AN EXAMINATION OF THE POWER OF THE
DARK SIDE OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Frank S. Lockwood, Western Carolina University
Russell Teasley, North Georgia College and State University
JoAnn C. Carland, Western Carolina University
James W. Carland, Western Carolina University
ABSTRACT
"Never underestimate the power of the Dark Side!" Luke Skywalker learned that lesson
well in a galaxy far, far away and long, long ago, but modern entrepreneurship theorists may be
less well informed than the characters in Star Wars. Like the “Force,” Entrepreneurship is a
tremendous power for good. But, like the “Force,” Entrepreneurship does have a Dark Side and
it is powerful, indeed.
With rare exceptions, the literature about entrepreneurship is positive and supportive and
implies that uniform benefits accrue to the economy, to businesses, and to individuals as a result
of entrepreneurship. This is only half the story. A small number of researchers have examined
the dysfunctional aspects of entrepreneurship and pointed out that a Dark Side definitely exists
(Kets de Vries, 1985; Solomon & Winslow, 1988; Winslow & Solomon, 1987; 1989).
This paper will look at those who turned to the Dark Side for their very existence. The
authors have surveyed prisoners who have been convicted of a felony and who are serving
sentences in a Federal Prison in the Midwest. The participants were enrolled in a continuing
education course involving entrepreneurship and small business startup ideas and they all
espoused a desire to “go straight” when their sentences had been served. How did they become
criminals? Did they view their criminal activities as entrepreneurial ventures? Will they
become legitimate entrepreneurs in the future? Can entrepreneurship education alleviate the
problems faced by these offenders when released and is there a greater or lesser chance of
recidivism when these inmates are given the opportunity to study entrepreneurship while still
incarcerated? If they exist, are Dark Side Entrepreneurs different from main stream
Entrepreneurs? These were the questions which drove our research.
INTRODUCTION
A major problem facing society today is the impact that the growing number of inmates
serving sentences have on the economic vitality of our nation. The problem has been
exacerbated because our jails are not only filled with first time-offenders but with a large
population of repeat offenders, those returned to prison because they were unable to maintain a
crime-free lifestyle after being released. According to the Bureau of Justice (2000), in the United
States released prisoners were re-arrested at an average rate that was greater than 60%. The high
percentage of re-arrested former prisoners is a clear indication that just serving one’s sentence is
1
not a deterrent to committing more criminal acts. The economic cost to society and to those
directly affected by criminal activity is tremendous. According to the Bureau of Justice (2000),
one of every fifteen people in the U.S. will be incarcerated. That figure is staggering. During the
past 25 years, the penal system in the United States has implemented a strategy of “lock ‘em up
and throw away the key.” As a result, there has been an unprecedented growth in the prison
population in the number of incarcerated inmates even though the crime rate has been decreasing.
Further exacerbating the situation is that incredibly high rate of recidivism.
According to the Three State Recidivism Study (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy, 2001) released
inmates reported that less than half had a job awaiting them after they were freed from prison.
While most (about 87% of those who had received training while in prison and 83% of those
who did not participate in training) believed that they had a place to stay after they were released,
the remainder were released as homeless, left to roam the streets, mostly in urban areas.
The economic cost of incarceration and the cost to society of criminal activity, plus the
lost wages due to imprisonment of convicted workers and the cost of providing welfare for their
families is creating a substantial burden on local, state and federal budgets. The combination of
rising costs multiplied by an ever greater number of incarcerated inmates is putting pressure on
the penal system to find an alternative, better strategy for success after release. Is there a strategy
that can lead to a lower prisoner population through a decrease in recidivism? Is there a strategy
that can help released inmates generate income to support themselves and their families?
RECIDIVISM RESEARCH
Mounting evidence is demonstrating the potential for education and training programs to
reduce the number of incarcerated inmates by reducing the rate of recidivism among those
inmates released to return to society. One example of such evidence is the well regarded ThreeState Recidivism Study published through a partnership between the Correctional Education
Association and the Management and Training Corporation. In this study, Steurer, Smith, and
Tracy (2001) demonstrated empirical support for educating incarcerated offenders. Their
conclusions were that: 1) although the effect of education on recidivism varied across states, all
states showed a reduction in recidivism for prisoners participating in education; and, 2) that
post-release, the earnings of the education participants were higher than non-participants,
implying that higher wages result in higher standards of living for the released inmates and their
families.
The pressure ensuing from increased costs of incarceration relative to a growing prisoner
population, as a result of high rates of recidivism has led to a new effort to learn about postrelease behavior and employment of former inmates. The hypothesis would be that increased
exposure to training and educational programs will result in a lower rate of recidivism, thus a
lowering of the repeat offenders in the prison system. Several studies over the last twenty five
years have had significant results. Table 1 recaps the results of some of these research efforts.
2
Table 1: Research Results of the Effect of Education and Training on Recidivism
Name of Study
Type of Training
Employment Potential
Effect on Recidivism
University of Victoria
(Acers, et al, 1980)
(Duguid, Hawkey & Knights,
1981)
College Education
Program Participants
No Data
14% Recidivism
College Education
Non Participants
No Data
51% Recidivism
Illinois Study
(Anderson, Anderson &
Schumaker, 1988)
Vocational Training
High Employability
Lower Re-Arrest Rate
Vocational Training
and Academic
Training
High Employability
Lower Re-Arrest Rate
No Vocational
Training
Low Employability
Highest Re-Arrest
Rate
Academic Training
Only
Lower Employability
Higher Re-Arrest
Rate
Five Year Outcome Study:
Factors Associated with
Recidivism
(Eisenberg, 1991)
GED Completers
No Data
Lower Recidivism
than Non Participants
Alabama Corrections
Education Research
(Gainous, 1992)
Post-Secondary Course
Completers
No Data
5% Recidivism
Post-Secondary Course
Non Participants
No Data
35% Recidivism
Post-Release Employment
Project
(Saylor & Gaes, 1992)
Vocational Program
72% Employed
7% Recidivism
No Program
(Control Group)
63% Employed
10% Recidivism
Texas Department of
Corrections
(Glenn, 1995)
Post-Secondary
Vocational Training
Graduates
Greater Employability
Lower Recidivism
Than Non
Participants
Maryland Study
(Jenkins, Steurer, & Pendry,
1995)
Formal,
Post-Secondary
77% Employed
≥ Estimated Minimum Wage
No Data
Louisiana Study
(Elbert, 1999)
Vocational Program
Completers
No Data
Lower Recidivism
Vocational Program
Non-completers
No Data
Higher Recidivism
No Program
(1,307 of 3,000)
55% Employed
for at Least 90 Days
49% Recidivism
Virginia Department of
Correctional Education
3
Table 1: Research Results of the Effect of Education and Training on Recidivism
Name of Study
(Hull, et Al, 2000)
Type of Training
Employment Potential
Effect on Recidivism
Did Not Complete
Program
(786 0f 3,000)
61% Employed
for at Least 90 Days
38% Recidivism
Program Completers
(907 of 3,000)
78% Employed
for at Least 90 Days
20% Recidivism
Three State Recidivism
Study
(Steurer, Smith, & Tracy,
2001)
Education Program
Participants
No Data
31% Recidivism
Education Program
Non-participants
No Data
37% Recidivism
Hamden County House
Of Corrections Study
(Burke & Vivian, 2001)
Community College
(Complete at Least 3
Hrs)
No Data
22% Lower
Recidivism
Than Non
Participants
The Three State Recidivism Study issued in 2001 by the Correctional Education
Association, and noted above, is an excellent example of the quality of current
recidivism/education research. The methodology of the Three State Recidivism Study was welldesigned. This study collected data on about 3,200 inmates who were released from prisons in
the states of Minnesota, Ohio, and Maryland. The participants in the study were divided into two
groups: prisoners who had participated in education and training programs while incarcerated
(1,373 prisoners); and prisoners who did not participate in education and training while in prison
(1,797). Each prisoner who participated in the study completed a pre-release survey that
included information about his family life, education and training background, criminal history,
and work experience. Three years of follow-up data were collected to measure rates of released
prisoners being re-arrested, re-convicted, and returned to jail. The study found that three years
after being released, the group that had participated in education and training programs had a
significantly lower rate of recidivism. Also, the wages earned by this same group were higher
than those earned by non-participants.
As described in Table 1, other such studies over the period of 1980 to 2001 also indicated
that some type of educational intervention resulted in lower rates of recidivism. The Federal
Bureau of Prisons has found that there is an inverse relationship between education and
recidivism (Harer, 1994). Another study found that prisoners who had two-years or more of
college education had only a 10% re-arrest rate as compared to the average 60% rate (Marks,
1997). As such, there is promise that an education directed at helping prisoners to become
specifically employed and at a higher level should result in even higher levels of success on the
outside. This leaves us to wonder whether entrepreneurship education, which is directed toward
the creation of businesses, might be utilized for even greater levels of success.
4
CRIMINAL ENTREPRENEURS
Do Dark Side Entrepreneurs exist? If so, are they different from the entrepreneurs that
we normally study? To explore this question, the authors administered established instruments to
a convenience sample of convicted felons incarcerated in a Federal Prison in the Midwest. All of
the participants were male, and all were participating in a continuing education course involving
entrepreneurship. Every participant in the course, 34 men, agreed to participate in the study. The
instrumentation included demographic questions dealing with the traditional data, but also
included questions about the participant’s criminal activities and criminal history. We also
wanted to know whether any of the participants were actually involved in ownership of a
legitimate business prior to incarceration, and we specifically addressed whether the participant
considered his criminal activities to be a business. The entrepreneurship courses were taught by
an inmate instructor who has extensive experience as an entrepreneur, using textbooks and
educational material obtained from academic institutions.
As indicated, the authors were particularly interested in knowing if the inmates viewed
their criminal activities as entrepreneurial ventures: were they Dark Side Entrepreneurs? As we
will discuss later, these criminals described their activities in terms of sources of supply,
channels of distribution, effect of supply and demand on price, the value of creating a brand
identity, and efforts to obtain competitive advantage. They clearly had a firm grasp of the
concepts of first mover advantage and the value of working capital. Therefore, the perceptions
and activities of the surveyed inmates were clearly similar to those of entrepreneurs, small
businessmen, and business managers.
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND THE DARK SIDE
Personality traits of entrepreneurs have been examined by many researchers citing such
attributes as a need for power (Peay & Dyer, 1989); and, the pursuit of freedom of expression and
of spirit (Cole, 1989). Entrepreneurs have been characterized as confident, optimistic, not prone
to take great risks or to be reckless, unwilling to have their performance judged by others,
especially willing to be independent and self-reliant, and, as more than non-conformist, in fact,
mildly sociopathic (Solomon & Winslow, 1988; Winslow & Solomon, 1987; 1989). At least one
author has posited that entrepreneurship can be hazardous to one’s health (Buttner, 1988).
Many characteristics of entrepreneurs such as risk taking propensity (Mill, 1848;
McClelland, 1961; Mancuso, 1975; Timmons, 1978; Brockhaus, 1982; Watts, 1989; Carland &
Carland, 1991) have been explored. Innovation has also oft been cited as a central characteristic
of the entrepreneurial endeavor (Schumpeter, 1934; McClelland, 1961; Williams, 1981; Martin,
1982; Drucker, 1985; Carland & Carland, 1991). Other researchers have studied the need for
achievement in entrepreneurs (Hornaday & Aboud, 1971; Liles, 1974; DeCarlo & Lyons, 1978;
Carland & Carland, 1991) and cognitive influences have been examined as well (Carland &
Carland, 1983, 1987, 1991, 1992; Barbato & Durlabhji, 1989). In most of the literature in which
a portrait of the entrepreneur is drawn, only the positive aspects are vigorously outlined; and yet
for every burst of brilliance, there is a negative or dark aspect: a Dark Side.
Few have examined the aspects of the Dark Side of entrepreneurship. Osbourne (1991)
identified the Dark Side as the "corrupting power of ownership" and cited examples of situations
5
in which the power of ownership corrupted the organization. Cole (1989) described the
entrepreneurial self and alluded to the reality that often entrepreneurs are “displaced persons”
who are entering the pursuit of ownership for less than sterling goals.
INSTRUMENTATION
Several instruments were utilized to determine the characteristics of the sample
employing traditional constructs of the entrepreneurship literature. We employed tests which
measured the entrepreneurial psyche involving cognitive or managerial style (i.e., Hoy &
Boulton, 1983; Ginn & Sexton, 1989; 1990; Brodzinski, Scherer & Wiebe, 1990; Dugan, Feeser
& Plaschka, 1990; Carland, Carland & Stewart, 1996; Pollard, 2006; Brice 2006). Carland,
Carland and Hoy (1992) combined that stream of research with more traditional research on
entrepreneurial personality traits, a body of literature which includes many contributions (i.e.,
Hartman, 1959; Davids, 1963; Hornaday and Aboud, 1971; Palmer, 1971; Liles, 1974; Borland,
1974; Mancuso, 1975; Gasse, 1977; Timmons, 1978; Sexton, 1980; Vesper, 1980; Welsh and
White, 1981; Williams, 1981; Dunkelberg and Cooper, 1982; Carland, 1982; Carland, Hoy,
Boulton & Carland, 1984; 1988; Ginn & Sexton, 1990; Stewart, 1996; Stewart, Watson, Carland
& Carland, 1999; Gaulden, Jackson & Gaster, 2002; Envick & Langford, 2003; Brockman,
Becherer & Finch, 2006). They concluded that entrepreneurship was best understood as an
individual drive: the drive toward entrepreneurial behavior. In that same vein, Carland, Carland
and Stewart (1996) described the entrepreneurial psyche as a gestalt of multiple personality
factors including the need for achievement, the propensity for risk taking, the preference for
innovation, and cognitive style. They suggested that the varying strengths of the traits in an
individual entrepreneur combine to affect that individual’s behavior. It is this gestalt of drives
which produces differences in entrepreneurial behavior (Carland, Carland & Stewart, 1996).
Achievement Scale of the Personality Research Form
The instrument used to measure the need for achievement is the Achievement Scale of the
Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1974). The instrument has been shown to have reliability
(Jackson, 1974), to display convergent and discriminant validity, and to possess high correlations
with self and peer ratings (Jackson & Guthrie, 1968). It consists of 16 forced choice questions
which may be scored by untrained people. Odd-even reliabilities for two groups (N = 83 & N =
84) were .57 and .66 after the Spearman-Brown correction had been applied (Jackson, 1974). In
a test for validity, Jackson and Guthrie (1968) reported correlations with self ratings and peer
ratings of .65 and .46 respectively, and reported that the form possessed convergent and
discriminant validity.
Risk Taking Scale of the Jackson Personality Inventory
The instrument selected to measure risk taking propensity was the Risk Taking Scale of
the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1976). The instrument consists of 20 forced choice
questions, may be scored by untrained people, and has been reported to display high reliability
and validity and to exhibit high correlations with self and peer ratings (Jackson, 1976). Jackson
6
(1976), in a test involving two samples (N = 82 & N = 307), reported internal consistency
reliability values of .93 and .91 using Bentler's coefficient theta and .81 and .84 using coefficient
alpha. In a test for validity, Jackson (1976) reported (N = 70) correlations with the completion of
an adjective checklist, with self rating and peer rating of .75, .77 and .52, respectively.
Innovation Scale of the Jackson Personality Inventory
The instrument selected to measure preference for innovation was the Innovation Scale of
the Jackson Personality Inventory (Jackson, 1976). This instrument also consists of 20 questions
in a forced choice format and can be scored by untrained people. It has been reported to display
high reliability and validity and to exhibit high correlations with self and peer ratings (Jackson,
1976). Jackson (1976), in tests involving two samples (N = 82 & N = 307), reported internal
consistency reliability values of .94 and .93 using Bentler's coefficient theta and .83 and .87 using
coefficient alpha. In a test for validity, Jackson (1976) reported (N = 70) correlations with the
completion of an adjective checklist, with self rating and peer rating of .79, .73 and .37,
respectively.
Myer-Briggs Type Indicator
The instrument selected to measure cognitive styles was the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(Myers & Briggs, 1962). The MBTI is an objective instrument with four dimensions measuring
dichotomous preferences derived from Carl Jung's (1923) theory of psychological types. These
preferences measure how one employs perception of people, problems and environment in a
cognitive process which is intricately involved in decision making and in managerial style. The
MBTI classifies people into four temperaments, comprising 16 typologies. It enjoys wide
acceptance and use, excellent test-retest correlation, internal consistency and reliability
(Mendelsohn, 1965; Buros, 1970; Keyser & Sweetland, 1984) and has been shown to have
satisfactory content, predictive and construct validity (Carlyn, 1977).
The Carland Entrepreneurship Index
The Carland Entrepreneurship Index (Carland, Carland & Hoy, 1992) is a forced choice
format instrument which deals with the four constructs evolved from the elements of
entrepreneurship espoused in the literature explicated above: personality, preference for
innovation, risk-taking propensity, and strategic posture. A principal component factor analysis
using varimax rotation resulted in 33 elements. Self ratings produced a score of .417 for a
probability of <.001 and a test-retest correlation of .80 was obtained with a probability of <.001,
indicating that the index was consistent over time in producing unique scores for respondents.
The split-half, odd-even reliability examination resulted in a correlation of .78 and was
statistically significant at the <.001 level as well (Carland & Carland, 1996). The KuderRichardson test for inter-item reliability was .73 (Carland & Carland, 1996) which means that the
test was accurately measuring some characteristic of the people taking it and that the individual
items in the test were producing similar patterns of response in different people (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
7
To test the convergent and discriminant validity of the Carland Entrepreneurship Index,
the findings were compared with established personality instruments. Tests for discriminant and
predictive validity as well as normality indicated that the CEI performed as expected, and an
application employing a sample of inc. 500 entrepreneurs supported the power of the index to
discriminate among growth oriented entrepreneurs (Carland, Carland & Ensley, 2001).
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
The demographics of the sample employed in this research are displayed in Table 2. The
table also displays the distribution of the sample with regard to the type of crime for which the
prisoner was incarcerated, and whether the inmate had previously been arrested. The
demographics contained several surprises for the researchers, the first of which was the
educational attainment level of the sample. Six of the respondents did not have high school
educations, but 8 did hold high school diplomas, and a surprising 19 of the 34 had more than a
high school education. These included two baccalaureates and one JD. Most of the participants
were incarcerated for drug related crimes, 23 of the 34, while 6 of the 34 had committed violent
crimes. Fifteen of the participants reported that they had been self employed at some point in
time, but only 9 of these were self employed at the time of arrest.
Table 2: Sample of Study
Respondents (N=34)
Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60+
3
12
11
6
1
Education
<12
12
12+
6
8
19
Race
White
Black
Hispanic
9
21
4
Crime
Violent
Drug
Fraud
Other
6
23
2
3
Previously Self Employed at some point
15
Prior Arrests
18
6
8
2
None
1 prior arrest
2 prior arrests
3 or more prior arrests
To investigate whether the sample of inmates displayed any of the traditional
characteristics of entrepreneurs, we administered an abbreviated version of the Myers-Briggs
8
Type Indicator (MBTI), the Carland Entrepreneurship Index (CEI) and the Jackson Personality
Inventory (JPI). The results of that survey are displayed in Table 3, and these results were
startling to the researchers. The results could have been expected in any sample of entrepreneurs,
managers, or other stalwart members of society.
Table 3: MBTI Distribution
Respondents (N=34)
NT
SJ
INTJ
4
ISTJ
12
INTP
1
ESTJ
7
ENTJ
3
ISFJ
2
Total 24%
8
Total 62%
21
SP
NF
ESTP
2
ENFJ
1
ISTP
1
INFJ
1
Total 9%
3
Total 6%
2
Carland Entrepreneurship Index Scores
Average CEI Score
23 out of a possible score of 33
Jackson Personality Inventory
Risk Taking Propensity
12 out of a possible score of 20
Preference for Innovation
16 out of a possible score of 20
Need for Achievement
12 out of a possible score of 16
Note that Table 3 shows the primary characteristics of our sample as being SensingJudging “SJs”, with 62% of the sample displaying that temperament. Contrast that with the
expected distribution of SJs in the national population, 38% (Keirsey & Bates, 1984), and one
can see how striking the results truly were. Further, the group was dominated by the ISTJ
typology, with 35% of the group displaying those traits in contrast to the expected distribution of
5% (Keirsey & Bates, 1984). Keirsey and Bates (1984) describe the SJ as:
being a traditionalist or stabilizer;
liking to establish policies, rules, schedules, and standards and create company rituals;
being patient, thorough, steady, reliable, orderly;
having a strong sense of social responsibility;
having a need to serve, to be needed, and to do one's duty;
being resistant to change and being decisive;
having common sense;
being a hard and steady worker, thorough and loyal; and,
known to be pessimistic.
9
Further, Keirsey and Bates (1984) describe the ISTJ as:
driven by a sense of responsibility;
focused inwardly, concentrating on the objective and concrete;
extremely demanding;
doing what should be done;
neat and orderly, tasteful and reserved, believing that there is a place for everything and
that everything should be in its place;
dutiful in work and play, believing that an idle mind is the Devil’s playground and that
honest work is good for all; and,
exhibiting a sense of duty and responsibility that is greater than any other type.
The typology descriptions of the SJ and the ISTJ certainly did not fit the stereotype which
we had possessed relative to incarcerated prisoners prior to this study. The results of this survey
painted a picture of a group of men who should have been law abiding citizens.
As Table 3 further indicates, the prisoners scored high on the CEI, with scores well above
the mean (16 out of 33), suggesting that the group displayed a high drive toward
entrepreneurship. Scores on the subsets of the Jackson Personality Inventory were also
surprising. Table 3 indicates that the group scored high on the need for achievement, and high on
preference for innovation, but barely above the mean on risk taking propensity.
None of these findings are consistent with our preconceived ideas about the group, and,
we suspect, are not consonant with the expectations of the majority of readers. We turned to an
examination of a series of open ended questions which we had included in the survey. The most
important of these questions dealt with whether the prisoner considered his criminal activities to
be a business, and if so, why. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the respondents did, in fact,
consider their criminal activities to be a business. They provided such illuminating comments as
the following:
I employed the same logistics as WalMart
Selling drugs is like a business because you have employees
Business is anything that has supply and demand
My involvement was for profit
I used organizational skills
I was selling a product
I used bookkeeping and management principles
Location is key and I had a targeted market
It’s like selling any other product
I advertised and distributed
There was supply and demand
The principles are the same:
supply and demand;
management and staffing;
minimize the costs; and,
maximize the profits
10
At the very least, these felons used the language of business to describe their activities;
consequently, we are left with the conclusion that our research identified this group of felons as
strongly oriented toward entrepreneurship. Darkside Entrepreneurs truly do exist, and the
participants in the study truly are in every sense of the phrase.
Are Darkside Entrepreneurs different? The participants in our study are certainly
different from successful entrepreneurs in society in only one respect: the activities in which they
engaged were illegal and detrimental to our economy.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
How can the most responsible and dutiful of all typologies turn to crime and openly
describe their activities as business ventures in every sense of the word? The answer could lie in
the society to which the SJ feels that traditional sense of duty and responsibility. Fifty percent
(50%) of the respondents reported that a member of their family had previously served time in
prison, and 47% of the group had a close friend who had previously served time in prison. Forty
seven percent (47%) had been arrested for a felony prior to the current conviction, and 37% had
served time in prison previously. Further, 10 of the respondents, 29%, reported that their first
arrest came before the age of 20 years. Our anecdotal conclusion is that a heartbreaking number
of the prisoners in this study grew up in a society in which criminal activity was normal.
If our findings are at all typical, then anecdotally we must learn how to demonstrate to our
children and youth that the society to which one owes one’s duty is the dominant society of our
world, not some criminal subset of society. We greatly fear that until we learn how to do this,
our subcultures will continue to breed Darkside Entrepreneurs and our dominant culture will
suffer for it.
CONCLUSION
There is a strong ray of hope in this study. One final question which we asked the
participants had to do with their plans for the future upon their release from prison. Twenty three
of the respondents, 68%, indicated that they intended to start a legitimate business in the future.
Nineteen of these, 58%, had taken previous courses in prison that they believed would help them
achieve this goal. The dreams of starting a venture were more fully formed than one might
believe as indicated by the listing of businesses that the prisoners provided.
A carwash or shoe store
I would like to start a small restaurant and plan for future growth
Disaster relief - removal of debris
Financial consultant
Import auto parts
I'm planning on starting up a marketing or advertising company in Poland
Auto repair, used car sales, and auto financing
Aviation oriented
I am going to trade equities, buy several businesses, and invest in real estate
11
Professional personal trainer business; also, real estate holding company
Trading stock options
Real estate
Store or gas station, some real estate
Mail order pharmaceuticals, incentives, import/export
Talent promotions
Real Estate and Investment firm – I plan to buy, sell, and rent affordable housing
Real estate development and building
Hope to process exportable raw materials before export
An electronics manufacturing or information brokerage business
Trucking and real estate development
Restaurant, entertainment and clothing business
Construction
Musician – after a lifetime of working as a musician, I'll do what comes naturally to a 66
year old person just released from prison – sing the blues
In fact, one young man was released shortly after our survey was completed and made
good on his dreams. He wrote a letter to the instructor of the program one year later. He had
relocated to Florida and established a real estate business. Here is an excerpt from his letter.
“When I got to Florida I started doing the things that I learned from you. Though
I did not actually initially get into the project I wanted, it got me noticed and in
position to meet like-minded individuals. I remember you telling me how
investors with greater insight than me would sometimes try to shape or reshape
the plan and my need to be ready and willing. That is exactly what took place.
No, I didn’t learn how to acquire and sell vacant property, but I did learn the
etiquette of business. I learned from a wise man how to present a plan and, more
importantly, myself. I learned about developing a reputation for good returns and
so much more. I really want to emphasize those mock presentations [required as
part of the program of study].”
“In my first year in business I made over $1.4 million in sales and over 20%
gross profit. I started to look into rehab housing. I asked a guy to finance me as I
cannot pay interest for personal reasons [his religion prohibits this]. He thought
that this would be a risky investment with someone that had no previous
experience, so he suggested I buy a vacant piece of property. He knew the
property here appreciated quickly and he thought it would help me get on my feet
after a few months. Problem was I didn’t know that I wasn’t supposed to turn the
property around immediately. I sold the first property in about a week for 50%
more than what I bought it for. Then I got two more. The rest is history. I
developed several techniques to acquire properties and several categories of
buyers.”
12
We are not naive enough to believe that this young man was typical in any way, but his
story is certainly encouraging. The authors understand that this is a convenience sample of small
size; consequently, the results cannot be extrapolated to any larger population. Nevertheless, the
study did give us a kernel of hope that through entrepreneurship education, we can change lives
as well as provide for a lower rate of recidivism and higher economic success for people who all
too often are completely forgotten. We completed our research hoping that many members of
this group would find success in legitimate entrepreneurial ventures: that more of these Darkside
Entrepreneurs would be turned to the light.
13
REFERENCES
Acers, D., Duguid, S., Montague, C. & Wolowidnyk, (1980). Effects pf the University of
Victoria Post-Release Program Study. Report to the Correction Service in Canada,
Ottawa.
Anderson, D., Anderson, S., & Schumaker, E. (1988). Correctional Education: A Way to Stay
Out. Illinois Council on Vocational Education.
Barbato, R.J. & Durlabhji, S. (1989). Budding entrepreneurs: Business student and dislocated
workers, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), March, 49-57.
Borland, C. (1974). Locus of control, need for achievement, and entrepreneurship. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
Brice, J. (2006). Can Personality Dimensions Influence Entrepreneurial Occupation Preference?
An Exploratory Study of Dispositional Influences on Cognitive Processes, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 1-26.
Brockhaus, R.H. (1982) Psychology of the entrepreneur. In Kent, Sexton, Vesper (Eds),
Encyclopedia of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 39-57.
Brockman, B.K., Becherer, R.C. & J. H. Finch. (2006). Influences on an Entrepreneur’s
Perceived Risk: The Role of Magnitude, Likelihood, and Risk Propensity, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(2), 103-121.
Brodzinski, J. D., R. F. Scherer & F. A. Wiebe (1990). Boundary spanning activity: a function of
the small business owner's decision style. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 2(2),
1-12.
Bureau of Justice (2000). Criminal Offender Statistics. Available: http://www.usdoj.gov/bjs.
Burke, L. & Vivian, J. (2001). The Effect of Education Programs on Job Procurement and
Recidivism. Journal of Correctional Education, 52:4. Correctional Education
Association.
Buros, O. K. (1970). Personality Tests and Reviews. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Buttner, E.H. (1988) Entrepreneurship: Is it hazardous to your health? In F. Hoy (ed).
Academy of Management Proceedings, August, 393.
Carland, J.A. & J.W. Carland. (1996). The Theoretical Basis and Dimensionality of the Carland
14
Entrepreneurship Index, Proceedings of the RISE ‘96 Conference, University of
Jyväskylä, Finland, 1-24.
Carland, J. A., J. W. Carland & W. H. Stewart (1996). Seeing what's not there: The enigma of
entrepreneurship, Journal of Small Business Strategy, 7(1), Spring, 1-20.
Carland, J. W. (1982). Entrepreneurship in a small business setting: An exploratory study.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Carland, J.W. & Carland, J.A. (1983) An empirical investigation into distinctions between
entrepreneurs and small business owners. Presented to the Academy of Management.
Carland, J.W. & Carland, J.A., (1987) An empirical investigation into distinctions between
managers, entrepreneurs and small business owners. Proceedings. Southeastern Decision
Science Institute, 1987, 200-202.
Carland, J.W. & Carland, J.A. (1991) An Empirical Investigation into the Distinctions Between
Male and Female Entrepreneurs and Managers. International Journal of Small Business,
9(3), April-June, 62-72.
Carland, J.W. & Carland, J.A. (1992) Managers, Small Business Owners, Entrepreneurs: The
Cognitive Dimension. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 55-66.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A. & Hoy, F. (1992) Entrepreneurship Index: An Empirical
Validation. Presented to the Babson College Entrepreneurial Research Conference,
Fontainebleau, France, July, 1992.
Carland, J.W., Carland, J.A. & Ensley, M.C. (2001) Hunting the Heffalump: The Theoretical
Basis and Dimensionality of the Carland Entrepreneurship Index, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 7(2), 51-84.
Carland, J.W., Hoy, F., Boulton, W.R. & Carland, J.A. (1984) Differentiating Entrepreneurs
from Small Business Owners: A Conceptualization. Academy of Management Review,
9(2), April, 1984, 354-359.
Carland, J. W., F. Hoy, W. R. Boulton, & J. A. Carland (1988). Distinctions between
Entrepreneurial and Small Business Ventures. International Journal of Management,
5(1), March, 98-103.
Carlyn, M. (1977). An assessment of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Academy of
Management Review, 41, 461-173.
Cole, D. (1989) The Entrepreneurial Self: So we all have the potential to create businesses or
are entrepreneurs a breed apart? Psychology Today, June, 60-63.
15
Davids, L. E. (1963). Characteristics of small business founders in Texas and Georgia. Athens,
GA: Bureau of Business Research, University of Georgia, June.
DeCarlo, J. & Lyons, P.R. Comparison of personal characteristics of minority and non-minority
female entrepreneurs, Journal of small business management, 1979, Dec, 22-29.
Drucker, P. (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Harper & Row.
Dugan, K. W., H. R. Feeser & G. R. Plaschka (1990). A Comparison of Personality
Characteristics among Women Entrepreneurs, Corporate Businesswomen and the General
Female Population, in T. W. Garsombke & D. J. Garsombke (Eds.), Conference
Proceedings, Orlando, FL: United States Association for Small Business &
Entrepreneurship, 88-94
Duguid,S., Hawkey, C. & Knights, W. (1981). Measuring the Impact of Post-Secondary
Education in Prison: A Report from British Columbia. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 27,: 87 – 106.
Dunkelberg, W. C. & A. C. Cooper (1982). Entrepreneurial typologies. In K. Vesper (Ed),
Frontiers of entrepreneurship, Wellesley, MA: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial
Studies, 1-15.
Eisenberg, M. (1991). Five Years Outcome Study: Factors Associated with Recidivism. Austin,
TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Elbert, H. (1999). Vocational Education and Recidivism at the Louisiana Correctional Institute
for Women. Dissertation Abstracts International: Vol. 59-08A.
Envick, B. & Langford, M. (2003). The Big-five Personality Model: Comparing Male and
Female Entrepreneurs, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 1-10.
Gainous,F. (1992). Alabama: Correctional Education Research. Birmingham, AL: Department
of Post-secondary Education.
Gasse, Y. (1977). Entrepreneurial characteristics and practices: A study of the dynamics of
small business organizations and their effectiveness in different environments.
Sherbrooke, Quebec: Rene Prince.
Gaulden, C., Jackson, W.T. & Gaster, W. (2002). An Empirical Examination of the Relationship
of Personality and the Propensity for Self-venturing, Academy of Entrepreneurship
Journal, 8 (1), 47-64.
Ginn C. & D. L. Sexton (1989). Growth: A vocational choice and psychological preference. In
16
R. Ronstadt, J. Hornaday, R. Peterson & K. Vesper (Eds.) Frontiers of Entrepreneurship
Research, Wellesley, MA: Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
Ginn, C. & D. L. Sexton (1990). A comparison of the personality type dimensions of the 1987
inc. 500 company founder/ceos with those of slower-growth firms. Journal of Business
Venturing, 5 (5), 313-326.
Glenn, J. (1995). An Assessment of the Effectiveness of Post-Secondary Vocational Programs in
the Texas Department of Corrections. Dissertation Abstracts International: Vol. 50-02A.
Harer, M. (1994). Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releases: A Preliminary Report.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.
Hartman, H. (1959). Managers and entrepreneurs: A useful distinction! Administrative Sciences
Quarterly, 3, 429-451.
Hornaday, J.A. & Aboud, J. (1971) Characteristics of successful entrepreneurs, Personal
Psychology, 24, 141-153.
Hoy, F. & W. R. Boulton (1983). Problem-Solving Styles of Students--Are Educators Producing
What Business Needs? Collegiate News and Views, 36(3), 15-21.
Hull, K., Forrester, S., Brown, J., Jobe, D. & McCuller (2000). Analysis of Recidivism Rates for
Participants of Academic / Vocational Programs Offered by the Virginia Department of
Correction Education. Journal of Correctional Education, 51, 256 – 260.
Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research form manual, Goshen, N.Y.: Research
Psychologists Press.
Jackson, D. N. (1976). Personality inventory manual, Goshen, N.Y.: Research Psychologists
Press.
Jackson, D. N. & S. M. Guthrie (1968). A multi-trait evaluation of the personality research
form. Proceedings, A P A.
Jenkins, H., Steurer, S. & Pendry, J. (1995). A Post-Release Follow-up of Correctional
Education Completers Released in 21990 – 1991. Journal of Correctional Education, 46,
20 – 24.
.
Jung, C. (1923). Psychological types, London: Pantheon books.
Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1984) Please understand me. Del Mar, California: Prometheus
Nemesis Books.
17
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (1985). The dark side of entrepreneurship, Harvard Business Review, 85
(6), 160-167.
Keyser, D. J. & R. D. Sweetland (1984). Test Critiques, Kansas City, Mo: Westport publishers.
Liles, P.R. (1974) New business ventures and the entrepreneur, Homewood IL: Irwin.
Mancuso, J.R. (1975) The entrepreneurs' quiz, Entrepreneurship and venture management,
Englewood: Prentice-Hall.
Marks, A. (1997). Inmates Push to Restore Education Funds. The Christian Science Monitor
Boston: March 20, 1997.
Martin, A. (1982) Aspects of entrepreneurial history. Kent, Sexton, Vesper (Eds), Encyclopedia
of entrepreneurship. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
McClelland, D.C. (1961) The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.
Mendelsohn, G. A. (1965). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. In Buros (Ed), The Sixth Mental
Measurements Yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: The Gryphon Press.
Mill, J.S. Principles of political economy. London: John W. Parker, 1848.
Myers, I.B. Briggs, K.C. (1962) The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Nunnally, J. C., & I. H. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.
Osbourne, R.L. (1991) The dark side of entrepreneur, Long Range Planning, June, 24(3), 26-31.
Palmer, M. (1971). The application of psychological testing to entrepreneurial potential,
California management review, 13(3), 78.
Peay, T. R. & Dyer, W.G., Jr. (1989) Power Orientations of Entrepreneurs and Succession
Planning. Journal of Small Business Management, January, 47-52.
Pollard, R.P. (2006). Women Entrepreneurs: How Important Are Their Perceptions? Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 1-18.
Saylor, W. & Gaes, G. (1992). Post Release Employment Project: Summary of Preliminary
Findings. Washington D.C.: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and
Evaluation.
18
Schumpeter, J.A. The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1934.
Sexton, D. L. (1980). Characteristics and role demands of successful entrepreneurs. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management.
Solomon, G.T. & Winslow, E.K. (1988) Toward a descriptive Profile of the entrepreneur.
Journal of creative behavior, 22(1), 162-171.
Steurer, S., Smith, L. & Tracy, A. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study Lanham, MD,:
Correctional Education Association.
Stewart, W. H. (1996). Psychological correlates of entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Garland
Publishing.
Stewart, W. H., W. E. Watson, J. A. Carland & J. W. Carland (1999). A proclivity for
entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners and corporate
managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(20), March, 189-214.
Timmons, J.A. (1978) Characteristics and role demands of entrepreneurship, American journal
of small business, 3, 5-17.
Vesper, K. H. (1980). New venture strategies, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Watts, P. (1989) Upstarts stand tall, Management review, January, 78(1), 25-30.
Welsh, J. A. & J. F. White (1981). Converging on characteristics of entrepreneurs, In K.H.
Vesper (Ed), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, Wellesley, MASS: Babson Center
for Entrepreneurial Studies, 504-515.
Williams, E.C. (1981) Innovation, entrepreneurship and brain functioning. In K.H. Vesper
(Ed), Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, Wellesley, MASS: Babson Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies, 516-536.
Winslow, E.K. & Solomon, G.T. (1987) Entrepreneurs are more than non-conformist: They are
mildly sociopathic, Journal of creative behavior, 21(3), 202-213.
Winslow, E.K. & Solomon, G.T. (1989) Further development of a descriptive profile of
entrepreneurs, Journal of creative behavior, 23(2), 149-161.
19