What jokes about entrepreneurs tell us about how humour may shape and de-legitimise public perceptions of entrepreneurial identity

Abstract

Purpose

Humour and, in particular, jokes have received little serious academic scrutiny in the entrepreneurship literature to date. To address this, the purpose of this paper is to examine publicly available jokes about entrepreneurs to establish what such jokes tell us about how humour, particularly entrepreneur jokes shapes public perceptions of entrepreneurial identity. This is important because humour may be an integral part of an individual's entrepreneurial identity. The authors thus contribute to understandings of the complex nature of entrepreneurial identity and how public perceptions of humour influence such by encapsulating negative public perception of entrepreneurs which may act as a de-legitimisation mechanism.

Design/methodology/approach

From a representative sample of entrepreneur jokes located on the web using netnographic techniques, the authors apply a multi-disciplinary framework to analyse the material and its messages to establish how such jokes shape public perceptions.

Findings

The findings suggest that jokes convey a pejorative message about how entrepreneurs are perceived by the public with the content and message of the jokes being negative and derogatory. Common themes contained in the punchlines include – criminality, greed, dishonesty, hubris, stupidity, misfortune, ridicule and deviousness – all of which may de-legitimise generic entrepreneurial identity. In the process, the authors uncovered liminal aspects of joke telling and consumption in that the perception of jokes about entrepreneurs relate to the time and context in which the joke is told given that situational cleverness is a key facet of such jokes. In addition, the authors discuss variations across jokes.

Research limitations/implications

The authors discuss learning outcomes for future research and potential future studies into humour in an entrepreneurial context.

Originality/value

This study places humour and joking on the research stage, making an incremental contribution. The authors add to the literature on the use of entrepreneurial humour and in particular in relation to how jokes influence public perception of entrepreneurs. From the data collected, the authors develop some fresh insights into the variation and range of entrepreneurship related jokes accessible online.

Citation

Smith, R. and Warren, L. (2021), "What jokes about entrepreneurs tell us about how humour may shape and de-legitimise public perceptions of entrepreneurial identity", International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 1011-1032. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2020-0182

Introduction

Humour is a cognitive, emotive sense-making strategy (Byrne and Shepherd, 2015) but until recently, the relationships between humour and identity were under researched in a management context, albeit humour is implicit in management practice (Collinson, 2002; Viga, 2007; Liu and Maitlis, 2014 and Byrne and Shepherd, 2015). According to Gruner (1997), sophisticated tropes like humour evoke mixed and often contradictory feelings in a similar manner to metaphor. This research lacuna may arise from a theoretical perspective because humour and jokes are potentially problematic because one can discuss them as tropes, vocabularies, narrative devices, discourses, resources, text types, linguistic strategies, communicational devices, heuristics and textual entities or aspects which belong to different theoretical traditions. They shape social reality by operating at a semiotic and semantic level, delivered in an “atheoretical” context. Surprisingly, jokes as a particular sub-genre are conspicuously absent from the literature, given they express emotional states helping us deal with negative emotions (Wolfe and Shepherd, 2015a, b). A limited number of studies allude to how entrepreneurs use humour to gain entrepreneurial advantage, e.g. Anderson and Warren (2011) and Warren and Smith (2015) suggesting that jokes/joking are an integral part of identity construction in effecting change and shape the discourse and emotional climate around an entrepreneurs' activities (Goss, 2005). However, there are no studies of how “jokes about entrepreneurs” influence public perceptions of entrepreneurial identity [EI] (Cohen and Musson, 2000; Down and Revley, 2004; Down and Warren, 2008; and Warren and Anderson, 2009) [EI]. Nevertheless, despite a burgeoning literature on EI and context, there remain unchartered research avenues (Jones et al., 2019) including humour/jokes which can extend current thinking. Identity can be ascribed or self-elective and collective or individuated (Chasserio et al., 2014) making EI a complex entity to research empirically. Our focus is upon EI as an abstract concept and not on an individual level. Public perception of entrepreneurship is of importance to both entrepreneur and the public because it influences and shapes interactions between them in that entrepreneurs may either consciously avoid becoming the “butt” of jokes or play up to the stereotype of the unscrupulous entrepreneur. Public perception is a collective phenomenon based upon “stereotyping” and “ideal-typification”. Nevertheless, linking humour and jokes to EI is problematic because there is no such unified identity, but a multiplicity of potential entrepreneurial identities differentiated by age, gender, morality, nationality, regionality, sex, status and wealth, etc.

Consequentially, humour in an entrepreneurial context is an under researched aspect of EI. Our interest relates to public discourse on entrepreneurs and how this influences' identity construction (Beech, 2010; Weiland, 2010) as an ongoing, perpetual process where different discourses are influential to different extents, but in line with social attractiveness and dominant narratives. We are concerned with “jokes about entrepreneurs”, not with how jokes by entrepreneurs and their use of humour/jokes vis-à-vis influence their own entrepreneurial activities/identities [1]. Thus, we concentrate on jokes made by others that signal how EI is influenced by public opinion. These two intersected dimensions relate differently to the EI phenomenon. This study sheds light on the human and social dynamics of entrepreneurship, thus advancing knowledge of its human and behavioural dimensions and extending ongoing conversations regarding EI (Chasserio et al., 2014; Siivonen et al., 2019). This positions humour as an important heuristic and narrative device shaping the EI work necessary for legitimacy in complex social environments. This appreciation of the power and complexity of entrepreneurial humour builds a more comprehensive understanding of EI (Leitch and Harrison, 2016).

The socially constructed interrelationship between humour, jokes and narrated EI is a fascinating nexus (Downing, 2005; Anderson and Warren, 2011) and is the focus of this study. We, thus, highlight the playful side of entrepreneurial behaviour. Although we are concerned with public expressions of humour, our analysis provides other insights into how humour and joking influences perceptions of EI. Our point of departure relates to analysing the content of entrepreneur jokes to better understand how they influence EI and the contexts of jokes made by the public about entrepreneurs. This examination of jokes broadcasting the public's view of entrepreneurs, in turn influences “ideal-typical” EI formation and re-formation via overly negative stereotypes which may serve to de-legitimise such identity (Della Fave, 1986; Van Leeuwen, 1995; Reyes, 2011; Ristic, 2015; Warren and Smith, 2015). We provide worked examples and contribute by considering the juxtaposition of entrepreneurs and humour and humorous public discourse about entrepreneurs. Concentrating on context and culture produces a better understanding of EI at a generic and public levels. Our research problem is threefold. First, it seeks to identify how jokes about entrepreneurs influence EI at a theoretical and practical level and how it can increase our understanding of entrepreneur jokes. Second, it relates to how the paper theoretically and methodologically captures the phenomenon/phenomena it strives to study and third, what contribution the paper makes to our understanding of EI. Therefore, our frame sets out the relationships where humour shapes what listeners perceive as legitimate EI. We also seek to synthesise a literature on entrepreneurial humour. Our main contribution to the literature is to extend the analysis to entrepreneurial settings and develop an understanding how/why jokes influence public perceptions of EI. Our RQ is – How do humour and jokes about entrepreneurs influence public perceptions of entrepreneurial identity?

We consider EI and legitimacy and the role of humour in EI before highlighting linkages between identity and entrepreneurship. A discussion of humour, entrepreneurship and identity ensues, identifying linkages between them and liminal spaces for change and identity, drawing on extant literature. This is followed by a discussion of methodological issues in analysing jokes before presenting worked examples of representative jokes. By investigating jokes made about entrepreneurs, available on the web, we visualise societal (pre)conceptions about entrepreneurs and contribute to an increased understanding of how entrepreneurs are perceived publicly which influences how EI's are formed, contested or adopted.

Reviewing the literature on entrepreneurial discourse and humour

The influence of humour on EI is at present unclear, and the purpose of this review is to introduce key concepts necessary to contribute to understandings of entrepreneurship and EI whilst uncovering how the theoretical foundation of jokes such as “relief”, “superiority” and “incongruity” apply to the entrepreneurship phenomena, and how the basis of such humour is funny (Hsieh, 2015). Fun is a complex phenomenon which has different meanings to different people, making it difficult to theorise (McManus and Furnham, 2010). This necessitates synthesising a coherent literature on humour, jokes and joking in relation to entrepreneurship theory. Humour has a functionalist influence reproduced through power relations and requires management control to maintain joking relations in different social and organizational contexts and must either be manufactured or suppressed by management albeit attempts to manufacture it may suppress it and lead to its subversive resurgence (Collinson, 2002). Humour relates to the quality of being amused or comic, expressed in the literature and speech and denotes a mood or state of mind operationalised via emotions (Byrne and Shepherd, 2015). For Wåhlin (2001, p. 1) humour is an identity construction mechanism for handling ambiguities and paradoxes in everyday situations and humorous connections help us reach reciprocal understanding of differences in vocabularies. Much of the literature deals with how/why entrepreneurs use humour and not on how this influences public perceptions of humour. The focus and theoretical approach of this study is to build upon the extant research by identifying what has been published to exploit the gap and because the literature spans a multi-disciplinary framework, the theoretical framework must also be broad and multi-disciplinary, rather than precise. As a result, our focus is to establish what has previously been researched and consider linkages between entrepreneurship, humour and jokes and theories of humour and joking. A major element of the EI literature is that of legitimacy (Van Leeuwen, 1995; Cohen and Musson, 2000).

Entrepreneurial Identity, legitimacy and humour

Entrepreneurial identity [EI] (Cohen and Musson, 2000; Down and Revley, 2004; Down and Warren, 2008; and Warren and Anderson, 2009) is a deeply contextual, complex entity influenced by myriad variables, e.g. beliefs, social class and norms, culture, demographic, education, ethnicity, environmental, fashion, patterns of consumption, geographic and gender, masculinity and femininity, race and religion and semiotics. As well as having a physical element, EI is also a discursive discourse. Indeed, Hamilton (2013) explains that individuals draw on available socially constructed, discursive resources which they weave into their narrative of identity. Indeed, “enterprise discourse” has become powerful in the media and performs a normative function shaping what we expect of an entrepreneur. For De Clercq and Voronov (2009) entrepreneurship discourses hold a special position in capitalist societies shaping expectations of the roles played and expected stereotypical “entrepreneur scripts” (Down and Warren, 2008; Dannreuther and Perren, 2013).

It is of note that EI and being legitimate are facets of wider media discourses (Down and Reveley, 2004; Down, 2006; Anderson and Warren, 2011; Hamilton, 2013) and humour and joking are powerful but risky discursive elements. Discourses can be used for de-legitimisation purposes. According to Ristic (2015), ideological de-legitimization techniques include (1) the discursive/mythopoesis, (2) authorization, (3) moral evaluation and (4) rationalization, all of which result from an imbalance in power relations between social actors. Indeed, he refers to discourses of de-legitimisation which serve to discredit particular social groupings. Similarly, Reyes (2011) argues that language represents an instrument of control and symbolic power and lists other strategies of (de)legitimisation which can be used individually or in combination with others and justify social practices through: (1) emotions (particularly fear), (2) a hypothetical future, (3) rationality, (4) voices of expertise and (5) altruism. In relation to jokes, they are discursive, ideologically and morally loaded narratives which rely on fear and the power imbalance between different levels in society. The EI discourse is located in the organization studies and entrepreneurship literature thus we first consider humour in organisational studies.

The organizational studies literature

In this domain, the examination of humour is advanced (see–Bjorklund, 1985; Vinton, 1989; Yarwood, 1995; Wåhlin, 2001; Tempest and Starkey, 2004; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006; Greene, 2006; Rogerson-Revell, 2007; Ojha and Holmes, 2010; Westwood and Johnston, 2012). These studies relate to behavioural and organizational practices. Bjorklund (1985) linked humour and demeanour; and Vinton (1989) developed “a taxonomy of family business humour”, in which different types of humour serve to maintain low status differentials and alleviate workplace tension. These included puns, slapstick, jokes/anecdotes and teasing which served a practical purpose as part of the employee socialisation process, helping to create bonds. Yarwood (1995) examined humour as a serious communication strategy for business administrators; whilst for Wåhlin (2001, p. 4) humour helps us negotiate with colleagues; and Tempest and Starkey (2004) considered humour and organizational learning. Moreover, Romero and Cruthirds (2006) argue that humour lightens the mood within organizational environments making work life more enjoyable. In a similar vein, Greene (2006) argues that happiness and humour in the office enhances employee and employer satisfaction and increase profits. Rogerson-Revell (2007) studied humour in business meetings, whilst Ojha and Holmes (2010) examined how three socially constructed functions of humour (i.e. joking, sarcasm and teasing) were used in every-day business settings and routines. They regard humour as an organisational discourse and method of communication. The focus of this literature lies in HOW organisational agents use humour to contest structures (Branagan, 2007; Huber and Brown, 2016; Pouthier, 2017). Branagan (2007) suggests humour creates common ground, softening the harder edges of organisational antagonism, creating spaces where old orders are questioned and changes safely made. Thus, an employee's attitude towards humour may influence their appropriate and inappropriate uses of workplace humour (Huber and Brown, 2016). Griping and joking behaviours in cross-boundary teams are socio-emotional identification rituals essential to team building and provide positive, enjoyable experiences for audiences (Pouthier, 2017). Yam et al. (2018) imply that entrepreneurs who commit white-collar-crime can influence the organisational opportunity structure and employees by targeting staff with aggressive humour to neutralize any challenges to their authority.

Another emerging stream links narrated identity to knowledge appertaining to EI (Mathias and Williams, 2017). This builds upon previous work on humour typologies and humour in the workplace (e.g. Avolio et al., 1999; Martin et al., 2003; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2012; Lehmann-Willenbrock and Allen, 2014) which are useful in developing an analytical framework for understanding the potential effects of jokes more clearly. Karlsen and Villadsen (2015) identified three different approaches to humour in business – (1) humour “as gain” as a management tool to get things done through instrumental use to soften social conflicts and ease hierarchical positions; (2) humour as a means of subversion or critique of powerful management interests, albeit they can be appropriated by management (Rodrigues and Collinson, 1995; Fleming and Spicer, 2003) and (3) the circularity between power and humour in which organisational norms are subject to continuous contestation and negotiation. From this analysis, it is apparent that although humour is an increasingly relevant and neglected area of study. This is not so in the entrepreneurship literature.

The entrepreneurship literature

Authors such as Cohen and Musson (2000), Reveley and Down (2004), Downing (2005), Down (2006), Down and Warren (2008) and Anderson and Warren (2011) point to the legitimation of an EI where heroic entrepreneurs are licenced to effect change. This highlights the importance of storytelling in general with regards to identity present within the literature regarding entrepreneurial legitimacy (Lounsbury and Glynn, 2001). A limited literature considers entrepreneurship as constituted through interaction between the individual, society and culture, drawing on lines of thought from, for example Holland et al. (1998) and Creed et al. (2002). Entrepreneurship is portrayed as “good” in the media (Anderson and Warren, 2011) unless a “fall-from-grace”, through what society deems as illegitimate behaviour, whereupon public opinion can turn rapidly (Warren and Smith, 2015). As Atherton (2004, p. 122) notes, “representations of entrepreneurs…. tend to be stereotypes and caricatured”, and thus censure. Despite powerful media discourses promoting “heroic” entrepreneurs, empowered to lead change powerful alternate discourses position the entrepreneur as the “butt” of the joke (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005).

The role of humour in entrepreneurial settings and processes has been the focus of an increasing number of studies (e.g. Clouse, 1997; Fatt, 1998; Faltin, 1999; Fatt, 2002; Smith, 2004; Anderson, 2005; Smith, 2008; Anderson and Warren, 2011; Warren and Smith, 2015 and Smith and Boje, 2017). Clouse (1997) considered humour as an entrepreneurial style. Fatt (1998, 2002) acknowledges a link between entrepreneurship and humour, and Faltin (1999) identified humour as an entrepreneurial competency, whilst for Morrison it is a key entrepreneurial trait. Smith (2004, 2008) examined entrepreneur jokes and cartoons; Anderson (2005) appreciated that humour was part of the theatricality of entrepreneurial enactment and entrepreneurs are obvious targets for criticism, caricature and satire in the media. Furthermore, Anderson and Warren (2011) show how a prominent entrepreneur used humour as a facet of his identity in disputes with regulatory authorities. Similarly, Warren and Smith (2015) articulated how another entrepreneur used ironic humour identity in a losing battle for entrepreneurial legitimacy. For Anderson and Warren (2011) clowning, joking and jesting are necessary strategic tropes for entrepreneurs because clowns are not afraid of failure (Williams, 2005), albeit overdoing it and being unfunny are common pitfalls. Clowning and joking are performative arts which require an audience and the entrepreneur-clown thrives on being different, funny and irreverent. Joking exposes the paradoxical “sameness and difference” of entrepreneurship. The “clown's cap” allots a licence to challenge the status quo and bring about entrepreneurial change making humour a powerful tool in decentring conventional identities and meanings (Oswick et al., 2002). More recently, Smith and Boje (2017) examined the use of cartoons in crafting EI.

Whilst the above studies relate to how individual entrepreneurs USE humour to their advantage, Warren and Anderson (2009) highlight a darker side of the aesthetic dimension of identity play in which humorous rhetoric, profanities and antics create a break in situations of constant criticism, evidencing how humour reflects the liminality of entrepreneurial practice and rhetoric leading to concrete entrepreneurial gains, changing the situations in which the humour was invoked to personal benefit. Thus, morally there is a gap between what is perceived as a good and acceptable EI, and what is not (Anderson and Smith, 2007) [2]. From an analysis of these studies, it is apparent that although interest in humour is increasing in entrepreneurship studies it remains neglected because of its nuanced complexity and the difficulty in theorising it. This points to a research gap, particularly in relation to public perceptions of jokes. This review of the extant literature on humour in business and entrepreneurship settings evidences a specific gap relating to how entrepreneur jokes influence public perception of EI. Prior to conducting an empirical analysis of entrepreneur jokes one must consider theories of humour and joking and jokes/joking in practice and distinguish between entrepreneurs.

Understanding theories of humour and joking

Humour plays on (and needs) the orthodox, it is nothing without its subject which is its own irony (Rorty, 1989). Numerous sociological theories attempt to explain jokes (Raskin, 1985). Jokes are a “text type” (Attardo and Chabanne, 1992), whereby a set of common features must be in place for a joke to be considered such. Jokes revolve around the distance between the surface structure and the inferential processing necessary to the understanding of the text. They possess a relationship to social reality and deviate from institutionalised meaning structures (Zijderveld, 1968) and have an information bearing function. For Ritchie (2004), a joke is a short text which within a cultural grouping produces an amused reaction in a reader/hearer, and which is typically repeatable in a wide range of contexts. According to Suls (1972), a joke is deemed funny because of - (1) the disconfirmation of an expectation leading to incongruity and surprise and (2) the need to resolve the dilemma via logical rules but incongruity alone is not enough. For Hsieh (2015), jokes work on the basis of superiority, relief and incongruity thesis.

Jokes are explicitly labelled as such in books, websites and in oral transmission trigger an expected liminal transition (Turner, 1974), thus listeners expect a response. Humour is a complex and intriguing aspect of (proto-entrepreneurial) human behaviour albeit there is an essentialist essence present in all jokes for them to be recognisable as such (Attardo, 1994; Ritchie, 2004). Of interest is the form and structure of humour, narrative organisation of jokes and their conformity to, or deviation from, accepted cultural and societal conventions (Chiaro, 2006). For Chiaro, what people find funny is framed by linguistic, geographical, diachronic, sociocultural and personal boundaries. Jokes rely on the concept of shared knowledge and invoke a state of “laughter” in us (Bergson, 1928) or trigger incongruity. This happens because of the juxtaposition of new, unmentioned meanings which change the nature of how subjects view a previously accepted subject. Humour requires a liminal triggering mechanism to introduce a joke (Raskin, 1985), as in “Have you heard the one about?” which prepares us to momentarily suspend reality.

Sigmund Freud (1960) argued that jokes operate at an unconscious level via an aggressive impulse; whilst for Raskin (1985), they are based around “relief” theory, whereby people laugh (homeostatically) upon recognising disparities between the example and reality making them glad that some-one-else is the “butt” of the joke (Buijzen and Valkenburg, 2004). Another helpful theory is “incongruity” between juxtaposed materials (Raskin, 1985). An incongruity is a liminal entity highlighting differences between rhetoric, example and reality. Superiority theory (Gruner, 1997) makes us feel entitled to laugh at the perceived misfortunes of others (schadenfreude). Humour about illegitimate behaviour, stereotypes or caricatures derive from superiority theory. Most jokes can be explained by these theories which are why we find so few jokes about our good sides (i.e. honesty). These theoretical perspectives underpin entrepreneurial humour and joking and aid us in developing better understanding of how entrepreneurial identities change and evolve. Humour is an integral component to this process. The theories of Chiaro, Raskin, Ritchie and Freud proved helpful in creating a theoretical framework to analyse the entrepreneur jokes.

Situating jokes and joking in practice

Jokes and joking are important in identity formation and practice because by telling a joke, we tentatively moot a statement so if it goes wrong, one can step back if it is poorly received, e.g. I was only joking! I did not mean it! I would never really do that! Yet the initial statement is left hanging in uncertain space, establishing what Campbell (2020) refers to as a shared sense of not-knowing which makes joke an impactful form of storytelling and humour an important element of entrepreneurship as a subversive art form (Bureau and Zander, 2014). In practice, joking and other transformative humorous linguistic strategies allow us to subliminally subvert accepted entrepreneurial practices by emphasising often unstated parallel meanings. Fowler (1926) posited several nuanced linguistic and semiotic devices through which this is achieved including – humour itself, wit, satire, sarcasm, invective, irony, cynicism and sardonic. There is a down-side to jokes resulting from the risk-taking element to engaging in it which can result in a Gaff (Chiaro, 2006), whereby a joke “falls flat” leaving an audience in embarrassed silence by an incongruity between the tellers' sense of humour and theirs [3]. Nevertheless, for Sørensen and Spoelstra (2012) humour has its own logic, telos and performances that prevent it from being appropriated completely for functional purposes. Thus, jokes as communicational devices are used by entrepreneurs to good effect. This ability to tell jokes and make people laugh is a social skill. In telling jokes, we consciously engage in a risky, judgemental space. Humour requires the presence of a foil, which if misjudged violates the identity and sanctity of another. Jokes can backfire and cause unintentional offence.

The takeaway points from the review is that extant studies of entrepreneurial humour focus upon applications and settings of how humour is operationalised in practice and not upon jokes as a medium. Much of the literature concerns its use as a tool to achieve organizational/entrepreneurial aims and focuses on how/why entrepreneurs use humour and why it is important for them to master the skills of humour. In this stream, the entrepreneur is the agent making the jokes. Conversely, there is little literature about how derogatory jokes about entrepreneurs (made not by entrepreneurs but by the public) reveal public perceptions of entrepreneurs. This is important because such negative images held by the public are something that entrepreneurs need to acknowledge and relate to.

This review has highlighted interesting theories concerning jokes/humour as a channelling of “aggressive impulse”, as “relief” and expression of superiority. These theories can be utilised as tools that the individual uses to achieve various aims, but the public use their stereotypical/ideal typical image of entrepreneurs to determine if the joke or context is funny, not their understanding of the theory of jokes. All one can do is acknowledge this complexity. One cannot conduct an empirical analysis of jokes at a personal joker to audience level without first understanding the organizational context of jokes and joking. This makes it vital to use an appropriate theoretical framework (e.g. Chiaro, Raskin, Ritchie and Freud) to analyse the entrepreneur jokes and to utilise an appropriate methodology to interrogate them. This is important because before one can answer the RQ relating to EI, jokes and public perceptions thereof, one must understand inherent tensions between the heroic nature of such identity and public perceptions of entrepreneurs per-se. The problem is that the one who jokes, are not entrepreneurs, but comedians and the general public.

Methodology

This study presents “entrepreneur jokes” located primarily on the web through the application of netnography (Kozinets, 2015). This presentation of jokes about entrepreneurs as illustrative examples does not in itself constitute an empirical methodology because one cannot decontextualise them from the situation or locus of telling. By concentrating on de-legitimisation as an aspect of EI and upon one small area of jokes – namely entrepreneur jokes we are aware that we are limiting our potential to make a broader contribution. In the absence of a formalised empirical dataset, we trawled the web using key search terms of “entrepreneur jokes” and “entrepreneurs and humour”, locating examples from different countries and cultures via “Google” and “Google scholar” search engines. To ensure a systematic data collection process, we used English language websites, collecting material between 2008 and 2018. This produced 1.6 million hits. We read over 500 before reaching saturation point. We drew heavily on material from the “Entrepreneurs Joke Book” (Young, 2011), which is a collection of jokes about entrepreneurs and thus an excellent starting point to collect material to analyse. To be included in our sample, the content had to be explicitly labelled as a joke in situ and contain the word entrepreneur or synonym and be presented in English to establish joke comprehension and appreciation. The ensuing analysis did not result in a universal, full blown theory of entrepreneur jokes but constitutes a sifting of data to formulate subsequent grounded analysis and theory building. The analysis explains how jokes about entrepreneurs operate “heuristically” to say something about entrepreneurs and thus EI as a delegitimising technique.

To do this and because we cannot disconnect the jokes from their context, we adapt and combine the theoretical “joking” frameworks of Chiaro (2006), Ritchie (2004) and others to analyse the language of jokes and in doing work towards developing a “descriptive theory” of entrepreneur jokes based on a “ground up” analysis of the material as opposed to a “universal theory” (Ritchie, 2004) by examining a particular type of entrepreneur joke. We use the framework to interrogate the data, rather than use a theoretical framework derived from management/entrepreneurship theories. We could not analyse jokes without using a framework grounded in the theory of jokes. We pay attention to linguistic and sociocultural elements of the jokes interrogating shared knowledge. We utilise elements of the theories from Gruner (1997 – superiority theory) and Karlsen and Villadsen (2015 – humour as gain). Incongruity markers and superiority theory are particularly salient in helping analyse and explain the complexity of entrepreneurial humour. In addition, we refer to the work of Fowler (1926). Fowler's categories can be distinguished by virtue of the motive (or aim) in which the remark was made. Each device is characterised by the province in which it is generally made and has a particular method of delivery and has a different audience. See Table 1:

Using this framework to guide our analysis, we conducted an iterative, inductive process of thematic analysis through which we identified and coded emergent themes from the material under review (Guest et al., 2012). Whilst concentrating on the textual content of jokes we distinguished between humour and jokes themselves, providing definitional clarity to overcome semantic and conceptual differences in the typology of humour (Dynel, 2009).

Analysis and findings

Humour does not take place in a vacuum, but is repeatedly shaped by a plethora of societal discourses around ethnicity, gender, disability, class, professional stereotypes and identities (Potter, 1996). Turning to entrepreneurship there is plenty of humour around, even a niche industry on entrepreneur joke books (Young, 2011) and websites promoting a range of professional and ethnic stereotypes. From our readings, we identified artful humour expressed as jokes about entrepreneurs, exemplified in Table 2 below.

Table 2 summarises a set of accessible jokes, but the material does not address the issue of identity formation, variations across jokes or other analytically important aspects such as liminality. Interestingly, there were no female entrepreneur jokes, suggesting that the public perceive entrepreneurs as a male dominated identity position. Despite the obvious variation amongst jokes, they all utilise double entendre's and play on words. There are other “longer” joke types which do not fit the punchy “stand up” comedy formula as narrated in Table 1, instead relying on situational incongruity and cleverness.

According to Marenda (2008), the entrepreneur is often the “butt” of jokes and must become thick skinned because cruel taunts come with the territory. Jokes are inherently cruel, by implication, and the sensitivity of the intent in the suggestion is where the joke hits home, albeit the cruelty is not the aim as such. Jokes about entrepreneurs' form part of a wider societal discourse on what it means to be an entrepreneur and possess legitimate EI. However, from a theoretical perspective the canon of “entrepreneur jokes” conveys a bleak picture of how the entrepreneur is viewed by the public, being framed as playground humour. Our examples illustrate that the message presented to the public in the jokes is derogatory. Common themes contained in punchlines include – criminality, greed, dishonesty, hubris, stupidity, misfortune, ridicule and deviousness. Only one joke alluded to the honesty of the entrepreneur, which on face-value appears telling until one considers that the very conventions, form and structure of humour work best by challenging negative and controversial aspects of human behaviour and not affirming the positive (ala Ritchie, 2004). This negative perception of the entrepreneur in jokes mirrors other constructions found in the literature, but it is only a small part of the entrepreneurship-humour nexus. However, such jokes do not have to mirror the reality of their subject's position. Yet, we capture how the public express their preconceptions of entrepreneurs through jokes and highlights what preconceptions it expresses – and what the effects are on EI. This points to the need for further perceptional studies to help us better theorise the topic. From an analysis of the jokes and contents, several emerging themes emerged relating to aspects of identity formation, the context in which the jokes were used to highlight aspects such as situational cleverness and the liminal nature of jokes. Variations across joke types and different sub-categories of entrepreneur jokes were also identified.

Emergent aspects of identity formation

Many of the jokes relate to EI and to axiological and moralistic contexts. Such Jokes position the entrepreneur as a genre, as criminal, dishonest and thus untrustworthy. This takes the criticism from the specific to the general, thus avoiding accusations of personal cruelty. It evidences that the joke as a heuristic device safeguards the teller from legal or financial liability because one can safely criticise a “genre” (as in mother-in-law jokes) when one cannot do so against a “named” individual for fear of defamation etc. Also, this inherent culturally biased negativity will undoubtedly lead to cognitive cross overs in other aspects of EI formation in that the subject may consciously, or subconsciously, treat entrepreneurs less seriously than the entrepreneur or the situation deserves. In addition, the jokes allow us to safely challenge accepted convention about heroic entrepreneurs and their eulogisation as a genre.

Jokes about situational cleverness

Many of the jokes relate to EI via the contexts of specific learned skills and abilities. For example, the punchlines of many “good” jokes rest upon the situational cleverness of the individual entrepreneur, as in the “awestruck youth” joke. Such situational jokes are interesting heuristic exemplars of the spirit of enterprise, highlighting entrepreneurial thinking and thought processes. Moreover, certain professional norms determine where it is acceptable to be the butt of a joke. A classic example is the joke “Tadbury” where the humour is marginal, and the joke cleverly acts as an instructional profession-based parable warning new lawyers to be careful when dealing with unscrupulous entrepreneurs. In applying Fowler's typology, we see that jokes relating to situational cleverness, humour are used as a source of discovery to make observations on human nature in a sympathetic manner. Some entrepreneur jokes are not in fact jokes. For example, the article “have you heard the one about the lawyer becoming an entrepreneur” by Williams (2007) in entrepreneur.com merely borrows joking formula as an “attention grabbing” strategy to draw one into a story of a lawyer giving up his practice to become an entrepreneur. However, Williams cannot resist introducing the old cherry about the first piece of advice an entrepreneur hears when they start a business is “Get a lawyer”.

Understanding liminal aspects of joking

Many of the jokes relate to EI via the connection between identity and aspects of liminality and temporality which are also learned behavioural skills. From a reading of the literature and from the analysis, it is obvious there is a liminal aspect to jokes/joking, demonstrating that jokes about entrepreneurs reflect day-to-day processes by which entrepreneurial discourse may be created and sustained dynamically (Van Gennep, 1960; Turner, 1974; Tempest and Starkey, 2004). By liminal aspects, we mean processes such as timing and personality which influence one's ability to tell a good joke. For Beech (2010), humour is part of the process of identity shaping, where the “joke” space allows us to experiment with a modified identity in relative safety. The humour-liminality nexus has been studied as a medium for facilitating group cohesiveness (Greatbatch and Clark, 2003; Boje et al., 2005 and Hatch and Erlich, 1993; Anderson, 2005); as a spontaneous indicator of paradox and ambiguity in organizational settings and as play at work (Sørensen and Spoelstra, 2012). Greatbatch and Clark examined the use of humour by management gurus during their public performances, suggesting they use humour and laughter to disseminate their ideas and to build their personal reputations with audiences and to evoke audience laughter to illustrate their message. Laughter is a powerful medium. The uncertain moment, when a punchline either invokes laughter, or does not, can either confirm expected constructions or induce new meaning (Campbell, 2020). Entrepreneurship itself is a performed narrative, dramatic, liminal and temporal process (Anderson, 2005), spanning the boundaries of space and time via the liminality of entrepreneurial process. Dramaturgically, jokes span space-time boundaries. Entrepreneur jokes are an aesthetic, organizing art-form (Strati, 2008) which create spaces which enhance the conditions for entrepreneurship, even when the aesthetic is unattractive (Warren and Anderson, 2009; Warren and Smith, 2015).

Recognising variations across jokes

From an analysis of the jokes, it was evident that there are cultural, situational and contextual differences which influence how EI is positioned. For example, there are obvious variations across the jokes in that although all are jokes about entrepreneurs, there is a difference between those which label the entrepreneurs as criminal or dishonest, and those which label them as stupid or incompetent and indeed situational jokes. The jokes are divisible into those which target individual actions and those which target behaviours or traits (greedy or grasping) as the “butt”. In applying Fowler's typology, we see that in such jokes, humour is used as a source of discovery to make observations on human frailty, excusing the individual entrepreneur from blame. Also, many of the jokes are formulaic frameworks which work when changing the word entrepreneur to another, such as politician, lawyer or accountants. The accountant has been characterised negatively in popular culture as dull and boring (Miley and Read, 2012). This may tell us more about the nature of jokes than EI per-se, so any analysis must be grounded in the information provided. However, jokes about entrepreneurs, despite their obvious negativity do clearly differ from jokes about other protagonists, e.g. lawyers, police and politicians because they do not generate or perpetuate scorn or ridicule but celebrate situational cleverness and tradecraft.

Appreciating the nuances of other entrepreneur joke types

It is evident that entrepreneur jokes are not expressed in a simple format and that they will vary across entrepreneurial occupations and their unique identities. From our readings, other types of entrepreneur jokes emerged, namely jokes by entrepreneurs and jokes between entrepreneurs which require additional studies. Jokes by entrepreneurs are often self-deprecating jibes at past mistakes or misfortunes or on occasion artful aggressive jibes at competitors (Freud, 1960) [4]. There is a genre of occupational and class-based jokes which are the antitheses of stupidity jokes and make fun of the canny, clever, crafty, calculating and stingy businessmen, lawyers, Scotsmen or Jews (Davies, 2009).

Having examined the categories above, it is helpful to apply a more grounded analysis of the actual jokes using the framework devised in the methodology section. See Table 3:

All these jokes conform to the joking rules of Suls (1972), but are only funny if shared in a cultural setting with an awareness of entrepreneurs (Ritchie, 2004). Moreover, they challenge accepted cultural and societal conventions (Chiaro, 2006). It is evident that the jokes mirror the stereotypical and caricatured representations of entrepreneurs identified by (Atherton, 2004, p. 122). As the purpose of this study was to explore the role of jokes in the formation of entrepreneurial identities and in particular public perceptions thereof, we did not encounter many jokes by or between entrepreneurs. From the data collected, we develop some fresh insights into the variation and range of entrepreneurship related jokes accessible online. Whilst this dataset provides interesting insights, it does not include any information about how entrepreneurs actually tell, listen to and interpret jokes as part of their identity formation process. To capture such data would necessitate further research.

So far, this empirical research has contributed to our understanding of public perceptions of entrepreneurship, but its effect on our understanding of EI requires further elaboration. The analysis makes a contribution by highlighting a particular link between public perception of entrepreneurs, and thus, EI as the jokes about entrepreneurs at a basic level may serve as de-legitimation mechanisms (as per Della Fave, 1986; Van Leeuwen, 1995, Reyes, 2011; Ristic, 2015; Warren and Smith, 2015). This presentation and analysis of jokes provides a starting point for developing a theoretical contribution. Clearly there are theoretical gaps in our knowledge of exactly how and why entrepreneurial humour works and in what circumstances we laugh because of context and situation. However, it is difficult to analyse how jokes about entrepreneurs affect audience perceptions of spoiled EI without designing a study to test this on audience respondents. Without this, any observations made about EI identity are tentative because of the difficulty of linking humerous perceptions directly to such identity. We explore this in the discussion section.

Discussion

The jokes individually and collectively amplify unethical entrepreneurial stereotypes suggesting that identity building, legitimacy and ethos (character) are connected, given many of the jokes are aimed at apparently ethically dubious nature of entrepreneurs. The focus of most jokes is upon those who operate in an ethically liminal zone at the edges of acceptability in human behaviour, i.e. beyond rules, laws and social mores (Brenkert, 2009). This issue of ethical action and humour is central to this study. Thus, the type of humour used relates to Fowler's categories of invective and cynicism (Fowler, 1926). The motive is to discredit, de-legitimise and impugn entrepreneurial character, by highlighting misconduct via apparently direct comments, veiled as jokes, thereby influencing public perception. All the examples conform to/do not deviate from, accepted cultural and societal conventions of the entrepreneur as a rogue, rascal or villain (Anderson and Smith, 2007). Interestingly, none overtly “valorise” the entrepreneur, but neither are they told with malice, mockery or scorn. There is a grudging undertone of veiled admiration in the narrative of the jokes which operate around the incongruity of the punchline. This suggests that incongruity theory (Raskin, 1985) rather than them being manifestations of relief or superiority thesis (Gruner, 1997). Context and culture are important here. This genre of entrepreneur jokes “poke-fun” at the mythology of entrepreneurship undermining the heroic stereotype (Nicholson and Anderson, 2005).

One weakness of this study is that it does not directly capture all aspects of EI, per-se, making it difficult to articulate this empirically. However, it is possible to discuss the theoretical implications that such a derogatory public view of entrepreneurship/entrepreneurs has on EI, given the efforts that entrepreneurs must go to, to achieve a legitimate identity (Leitch and Harrison, 2016). Theoretically, the genre of derogatory entrepreneur jokes – jokes about entrepreneurs – are important because repeated exposure to such negative representations may negatively influence one's perceptions of EI via the de-legitimisation techniques and reinforce socially ingrained stereotypes, particularly if one has limited experience of entrepreneurs or has had a bad experience at the hands of an entrepreneur. Ironically, one appreciates derogatory jokes about entrepreneurs more if one has knowledge of their modus-operandi and foibles. The public generally hold a negative view of entrepreneurs based on their stereotypical and ideal-typical perception of entrepreneurs as a genre as a “butt” of collective knowledge about entrepreneurs per-se. We acknowledge that entrepreneur jokes must operate at this abstract level to be understandable to all audiences. There is a discernible tension between entrepreneurial self-images (as heroic, agentic, etc.) and derogatory public views. This makes understanding inherent tensions between the heroic nature of EI and public perceptions of entrepreneurs per-se.

Conclusions and implications

This study has discussed the role of humour and jokes in entrepreneurial and organizational processes and has illuminated linkages between EI and humour; and the context of humour (in general) and entrepreneur jokes (in particular). It has developed deeper insights into the nature and role of jokes in an entrepreneurial context and has examined EI formation in relation to the legitimation and de-legitimation process and the role of various practices and elements such as jokes and humour in these processes, concentrating on public perception of the entrepreneur. We contribute to humour theory by focussing on the entrepreneur. Humour and entrepreneurship fit together well because joking involves risk as does entrepreneurship. Most entrepreneurs do not decide to be the “butt” of jokes, it is others who position them so, so the risk-taking connection only works for jokes told by entrepreneurs. The jokes about entrepreneurs presented are indicative of public opinion of the proto-typical entrepreneur and entrepreneurship. From the analysis and findings, it is evident that jokes are clearly an important element of EI allowing us to challenge accepted conventions and myths.

It is evident that joking is a prized social skill related to likeability and entrepreneurial transformation (Bureau and Zander, 2014). In practice, joking enables entrepreneurs to “move” beyond boundaries and to have a “fluid identity”. Humour can validate EI in a positive way or challenge or denigrate it negatively. Joking is a risky behaviour as being the “butt” may have negative consequences. However, when a member of the public hears an entrepreneur joke, they do not separate the context of the joke from their unique personal knowledge of entrepreneurs and how they communicate; and indeed it is the incongruence between what they know and the context that makes it funny. Thus, we can laugh at entrepreneur jokes without our perception being altered and the joke is only funny at the time of telling. Nevertheless, repeated exposure to entrepreneur jokes that denigrate their honesty and integrity inevitably have a negative de-legitimising effect on our perceptions, particularly if one does not have an intimate knowledge of entrepreneurs per-se or views them negatively. This study touches upon how entrepreneurial legitimacy is affected by derogatory jokes and the consequences this brings for EI. The jokes highlighted are specifically about private-sector entrepreneurs acting at the edges of ethical behaviour and being fundamentally selfish or dishonest, illustrating the entrepreneur as a dodgy, unethical character. This is a consistent message in the jokes sampled. We make an incremental theoretical contribution by identifying and presenting different ways in which humour related to entrepreneurs can operate and theorise that jokes about entrepreneurs have a negative effect on public perception. We illustrate how EI is perceived in macro-societal discourse because humour allows society to test what is legitimate behaviour by an entrepreneur. If entrepreneurs were more aware of the negative public perceptions of them and the tensions this induces, they could use this to change their identity. This would have implications on EI and how/if entrepreneurs use their skills and resources to relate to public stereotypes.

Limitations and future research

Studying entrepreneur jokes (as textual entities) can only take us so far towards theorising humour in relation to EI. The core concepts of/and linkages between humour and EI are tangible. However, analysing the textual aspects of the jokes does not present a full picture of the conceptual interconnectivity. For example, it does not cover the settings and circumstances in which jokes are told, who tells them and why, nor does one does get a sense of the “Reflection” involved in seeking whether to engage in joke telling activity or disengage and how these decisions shape perceptions of EI. Nor does it allow insights into performativity. Although humorous identity plays as part of everyday business strategy, it remains to be seen if it can be empirically proven that entrepreneurs use humour instrumentally – but this study, the study of Hsieh (2015) and others featured herein suggest that they can and do. Further research is required to appreciate how entrepreneurs use humour in their identity work and how they show awareness of and relate to public images of entrepreneurs. This would highlight how they may strive to adjust their entrepreneurial identities by relating to their use of humour as an entrepreneurial tool.

Our low-sample size restricted us in the framing of overarching conclusions regarding humour and EI, and our analysis merely highlights how humour may be used in relation to identity formation. It would take a larger sample and a more detailed quantitative review to empirically make a point and accurately depict how entrepreneurs are portrayed with regard to humour from various sources. However, this would miss the very point and liminal context of humour. The context in which the above jokes were told, and their purpose is of vital importance and without taking cognisance of sociocultural insights such as situation and timing, it is difficult to judge the effects of jokes. Nevertheless, there is obvious scope for future research and for follow-up studies to present other humour/joke types and different audiences. For example, are entrepreneurs who tell jokes more popular than serious ones who do not? How do they use jokes in negotiations to convince the other party? Do people who tell jokes about entrepreneurs show lower levels of respect for entrepreneurial action? Do they blame entrepreneurs for firm failure? How do jokes/joking change the communicational dynamic of entrepreneurs? A study of how jokes impact entrepreneurs' self-esteem or ethical decision making would be useful too. Also, do jokes positively or negatively influence entrepreneurial decision-making processes? Are potential business partners more willing to make a deal with an entrepreneur who has tells them a joke? These are but a few suggestions. Theoretically, humour is a powerful tool entrepreneurs' need to understand and deploy and the problematic addressed lies in the nuanced complexity of the mechanisms through which we do or do not understand jokes.

This work articulates some “how” and “why” aspects of the conceptual development of entrepreneurial humour, evidencing the dynamics of entrepreneurial discourse by examining it within the context of jokes about entrepreneurs. It develops our understanding about what the concepts of humour can help us do; what we as a scholarly community might do differently in future and elaborates on linkages between EI and humour. The work contributes to the identity debate, showing humour as the mechanism for testing such mooted identities (Beech, 2010) and provides additional insights and deepened understandings of how entrepreneurs are viewed by the public and how this influences EI. We also add to the literature on the use of humour relating to subversion (Karlsen and Villadsen, 2015). An acute sense of humour and the ability to tell jokes and make people laugh is an artful practice essential to entrepreneurial competence. For Hsieh (2015), much of the literature on humour does not support the claim that laughter evokes warm feeling and a vicarious attachment to those who have made [us] laugh. This is important because using humour requires timing, poise, skill, social sensitivity and emotional intelligence. Our examples of jokes in an entrepreneurial context merely scratch the surface.

Table 1

Fowler's typology of humour

Device	Humour	Wit	Satire	Sarcasm	Invective	Irony	Cynicism	Sardonic
Motive/aim	Discovery	Shed light	amendment	inflicting pain	discredit	exclusiveness	self-justification	self-relief
Province	Human nature	Words and ideas	Morals and manners	Faults and foibles	Misconduct	Statement of facts	Morals	Adversity
Method/Means	Observation	Surprise	Accentuation	Inversion	Direct statement	Mystification	Exposure of nakedness	Pessimism
Audience	The sympathetic	The intelligent	Victim and bystander	The self-satisfied	The public	An inner circle	The respectable	The self

Source(s): Adapted from Fowler (1926)

Table 2

An analysis of the message conveyed by entrepreneur jokes

Joke	Punch line	Analytic-overview
What do you call an entrepreneur with a prospectus in his hand?	A Con (derivation of convict? Or conman?)	Derogatory statements linking entrepreneurs to criminality, courts and/or entrepreneurial malpractice such as false-accounting, greed and success linking both with dishonesty and unscrupulous, unethical behaviour. The focus is on entrepreneurial misbehaviour introducing double meanings to imply impropriety via a play on words. Sarcasm, hubris, stupidity, ridicule, deviousness and misfortune also feature. The derogatory statements position the entrepreneur as a figure of ridicule and the humour works because we, the public have an appreciation that some entrepreneurs are disreputable or dishonest characters. Indeed, the jokes require the audience to have knowledge of such entrepreneurial chicanery. In relation to the form and structure of the jokes (Chiaro, 2006) – the narrative organisation of jokes is such that they simultaneously challenge yet conform to negative perceptions (Ritchie, 2004) of flawed entrepreneurial identities whilst deviating from and undermining heroic entrepreneurial identity
What do you call an entrepreneur's bank account?	Exhibit A
What do you call an entrepreneur's tax return?	Evidence
What's the current term for an entrepreneur?	The defendant
Why is business like a boat race?	Because everyone ends up in the dock
What do you give to the entrepreneur who has everything?	Ten years, with a non-parole of six
What do you call an entrepreneur after a public listing?	Rich
What's the difference between mindless greed and Spandau Ballet?	Spandau Ballet really did go out of fashion in the late '80s
Why do entrepreneurs wear sunscreen when they go outside?	Because they spend most of their time insider trading
One businessman to another. My accountant found me so many tax deductions	“…that I had money left over for bail!
Why do so many entrepreneurs marry fashion models?	Because they admire the way they can balance books on their heads while standing up, since they can only do it when they are lying
What do you call an entrepreneur with a good memory?	Unique
Why is an entrepreneur like a locksmith?	Because he gets paid whenever he makes a bolt for the door
Why did the entrepreneur cross the road?	I am sure there was a good reason, but sadly my client's memory loss prevents him from answering at this time. Most of the last two decades, your honour, are a tragic blur. (a reference to courts again)
Why is an entrepreneur like a rhinoceros?	Because he never charges his friends
Why is an entrepreneur like a pigeon?	Because he will do anything to put a deposit on a new Merc
What do you call an entrepreneur seen driving his Porsche outside the suburbs?	Lost
Have you heard about the dyslexic entrepreneur?	He exited the company after it went bust
Have you heard the saying: “If you can remember the 60s you were not there”?	Yes, but if you admit to remembering the 80s, you need a better accountant
Why is an entrepreneur like the salvation army?	Because they are always launching an appeal
How many entrepreneurs does it take to change a light bulb?	One to change the light bulb, plus 23 accountants to define the new light bulb as a capital investment
True Entrepreneur – three separate businessmen negotiated with a mall manager to rent three separate adjoining shop fronts. A part of the lease includes free signage. All are “Men's Wear” shops	The first two settle for a sign advertising “Men's Wear”, but the true entrepreneur opts for a sign displaying the word “Entrance”	These jokes allude to the situational cleverness of the entrepreneur. The punchlines of such “good” jokes rest upon the situational and sharp practice. They involve the use of business nouse, chicanery and/or cunningness but not criminality. Also, they serve to eulogise and legitimise the said behaviours
Tadbury was an entrepreneur'. Tadbury who has a reputation for dishonesty outfoxes Smythe, a talented new lawyer	Tadbury tells Smythe he will not pay unless there is a clear cause for legal action. Smythe evaluates the case opining that his case is airtight and that the other party is wrong. Smythe demands a £10,000 fee but Tadbury refuses saying that he had told Smythe the other parties' side and thus owed him nothing
A rich man tells an awestruck youth about being down to his last farthing during the depression and to investing this on an apple which he polished and sold for a penny. He repeats this process many times over	When the awestruck youth asks if that is how he made his fortune the rich man delivers the punchline 'Goodness no, then my father-in-law died and left us a million pounds'

Source(s): Adapted from the Entrepreneurs Joke Book and Internet examples

Table 3

A grounded analysis of the jokes in Table 2

Jokes	Grounded analysis
What do you call an entrepreneur with a prospectus in his hand? What do you call an entrepreneur's bank account? What do you call an entrepreneur's tax return? What's the current term for an entrepreneur? Why is business like a boat race? What do you give to the entrepreneur who has everything? Why did the entrepreneur cross the road? Why did the entrepreneur cross the road? Have you heard the saying… Why do entrepreneurs wear sunscreen when they go outside? One businessman to another…	These jokes are essentially the same one but with different punchlines and being derogatory in nature derive from superiority theory (Gruner, 1997). Their punchlines all relate to criminality which triggers the incongruity Raskin (1985) and lead to audience surprise. All have an element of cynicism (Fowler, 1926)
Have you heard about the dyslexic entrepreneur? Why do so many entrepreneurs marry fashion models? What do you call an entrepreneur seen driving his Porsche outside the suburbs? How many entrepreneurs does it take to change a light bulb? What do you call an entrepreneur with a good memory?	Again, these jokes are essentially the same one but with different punchlines emanating from superiority theory (Gruner, 1997) 8. Again, they are derogatory but relate to stupidity. In this instance the stupidity acts as the incongruity trigger (Raskin, 1985). All have an element of irony and the sardonic (Fowler, 1926)
Why is an entrepreneur like the Salvation Army? Why is an entrepreneur like a pigeon? Why is an entrepreneur like a rhinoceros? Why is an entrepreneur like a locksmith?	Each of these jokes operate around introducing a clever play on words as the incongruity trigger (Raskin, 1985)
What do you call an entrepreneur after a public listing? A rich man tells an awestruck youth… Tadbury was an entrepreneur'… True Entrepreneur……	These jokes although they ostensibly relate to situational cleverness are actually ironic (Fowler, 1926). In this case the irony is the incongruity trigger (Raskin, 1985). They relate to gain (Karlsen and Villadsen, 2015)

Notes

1. For example, some jokes by entrepreneurs are unintentional, as in the case of David Shepherd of Topman in 2001 who joked with a reporter that Topman customers were “hooligans” and that very few of them would wear a suit unless to their first interview or for a court case. The attempt at humour resulted in a temporary 4.5% drop in then share price. Another example was John Mackey CEO of Wholefoods who reportedly admitted that they sold “junk”.

2. Humour tests the limits of existing and emerging social structures in terms of how an entrepreneur can legitimately behave, acting as an exemplar of how not to present ones-self in future.

3. The most famous gaff was made by entrepreneur Gerard Ratner in 1991 when he gave an after-dinner talk to the Institute of Directors and referred to his products as “total crap”. This intentional joke wiped £500 million off of company shares. He later resigned. It was not an off-the-cuff gaff, but a planned joke embedded in a speech which backfired.

4. However, jokes by entrepreneurs can also be “spur-of-the-moment”, “foot-in-mouth” or “off-the-cuff” jokes which backfire as when Sir Richard Branson in 2007 joked that the Virgin Trains rolling stock was “really fucked”. It was a PR gaff but had marginal consequences. Attempts at humerous candour can also backfire as in the example of Matt Barrett of Barclays Bank who told a reporter to steer clear of Barclay Cards because they were so expensive.