When I was invited to participate as a corrections expert in Netflix’s “The New Stanford Prison Experiment,” I was intrigued by the opportunity to observe ordinary people placed in an extraordinary environment.
The unscripted series reimagines the controversial 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, placing 30 volunteers from diverse backgrounds inside a prison environment for a planned two-week period. Participants were assigned roles as guards or prisoners, while a panel of experts observed their interactions and offered perspectives on the behaviors unfolding.
The central question was familiar: Does power corrupt?
After 29 years working in corrections, I had my own opinions about power, authority and human behavior. But what I took away from this experience was something much more relevant to our profession.
The experiment reinforced just how important quality training and effective leadership are to corrections.
A uniform doesn’t make someone a professional
Throughout the experiment, we watched ordinary people suddenly placed in positions of authority over others. Some struggled with communication, decision-making, emotional control and understanding the responsibilities that came with their newfound power. Others found themselves responding emotionally to authority, restrictions and the loss of personal control.
These participants were not trained correctional officers, nor should they be judged as though they were. They were volunteers navigating unfamiliar circumstances without the professional preparation and training we provide correctional personnel. That distinction was precisely what caught my attention.
A uniform may provide someone with authority, but it doesn’t automatically give them the judgment, emotional intelligence or professionalism necessary to exercise it responsibly.
Correctional officers must learn to manage conflict, recognize manipulation, communicate effectively, regulate their emotions and make sound decisions under pressure. Those skills don’t simply develop because someone completes an academy or receives a badge. They must be taught, practiced, evaluated and continuously reinforced.
Training must go beyond policies and procedures
Corrections is an unforgiving profession when it comes to poor decisions. A momentary emotional reaction, an unnecessary confrontation or a failure to recognize a developing threat can have consequences far beyond the immediate incident. This is why realistic, scenario-based training is so important. Officers need opportunities to experience stress, practice decision-making and develop confidence before confronting difficult situations in an actual correctional environment.
Equally important is training in the interpersonal skills that are too often dismissed as secondary to security operations. In my book, “POWER SKILLS: Emotional Intelligence and Soft Skills for Correctional Officers, First Responders, and Beyond,” I emphasize that communication, emotional regulation, conflict resolution and sound judgment are not soft alternatives to correctional security. They are essential components of it.
These are not simply desirable personality traits. They are professional skills that must be taught, practiced and reinforced, just like any other critical correctional skill.
The environment itself creates stress
One of my greatest surprises during the experiment was the emotional impact of the environment itself. These participants knew they weren’t facing criminal charges. They knew the experience was temporary and that they could leave the experiment at any time. Yet confinement, unfamiliar routines, restricted freedom and the loss of everyday comforts created genuine emotional distress.
Understanding how stress affects behavior doesn’t excuse misconduct or diminish accountability. It helps us recognize developing problems and respond before emotions overwhelm good judgment. After nearly three decades working inside correctional institutions, I was surprised by how powerfully the environment affected some participants. For correctional professionals, this is an important reminder that the institutional environment influences everyone within it, including staff.
Leadership establishes the standard
Training provides the foundation, but leadership determines whether those lessons become part of an agency’s culture.
Correctional supervisors must do more than enforce rules. They must model professionalism, reinforce expectations, address deficiencies and create an environment where sound judgment and accountability are valued. I’ve seen throughout my career how quickly poor practices can become accepted when leaders fail to correct them.
One of the most interesting aspects of the experiment was watching leadership continually shift among both the guards and the inmates. Some participants naturally emerged as leaders, while others struggled to establish their authority, even when given an official leadership position.
What became apparent was that some participants understood that leadership comes from influence, while others simply attempted to impose their will. Those who built relationships, communicated effectively and earned the trust of others often demonstrated the greatest leadership, regardless of their assigned role.
Many of the leadership struggles we witnessed reflected a lack of training and a lack of understanding of why people choose to follow others. Simply standing in front of a group and announcing, “I’m wearing the Head Guard vest, so I’m in charge,” doesn’t automatically make someone a leader.
There is a significant difference between having the authority to give orders and having the ability to inspire others to follow them. For correctional professionals, this is a critical distinction. A rank or position establishes formal authority, but effective leadership requires credibility, consistency, communication and trust.
Training provides the tools to develop these skills, but correctional leaders must also demonstrate them daily. Supervisors who rely solely on their rank may achieve compliance, but those who lead through influence are better positioned to build professional teams, earn respect and create a culture of accountability.
We cannot simply hand someone authority and expect professionalism to follow.
An unexpected lesson in cooperation
Perhaps the greatest surprise came at the end. After disagreements, emotional challenges and struggles over power, the participants ultimately found a way to put aside their differences and collectively bring the experiment to an end on their own terms.
I don’t think anyone, especially me, could have predicted that outcome.
It reinforced something I’ve witnessed throughout my career: When people begin to understand and depend on one another, cooperation can overcome differences that once seemed insurmountable.
The lesson for corrections
I don’t believe this experiment accurately represents the realities of incarceration or professional correctional work. Prison provided the setting, but human behavior was the real subject. And while viewers may reach different conclusions about whether power corrupts, my greatest takeaway was about the responsibility that comes with giving someone authority.
Quality training and effective leadership are not optional investments. They are the foundation of a safe, secure and professional correctional environment.
If you’re watching “The New Stanford Prison Experiment,” what lessons do you think the show offers for corrections? Share below.
