmerie for their kind participation and support.

Appendix 1: Research Questionnaire

For each of the statements below, please rate your answer and mark with (x) the appropriate box as follows:

Strongly disagree (1); Disagree (2); Disagree moderately (3); Agree moderately (4); Agree (5); and Strongly agree (6).

There are no “right or wrong” answers to these questions; so please be as honest and thoughtful as possible in your responses. All responses will be kept strictly confidential.