Rescripting criminal identity

Abstract

Purpose – This research paper aims to examine how organized criminals rescript their identities to engage with entrepreneurship discourse when authoring their biographies. From a sociological perspective, stereotypes and social constructs of the entrepreneur and the criminal are subjects of recurring interest. Yet, despite the prevalence of the stereotype of the entrepreneur as a hero-figure in the entrepreneurship literature and the conflation of the entrepreneur with the stereotype of the businessman, notions of entrepreneurial identity are not fixed with constructions of the entrepreneur as a rascal, rogue or villain being accepted as alternative social constructs. Design/methodology/approach – The qualitative approaches of “biographical analysis” and “close reading” adopted help us draw out discursive strategies. Findings – The main finding is that a particular genre of criminal biographies can be re-read as entrepreneur stories. The theme of nuanced entrepreneurial identities and in particular gangster discourse is under researched. In this study, by conducting a close reading of contemporary biographies of British criminals, the paper encounters self-representations of criminals who seek to author an alternative and more appealing social identity as entrepreneurs. That this re-scripting of personal biographies to make gangster stories conform to the genre of entrepreneur stories is of particular interest. Research limitations/implications – This study points to similarities and differences between criminal and entrepreneurial biographies. It also presents sociological insights into an alternative version of entrepreneurial identity and sociological constructions of the criminal as entrepreneur. Practical implications – This research provides an insight into how criminals seek to legitimise their life-stories. Originality/value – This research paper is of value in that it is the first to consider contemporary biographies of British criminals as entrepreneurship discourse. Understanding how criminal biographies and entrepreneur stories share similar socially constructed themes, storylines and epistemologies contribute to the development of entrepreneurship and sociological research by examining entrepreneurship in an unusual social setting.

Entrepreneurship and misconducting behaviors: A conceptual model of institutional divergence

“…In particular, we argue that external locus of control may reduce the likelihood of unmoral actions when the belief to control consequences coming with external contingencies is low (Maclean, 2008). In this way, we created a novel theoretical connection between locus of control and ethical decision making Third, scholars documented the link between anti-establishment mentalities and pursuing illegal actions (Arend, 2016;Obschonka et al, 2013;Smith, 2013;Zhang and Arvey, 2009). Our model supports this thesis and provides further contributions by introducing the cognitive dimension of risk-propensity.…”

“…Third, scholars documented the link between anti-establishment mentalities and pursuing illegal actions (Arend, 2016; Obschonka et al, 2013; Smith, 2013; Zhang and Arvey, 2009). Our model supports this thesis and provides further contributions by introducing the cognitive dimension of risk-propensity.…”

“…In particular, when analyzing misconduct behaviors "personal issues such as an individual's philosophical outlook, personality, morality and character are important" (Smith, 2009: 262). For instance, Smith (2013) documented that criminal entrepreneurs often have an anti-establishment mentality. This body of knowledge attributed misconducting behaviors to many individual aspects such as lack or low cognitive moral development (Weber and Wasieleski, 2001), empathy (Eisenberg, 2000), and integrity (Frost and Rafilson, 1989).…”

“…The basic assumption here is that entrepreneurial decision-making is not only guided by external factors to achieve more beneficial outcomes, but also by individual characteristics associated with the persona (Fayolle et al, 2014). In this vein, scholars documented as antecedents the moral development, (Smith, 2013), anti-establish mentality (Zhang and Arvey, 2009), and habits and systematic cognitive biases (Butterfield et al, 2000).…”

“…Building on the intersection between misconducting, entrepreneurial cognitivism, and institutionalism, this paper intends to provide two contributions. First, we contribute to misconduct theory by proposing a set of antecedents and moderating variables explaining maverick behaviors (Gottschalk and Smith, 2011; Smith, 2009, 2015; Treviño et al, 2006), respectively overcoming legitimate and legal boundaries (Smith, 2013). Second, we expand the understanding of the relations between entrepreneurs and institutions by shedding light on actions through which they consciously diverge from legality and legitimacy institutions rather than seeking conformity (Brenkert, 2009; Warren and Smith, 2015).…”