Moskva, Moscow, Russian Federation
Today, despite the elaborate risk management plans, a significant number of projects are not successful. This suggests that risk management cannot be regarded as performing chains of actions in the sequence defined by standards. It is important to take into account the internal and external environment in which risk management will be carried out, that is, to take into account the context of risk management. At the same time, because the external environment cannot be affected by the manager, it is especially important to focus on internal conditions, including the project team risk propensity, which causes its behavior in situations of risk. However, the definition of risk propensity by direct methods is not always possible, due to which there is a need to define this parameter indirectly. The work is dedicated to the identification of the project team member’s specific personality traits, on the basis of which it is possible to make an assumption about the risk propensity. The research identified four psychological types of project team members, varying in their method of decision-making and risk propensity, respondent belonging to one of which can be assumed basing on the data about the level of its self and emotional stability. Using this data, the project manager can form a team with the level risk propensity, which is required in the specific project.
risk propensity, risk management, management of the project team, personality characteristics, social psychology.
Введение
Управление рисками является неотъемлемой частью каждого аспекта проектного менеджмента, ключевой функцией, без которой невозможна успешная реализация данного проекта. В последние годы вопросу управления рисками уделяется все большее внимание организациями и профессиональными объединеними, занимающимися разработкой стандартов по управлению проектами. Однако, несмотря на тщательную стандартизацию процесса управления рисками, большое число проектов все еще являются провальными, а значит, управление рисками нельзя сводить к цепочке последовательных действий по планированию управления рисками, их идентификации, качественной и количественной оценке и планированию мероприятий по управлению рисками. В связи с этим развивается психологический подход как в управлении проектами в целом [2–4; 12; 15], так и в управлении рисками в частности [5–6; 10; 18].
Важно учитывать внутреннюю среду, представляющую собой атмосферу в организации и определяющую, каким образом риск воспринимается сотрудниками организации и как они на него реагируют. Внутренняя среда включает философию управления рисками и риск-аппетит, честность и этические ценности, а также ту среду, в которой они существуют [10]. Также Lientz и Rea в своем исследовании называют склонность к риску важной характеристикой члена проектной команды [18].
1. Bagrationi K.A. MBTI kak metod ekspress-diagnostiki povedencheskikh kompetentsiy menedzherov [MBTI as Express Diagnostics Method of Managers´ Behavioral Competencies]. Rossiyskiy zhurnal upravleniya proektami [Russian Journal of Project Management]. 2014, V. 3, I. 3, pp. 25-34. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/5783.
2. Bagrationi K.A. Psikhologicheskiy podkhod k konfliktmenedzhmentu proektov: tipologiya, prichiny, upravlenie (chast´ 1) [A psychological approach to conflict management projects: typology reasons Management (Part 1)]. Upravlenie proektami i programmami [Management of projects and programs]. Moscow, 2011, I. 3, pp. 210-219.
3. Bagrationi K.A. Psikhologicheskiy podkhod k konfliktmenedzhmentu proektov: tipologiya, prichiny, upravlenie (chast´ 2) [A psychological approach to conflict management projects: typology reasons Management (Part 2)]. Upravlenie proektami i programmami [Project Management and programmami]. Moscow, 2011, I. 4, pp. 280-290.
4. Bagrationi K. A. Upravlenie izmeneniyami: faktory, vliyayushchie na uspekh proekta [Change management: factors aff ecting the project success]. Rossiyskiy zhurnal upravleniya proektami [Russian Journal of Project Management]. 2013, V. I. 4, pp. 56-64. DOI:https://doi.org/10.12737/1962.
5. Bagrationi K. A. Upravlenie riskami v proektakh: psikhologicheskiy podkhod (chast´ 1) [Risk management in projects: a psychological approach (Part 1)]. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya [Problems of management theory and practice]. 2015, I. 5, pp. 100-107.
6. Bagrationi K.A. Upravlenie riskami v proektakh: psikhologicheskiy podkhod (chast´ 2) [Risk management in projects: a psychological approach (Part 2)]. Problemy teorii i praktiki upravleniya [Problems of management theory and practice]. 2015, I. 6, pp. 75-85.
7. Lebedeva N.M. Metodika issledovaniya otnosheniya lichnosti k innovatsiyam [Methods of study relationship of the individual to innovate]. Al´manakh sovremennoy nauki i obrazovaniya [Almanac of modern science and education]. 2009, I. 4. Part 2, pp. 89-98.
8. Leont´ev D.A., Rasskazova E.I. Test zhiznestoykosti [Test viability]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2006.
9. Petrovskiy V.A. Aktivnost´ sub"ekta v usloviyakh riska. Kand. Diss. [active subjects at risk. Cand. Diss.]. Moscow, 1977.
10. Upravlenie riskami organizatsiy. Integrirovannaya model´ [Risk management organizations. Integrated model]. Riskmenedzhment [Risk Management]. 2007, I. 5-12; 2008, I. 1-2.
11. PMBOK (The Project Management Body of Knowledge) Guide. 4th ed. Newton Square, Pennsylvania, USA: Project Management Institute, 2008.
12. Cohen Y., Ornoy H., Keren B. MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: a field study. Project Management Journal. 2013. Vol. 3(44). P.78-87.
13. CrosettoP.,Filippin A. The ´Bomb´ Risk Elicitation Task. Jena Economic Research Paper. 2012. Vol.035.
14. De Mascia S. Project psychology: using psychological models and techniques to create a successful project. S. De Mascia. Gower, 2012. 208 p.
15. Ehlers T. ExperimentelleUntersuchungenzurpersonlichkeit sbedingteUnfallgefahrdung. Dissertation Philosophischen Fakultat der Phillipps-Universitat. Bremen, 1964. P. 252-279.
16. Jose D., Crumly J.A. Psychological type of farm/ranch operators: Relationship to financial measures. Review of Agricultural Economics. 1993. Vol. 1. P 121-132.
17. Lejuez C., Read J., Kahler C., Richards J., Ramsey S., Stuart G., Strong D., Brown R. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2002. Vol. 2. P. 75-84.
18. Lientz B.P., Rea K.P. Project Management for the 21st Century. 2nd Edition. London: Academic Press, 2000.
19. Moràn R.B., Arlas R.M.,Salguero R.T. Risk Takers: Do They Know How Much of a Risk They are Taking? Psychology in Spain. 2003. Vol. 7, no 1, P. 3-9.
20. Nicholson N., Fenton O., Creevey M., Soane E. and Willman P. Risk Propensity and Personality. London: ESRC, 2002.
21. Nicholson N., Soane E., Fenton-O´Creevy M., Willman P. Personality and domain specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research. 2005. Vol. 2. P. 157-176.
