THE FAILURE OF CORRECTIONS MANAGERS TO LEAD THEIR ORGANIZATIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAT FAILURE ARE NOTED. CORRECTIONS MANAGERS' INABILITY OR UNWILLINGNESS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT (SURVIVAL) AND INSTITUTIONAL SUCCESS (IN ACCOMPLISHING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES) IS POINTED OUT. PROBLEMS IN DEFINING THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF A CORRECTIONS ORGANIZATION ARE DISCUSSED, AS IS THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CORRECTIONS MANAGER'S TASK. IT IS EMPHASIZED THAT, REGARDLESS OF THE OBSTACLES, IT IS THE CORRECTIONS MANAGER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEFINE THE ORGANIZATION'S GOALS AND OBJECTIVES, TO ENSURE THAT ALL PERSONNEL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM, TO HOLD PERSONNEL ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OBJECTIVES, AND TO MEASURE THE ORGANIZATION'S PROGRESS. REASONS BEHIND FAILURE IN CORRECTIONS MANAGEMENT, FIRST DELINEATED IN 1973, ARE LISTED: (1) GREATER CONCERN WITH SURVIVAL THAN WITH SUBSTANTIVE PROGRAMMING; (2) UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF REHABILITATION; (3) PREOCCUPATION WITH THE IDEA THAT INMATES ARE 'SICK' AND IN NEED OF A CURE; (4) FAILURE TO HOLD STAFF MEMBERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS; (5) THE CORRECTIONS MANAGER'S UNCERTAIN 'CONSTITUENCY'; (6) PREFERENCE FOR HIGHLY VISIBLE, AS OPPOSED TO SUBSTANTIVE, RESULTS; (7) INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT TRAINING; (8) RELIANCE ON RULES AND MANUALS IN THE ABSENCE OF A PROFESSIONAL BODY OF KNOWLEDGE IN CORRECTIONS; (9) LACK OF AN ORGANIZATION TO WHICH MANAGERS CAN TURN CONSISTENTLY FOR STANDARDS, ETHICS, OR RULES OF PERFORMANCE; AND (10) A TENDENCY TO KEEP PERFORMANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL EVALUATION AT A MINIMUM. PROGRESS IN EACH OF THESE PROBLEM AREAS SINCE 1973 IS OUTLINED, AS ARE PROSPECTS FOR IMPROVED CORRECTIONS MANAGEMENT IN THE FUTURE. THE TONE IS 'CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC.' A LIST OF REFERENCES IS INCLUDED. (LKM)