MPM – Master of Project Management

Personality and Project Management

Success

May 2020

Student: Anna Ellen Douglas

Supervisor: Kamilla Rún Jóhannsdóttir

9 ECTS for the degree of Master of Project Management (MPM)

1

PERSONALITY AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS

Anna Ellen Douglas

Paper presented as part of the requirements for the degree of Master of Project

Management (MPM) Reykjavik University - May 2020

ABSTRACT

Significant research has been devoted to the topic of leadership and project success, and

the positive relationship between the two. The influence of personality traits on project

leadership competence has been researched to a lesser extent. It is a very relevant topic

considering the importance of emotional/social intelligence and communication skills in

today’s diverse and complex project environments. It is not only a useful undertaking for

project leaders to develop the essential traits and behaviours for success, but a fundamental

element in leading successful projects. This paper presents a quantitative study to

investigate the possible link between project manager personality traits and their level of

success in project management. A self-reporting questionnaire was used to measure the

self-perceived success of a sample of project managers in Iceland. The questionnaire also

included the NEO FFI-R personality test. The results indicate that Conscientiousness,

Extraversion, and Openness to experience to a lesser extent, seem to correlate positively

with project manager success, and Neuroticism appears to correlate negatively with project

manager success. Agreeableness did not show a significant correlation with successful

project management. Furthermore, the results indicate certain commonalities among

project managers, such as higher Openness, Extraversion, and Conscientiousness when

compared to the general population. The research findings may support a better

understanding of the traits that are important for project managers and organisations to

develop, promote and recruit for, with the aim of positively impacting project success.

INTRODUCTION

There has been a notable shift in recent decades towards the projectification of

organisations, in both the public and private sectors. Organisations have been moving away

from traditional operations to a project-based system. The Western world is a project-

orientated society with an estimated one third of the economy based on project work

(Schoper et al., 2018). There is certainly a lot at stake economically when it comes to

completing successful projects, yet the failure rate is still substantial (KPMG et al., 2019;

PMI, 2020b).

The project manager role differs from other managerial positions in intrinsic ways as

is evident from research (Cohen et al., 2013; Kotter, 2012; Turner & Müller, 2005). The

literature has largely focused on the technical skills of project managers, although there has

been a recent shift towards the importance of ‘soft skills’, such as emotional intelligence,

empathy, interpersonal relationships, communication and conflict management (Maqbool et

al., 2017; Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013; Kerzner, 2009). Project leadership competencies

are a key factor in achieving project success and there is an increased need for human and

interpersonal skills (KPMG et al., 2019), which begs the question: Are we hiring the right

people to manage projects and are they receiving the correct training? Is our perception of

great leadership accurate or different from the actual leadership competencies that bring

about effectiveness and success?

Considerable research has focused on the role of personality in leadership and

success in the workplace. There is established evidence for a correlation between certain

personality traits and successful leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge et al., 2002; Lord

et al., 1986). The present study seeks to add to the ‘soft skill’ research field, specifically in

2

project management, by exploring the role of personality. The aim is to draw attention to

the importance of personality traits in project management and how they can affect project

success. Furthermore, the hope is to create better insight into the positive and practical

implications of personality-based research in the field of project management.

The study involved an exploratory analysis of project managers’ self-reported level of

success in relation to their personality traits. A questionnaire was used to assess project

management success on the one hand (using a framework especially designed for this

study), and personality traits on the other hand (using the NEO FFI-R personality

inventory). The study is an interdisciplinary approach to the research questions, as it

focuses on project management theory as well as personality psychology.

The study proposes the question: What influence does personality have on project

management success and is there a significant correlation between success and certain

personality traits? A secondary question is presented: Which commonalities do project

managers possess when it comes to personality and other measured factors?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The last few decades have seen organisations relying increasingly on project management

to operate effectively and achieve success (Jensen et al., 2016; Packendorff & Lindgren,

2014). Schoper et al. (2018) estimated that about one third of all work in advanced

economies today is project work, in line with their research findings for project work in

Germany, Norway and Iceland. They also saw indications of these numbers being on the

rise (Schoper et al., 2018). More and more organisations, both in the public and private

sector, are clearly seeing the value of project-based operations, so it is not surprising that

project success has been a main focus of project management studies in recent years

(Anantatmula, 2010; Joslin & Müller, 2016). Add to that the fact that project failure rates

are still significant, although slowly improving (PMI, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020b). The latest

PMI Pulse of the Profession survey (PMI, 2020a, 2020b) revealed that an average of 11.4%

of global investment is lost each year due to poor project performance. The survey also

reported that 69% of projects met their original goals or business intent and around 60%

were completed within budget. About 13% of projects were considered failures (PMI,

2020b). In the IT sector, the failure rate has historically been higher, with over 80% of

projects partially or completely failing (odtadmin, 2019). Researching and mapping out the

factors that contribute to successful projects, is therefore a key issue in the field of project

management.

Project management success

The development in project management studies of a multi-dimensional standard of

measuring project success has proven problematic, since projects are inherently diverse in

size, uniqueness, complexity and other aspects (Westerveld, 2003). Current frameworks for

measuring project success have, to a large extent, focused more on the business purpose

and technical performance objectives of the project and less on the process and

management of the project (Turner & Müller, 2005). Furthermore, project management

theory has focused primarily on the technical aspects or ‘hard skills’ of project management,

such as planning, scheduling and budgeting, and less on the ‘soft skills’ required, in

particular interpersonal relationships and emotional intelligence (Maqbool et al., 2017;

Kerzner, 2009). Creasy and Anantatmula (2013) found that several studies show the

importance of addressing the human skills needed in project management and already in

the 1980s and 1990s, a number of authors reported that interpersonal skills are more

important to project success than technical skills (Skulmoski & Hartman, 2010). A Global

Outlook report from 2019 listed the top six skill areas considered lacking in project

3

management; all of them could be considered interpersonal skills: change leadership,

difficult conversations, conflict management, delegating authority, communication skills,

political insight and knowledge sharing (KPMG et al., 2019). In more recent years, we have

seen a greater emphasis on developing the ‘soft skills’ of leadership, namely emotional

intelligence (Casper, 2002; Maqbool et al., 2017; Quinn & Wilemon, 2009), ethics (Bredillet,

2014; Helgadóttir, 2008), empathy (Gentry et al., 2016; Holt & Marques, 2012; Pitagorsky,

n.d.), creativity and communication skills (Pant & Baroudi, 2008).

Hogan et al. (2011) summarised and analysed several studies of the base rate of

managerial failure and the median rate of failure was estimated about 50%. The prevailing

theme when analysing the reasons for failure was behavioural and relationship issues. It is

therefore not surprising, that the International Project Management Association (IPMA) has

increased its emphasis on personal and social skills in each updated Competence Baseline

(ICB), due to the increased complexity and demands of the project, programme and

portfolio context (IPMA, 2006, 2015).

Gehring (2007) stressed that project managers must understand the leadership

competencies required for managing projects, since the job is not simply about defining

problems, planning work, allocating resources and controlling tasks. To be able to handle

the complexity of managing the team and get people to use their skills, you will need

leadership skills. Project managers often come into their positions by accident (Gehring,

2007), are chosen for their technical abilities and knowledge of the industry in question, but

may be lacking in interpersonal skills. The nature of projects means that they often involve

diverse teams, a great deal of complexity, risk and uncertainty (Anantatmula, 2010).

Moreover, we have seen a rapid increase in diversity and complexity during the last couple

of decades, with faster paced projects and constant change (Schein & Schein, 2018, p. 5).

From the literature, it is evident that project management competencies, although

difficult to assess, are vital for successful projects. Having a project manager who is skilled

in interpersonal relations, communications and human behaviour is key to successful

projects (Kerzner, 2009, p. 194).

Personality overview

The connection between personality and the various aspects of life has been studied to a

certain extent and there seems to be a general consensus that there are clear correlations

between personality and domains such as happiness, health and longevity (Judge et al.,

2002). The impact of personality on performance and success has been the focus of several

studies (Mount et al., 1998; Poropat, 2009; Sackett & Walmsley, 2014; Salgado, 1997;

Seibert & Kraimer, 2001; Sutin et al., 2009), as well as the importance of emotional

intelligence and the ‘soft skills’ of work (Farh et al., 2012; O’Boyle et al., 2011; Sackett &

Walmsley, 2014). The literature on the relationship between personality and leadership is

ample, however, there is considerably less focus on project leadership. The psychological

factors that contribute to project success are particularly significant considering the growing

importance of effective leadership in today’s project-driven world.

For decades, there were attempts to devise a comprehensive personality system to

assess and study individual differences. The five-factor model of personality was developed

in the 1990s, built on decades of analyses and research using natural language adjectives

and theoretically based questions (McCrae & John, 1992). There appears to be a consensus

among researchers that the five factors can be used to describe the most significant aspects

of personality (Goldberg, 1990). The five factors, or traits, each consists of six facets:

• Openness to Experience: Fantasy, Aesthetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values.

• Conscientiousness: Competence, Order, Dutifulness, Achievement Striving,

Self-Discipline, Deliberation.

4

• Extraversion: Warmth, Gregariousness, Assertiveness, Activity, Excitement-

Seeking, Positive Emotions.

• Agreeableness: Trust, Straightforwardness, Altruism, Compliance, Modesty,

Tender-mindedness.

• Neuroticism: Anxiety, Hostility, Depression, Self-consciousness, Impulsiveness,

Vulnerability.

The traits and their facets are usually viewed as polar scales, so an individual can be

high on Neuroticism, low on Neuroticism (emotionally stable) or somewhere in between the

two extremes. It is generally thought that both genetics and the environment influence a

person’s personality and several studies have linked personality to biology and brain

functions (Canli, 2004; Fischer et al., 1997). Borkenau et al. (2001) estimated that the

variation of individuals’ personality is about 40% due to genetics and 60% due to

environmental factors. According to Roberts and DelVecchio (2000), traits remain relatively

consistent throughout adulthood although they seem to retain some possibility of change. In

fact, research suggests that people can certainly develop their underlying traits and train to

improve weaknesses (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005; Thal & Bedingfield, 2010).

Personality and project management

There is established evidence for a correlation between certain personality traits and

successful leadership. Substantial meta-analyses by Judge et al. (2002) and Bono and

Judge (2004) established a clear correlation between leadership success and Extraversion,

and, to a lesser extent, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience and emotional stability

(low Neuroticism). There seems to be no apparent correlation, or a very weak one, between

leadership and Agreeableness, yet some indication of a connection to better team work

(Barrick et al., 2001). Studies do, however, indicate the importance of Agreeableness in

leadership roles, yet because of their modest and compliant nature, agreeable individuals

are not likely to emerge as leaders (Judge et al., 2002).

Considerably less research has gone into the impact of personality on project

management success specifically. When comparing these findings, there are some

interesting differences.

The literature seems mostly in agreement of the importance of Extraversion in both

leadership in general and project management. Hassan et al. (2017) (with a self-report

study) and Wang (2009) (with a study of subordinate measures) concluded that

Extraversion had a strong correlation with project success. Hassan et al. (2017) further

suggested that the characteristics of Extraversion of being able to openly discuss issues and

build relationships were of great importance in project management. This is a reasonable

conclusion since extraverts often have a positive outlook and display social dominance. They

can therefore generate confidence and enthusiasm in their followers. Extraverts are more

likely to have the energy and assertiveness to be perceived as leaders.

Considering the strong support for Extraversion in project management success, it is

worth pointing out that about half the workforce is in fact introverted (Kuofie et al., 2015).

Some studies investigated a noteworthy topic and that is whether introverts have something

to offer in management and whether there are downsides to Extraversion in the

management context. Kuofie et al. (2015) found that introverted leaders tended to have

more team presence and better listening skills. Extraverted leaders tend not to be as

receptive to their team’s ideas as introverts and can stifle their creativity, especially when

the team is proactive and extraverted. These teams would benefit from having a more

introverted leader. On the other hand, a more passive or introverted team would benefit

from having an extraverted leader (Grant et al., 2011; Kuofie et al., 2015). Studies also

5

found that, in some cases, extraverted leaders can be too quick to make decision, they can

be less accountable and lack perseverance. In extreme cases, high Extraversion has been

linked to narcissism and sociopathy and historically we have seen the detrimental effect of

sociopathic behaviour in management (Holt & Marques, 2012; Kaiser et al., 2015).

Conversely, introverts tend to stay in the shadows and not emerge as leaders (Spark et al.,

2018). Studies showed that, although there was a clear correlation between Extraversion

and perceived leadership, there was no link to actual organisational performance (Atamanik,

2013).

Interestingly, Thal and Bedingfield (2010) did not find a positive correlation between

Extraversion and project manager success. They found that project manager success was

most correlated with Conscientiousness. The trait is characterised by reliability, self-

discipline, duty, and self-control. Conscientiousness is consistently linked to overall job

performance and was the second strongest predictor of success in the leadership literature

(Judge et al., 2002). Conscientious individuals are likely to be perceived as leaders on

account of their determined behaviour, as well as their industrious and goal driven attitude

(Judge et al., 2002). Conversely, Hassan et al. (2017) did not find that Conscientiousness

was connected with success and considered the trait to be a hurdle in project management,

because of the lack of quick decision making and improvisation. It should be noted that the

study is limited to the review of project management in NGOs in Pakistan and may not be

indicative for project management overall. High Conscientiousness has been linked to high

stress and perfectionism, which may negatively affect performance. On the other hand,

people low in Conscientiousness can be viewed as unreliable and careless

(Conscientiousness, n.d.; Waude, 2017).

More surprisingly, Thal and Bedingfield (2010) found that Openness to experience

was a high indicator of project manager success. Openness to experience is characterised

by intellectual curiosity, creativity, and imagination. These findings are unique to project

management and we may speculate that this is due to the fundamental differences of

project management compared to general management. Most notably, the fact that project

managers need to be able to be innovative and creative in decision making and solutions.

They need to be open to trying new things and taking (informed) risks. As the authors point

out, these characteristics may not be important for job performance in general but may be

critical for the project environment. Hassan et al. (2017) found Openness to experience to

be the strongest predictor of project success in NGOs. Openness to experience also had a

strong connection to leadership in the meta-analyses. Individuals low in Openness are often

considered too pragmatic and closed-minded (Smillie, 2017; Waude, 2017). High Openness

has, however, been linked to unreliability and risky behaviour. Mailk (2016) found that

Openness to experience was positively correlated with creativity, and that creativity was

positively correlated with project success. Furthermore, Cohen et al. (2013) found that

project managers were generally more at ease with uncertainty and risk, which are

characteristics found to be strongly correlated with Openness to experience (Hodson &

Sorrentino, 1999).

In Hassan et al.’s (2017) study, Agreeableness came in second in predicting project

success. Agreeableness is characterised by kindness, trustworthiness, cooperation, and

social harmony. Project managers need to be able to trust their team and show

consideration and social amiability (Hassan et al., 2017). They must be able to resolve

conflict and build relationships, both characteristics of Agreeableness. These skills may be

more critical in project management than in management in general, considering the

unpredictable and temporary nature of projects. However, the literature is not all in

agreement and some studies showed no correlation between project success and

Agreeableness (Thal & Bedingfield, 2010). Agreeable individuals tend to be more compliant,

6

passive and tend to put others’ needs above their own, so they are less likely to be

perceived as leaders. Still, they may possess the characteristics needed to perform

effectively, namely empathy and social amiability. Interestingly, research has more recently

demonstrated that empathy, which is encompassed in Agreeableness (Del Barrio et al.,

2004; Magalhães et al., 2012), is an important factor in leadership effectiveness and

project management specifically (Gentry et al., 2016; Holt & Marques, 2012; Pitagorsky,

n.d.). On the other hand, low Agreeableness is associated with unhelpfulness, unfriendliness

and argumentative behaviour which can be very challenging characteristics in the team

environment (Agreeableness, n.d.; Waude, 2017).

Finally, Neuroticism tended to display a negative correlation with leadership and

project management success (Barrick et al., 2001; Thal & Bedingfield, 2010; Wang & Li,

2009). Interestingly, Hassan et al. (2017) did not find that Neuroticism was a significant

predictor of project success in their self-report study, whereas Thal and Bedingfield (2010)

did find a negative correlation in their peer assessment study. Low Neuroticism, or

emotional stability, has been linked to self-confidence and self-esteem, which are valuable

capabilities in leadership (Amirazodi & Amirazodi, 2011). Individuals with high Neuroticism

often have a low tolerance for stress and tend to avoid change and responsibility (Waude,

2017; Widiger & Oltmanns, 2017). They are less likely to be perceived as leaders and when

in leadership roles, their anxiety and negative outlook may hinder their efforts (Bono &

Judge, 2004). Emotional stability has been linked to better team work and as the project

environment most often entails multidisciplinary team work, it is essential for a project

leader to possess the characteristics of emotional stability, such as optimism, confidence

and a balanced mindset (Thal & Bedingfield, 2010).

Although the literature is somewhat ambiguous, it provides us with some key

findings regarding the relationship between the five personality traits and project

management success. For ease of reference they may be summed up as follows:

• Extraversion has a high indication of success in project management, yet it is

important to be aware of the role of perceived leadership in these results, as well as

the possible negative effects of high Extraversion with regards to self-interest and

communication.

• Conscientiousness is very important for job performance and is an indication of

success in project management. However, it may be hindering for leadership in a

fast-paced project environment.

• Openness to experience is essential for the unpredictability and rapid changes of

project management, and evidence suggests that the correlation is unique to project

management specifically.

• Agreeableness appears to be a vital ingredient for successful project management,

since it is an important aspect of emotional intelligence, empathy and building

relationships. However, the correlation with project success is weak since agreeable

individuals are unlikely to emerge as leaders.

• Neuroticism has a negative correlation with project management success overall. The

trait is considered important for team environments and leading projects.

The practical implications of investigating the relationship between personality traits

and project management success are encouraging. The literature suggests that studies of

this kind may support recruitment, promotion and succession planning, individual

development and career pathing (Thal & Bedingfield, 2010). A key factor is identifying the

right competencies for project leadership based on research evidence, instead of falling in

the pitfall of stereotypes, i.e. choosing according to preconceived notions of leadership or

7

because of industry knowledge alone. It is also critical to bear in mind that personality traits

are, for the most part, not set in stone and can be developed.

The present study is of an exploratory nature and the hope is to shed light on

possible correlations between personality traits and project management success, as well as

possible commonalities in personality within the profession of project management, when

compared to the general population. The study will also look at common themes in the

participants’ self-descriptions of their strengths and weaknesses in project management.

Based on the prior literature, the following assumptions may be made:

1. Extraversion correlates positively with project management success.

2. Conscientiousness correlates positively with project management success.

3. Openness to experience correlates positively with project management success.

4. Agreeableness correlates positively with project management success.

5. Neuroticism correlates negatively with project management success.

6. Project managers are more open to experience than the general population.

RESEARCH METHOD

General approach

A self-report questionnaire was sent out to a group of project managers in Iceland to

quantitatively assess the relationship between personality and project leader success. The

questionnaire was used to assess the respondents’ experience and success with regards to

project management, as well as assessing their personality traits according to the NEO Five-

Factor Inventory (NEO FFI-R). The questionnaire was structured with the aim to shed light

on the research questions:

• What influence does personality have on project management success and is there a

positive correlation between success and certain personality traits?

• Which commonalities do project managers possess when it comes to personality and

other measured factors?

Participants

The questionnaire was sent by email to the 368-member mailing list of the Project

Management Association of Iceland. It was also shared on social media, asking project

managers to participate. A total of 77 individuals participated, and two responses were

deemed unusable and deleted from the sample. The result was a sample size of 75.

Gender was almost evenly split, with 53.3% female and 45.3% male participants.

Participants ranged in age from 25 to 85 years old, with almost 70% within the range of 35-

54 years old. Almost 99% of the participants were Icelandic and about 87% located in the

greater capital area of Reykjavik. Industry distribution was broad, with the highest

percentage working in the IT sector, 21.3%. 16% were from the construction sector, 10.7%

in speciality, scientific or technical industries, 9.3% in the energy sector, 8% in education,

5.3% in governmental jobs, 5.3% in NGOs, 5.3% in health services, and the rest divided

between other industries such as tourism, arts, sports, finance and fisheries (each with less

than 3%).

Project management experience ranged from a few months to twenty or more years,

with the largest group having 7-10 years of experience (26.7%), and the second largest

with 16-20 years of experience (18.7%). Over half the participants had an employment

8

ratio of 80% or higher, as project managers. About 38.7% of the sample was not IPMA

certified, 42.7% was D certified, 9.3% was C certified, 6.7% was B certified and 2.7%

declined to respond. For reference, only one person in Iceland is A certified, 57 are B

certified, 112 are C certified and 1862 are D certified. 92% of the sample held university

degrees, 72% thereof holding postgraduate degrees.

Materials

The instrument used was a self-report questionnaire that consisted of five parts:

A. assessment of project manager experience and responsibility,

B. assessment of project complexity and size,

C. assessment of project and project manager success,

D. assessment of project manager personality traits,

E. data collection for demographic purposes.

All content was in Icelandic since the questionnaire (see Appendix A) was sent out to

Icelandic project managers. Parts A, B, C and E were especially designed for use in the

study, whereas part D was the Icelandic translation of the Revised NEO Five-Factor

Inventory.

Part A included questions related to the project manager’s experience and

responsibility, such as total years of experience as a project manager, number of

subordinates and employment ratio as a project manager. Part A also included the

participants’ IPMA certification level (A, B, C, D, or none). Level D is the starting level for

project managers starting out, with little to no experience, yet broad knowledge of project

management. Levels C, B and A represent ascending levels of experience and competence

(IPMA, n.d.).

Part B of the questionnaire consisted of statements related to the size and

complexity of recent projects, with a five-point Likert scale of agreement (1=disagree

strongly, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=agree strongly).The statement list was based

on various sources involving assessments of project complexity and project size and scope

(Hass & Lindbergh, 2010; Helgi Thor Ingason, 2012).

Part C comprised of statements regarding the participants’ views of their recent

projects’ success and their project management success, e.g. whether they considered

themselves good project managers, whether they believed their supervisors, peers,

subordinates and stakeholders would consider them good project managers, whether they

still had much to learn and whether they found it difficult to succeed in their jobs. These

statements were answered on a five-part Likert scale of agreement (1=disagree strongly,

2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=agree strongly). Part C also included statements

regarding the success of recent project with regards to time, budget, quality, and

stakeholder satisfaction. These statements were answered on a five-part Likert scale of

frequency (1=never, 2=seldom, 3=sometimes, 4=most often, 5=always).

Parts A, B and C were designed to assess the participant’s success level in a multi-

faceted framework. For reporting purposes, the data obtained was combined and reported

by weighted scoring, depending on each item’s relevance and importance. As a result, each

participant received a final score for their level of success, on a scale of 0 to 100 (100 being

the highest possible success level).

9

Part D was the Revised NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO FFI-R), which is considered by

many scholars to be a very reliable test (Costa & McCrae, 2010; Jónsson, 2005; Perera et

al., 2015). The inventory contains 60 items in total, where 12 items each measure

Extraversion (E), Conscientiousness (C), Openness to experience (O), Agreeableness (A)

and Neuroticism (N) and answers are given on a five-point Likert scale of agreement

(1=disagree strongly, 2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=agree strongly). Participants

received a final score for each of the five traits. The internal reliability coefficients of the

Icelandic NEO-FFI-R were 0.84 (N), 0.79 (E), 0.73 (O), 0.71 (A) and 0.67 (C) (Cronbach’s

alpha) (Jónsson, 2005). The scores closely matched the US version of the NEO-FFI-R,

except for Conscientiousness, which showed lower reliability compared to the US version

(0.67 versus 0.79) (Jónsson, 2005). In this study, the internal reliability of the NEO-FFI-R

was 0.800 (N), 0.782 (E), 0.701 (O), 0.807 (A) and 0.821 (C), and it is therefore a very reliable

instrument.

Finally, part E of the questionnaire included demographic questions regarding, for

example, age, gender, industry, education, nationality.

Additionally, the questionnaire included a minor qualitative section. Participants were

asked to comment, in open questions, on their strengths and weaknesses as project

managers. This section was included in the questionnaire for added insight into the project

managers’ self-assessment.

Procedure and research design

The questionnaire was sent out to project managers via email and social media sharing.

Participants received minimal information about the research purpose, to avoid biased

responses as best as possible. They were told that the questionnaire was being sent to

project managers exclusively and that the research was concerning the relationship between

personality traits and project management. Participants were told that the questionnaire

would take about 15 minutes to complete and were encouraged to answer truthfully.

Reminders were sent out about one week after the initial request for participation.

The process of data analysis involved compiling the data and analysing participants’

scores for personality and success in three parts. Firstly, success scores and personality

scores were analysed in relation to age, gender, and education. Secondly, a Pearson’s

correlation test was run to investigate the correlations between personality and project

management success (examining the first research question). Thirdly, the participants were

analysed as a sample group (examining the second research question). This was done by

comparing the groups’ personality scores to prior research results for the general population

in Iceland, and by exploring the qualitative data, which was categorised into seven themes:

The five personality traits of Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Openness to Experience,

Agreeableness and Neuroticism, and additionally, the themes of Communication Skills and

Technical Skills. Participants’ references were further grouped into positive and negative

connotations. Participants’ references to having good organisational skills were for example

categorised as positive references to Conscientiousness, whereas references to lacking

organisational skills were categorised as negative references to Conscientiousness. Some

comments were categorised as negative references to traits not for the lack of the trait, but

for excessiveness in the trait. For example, references to being too flexible and tolerant

were categorised as negative references to Agreeableness, wherein the trait was described

as a negative.

10

RESULTS

This study set out to explore the relationship between project manager personality and

success in project management. The outcomes are presented in the following sections:

Descriptive results

Participants’ success scores ranged between 33 and 85, out of a possible 100 points. There

was no significant difference in success scores between genders. The age difference showed

an upward trending success score overall, except for a slightly lower score for the age group

55-64 years old (see Figure 1). There was also a strong positive correlation between age

and years of experience in project management (r = 0.707, p = < 0.001) (see Figure 2).

Figure 1 Project Management Success Scores in Relation to Age (Mean)

Figure 2 Years of Experience in Relation to Age (Mean)

The gender and age differences in personality traits were marginal. Women

measured somewhat higher in all five traits. Neuroticism decreased with age, and all other

traits were highest around middle age, as shown in Figure 3.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

25

-34

yrs

35

-44

yrs

45

-54

yrs

55

-64

yrs

65

+ yr

s

Succ

ess

Sco

re

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

25

-34

yrs

35

-44

yrs

45

-54

yrs

55

-64

yrs

65

+ yr

s

Year

s o

f Ex

per

ien

ce

11

Figure 3 Personality Trait Scores in Relation to Age (Mean)

There was a positive correlation between level of education and project management

success (r = 0.393, p = < 0.001). Participants holding a postgraduate degree, scored an

average of 64 for success. Participants with lower levels of education scored an average of

54 for success (see Figure 4). There was no difference in success scores between

participants holding a Master of Project Management degree (MPM) and those without an

MPM degree. Examining the relationship between personality traits and education levels

(see Table 1) gave a slight positive correlation between Agreeableness (r = 0.196, p =

0.092) and a higher education level, and similar results were found for Conscientiousness (r

= 0.194, p = 0.096). However, these results were marginally significant. Other personality

traits showed no correlation with level of education.

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55-64 yrs 65+ yrs

NEO

FFI

-R S

core

Neuroticism Extraversion Openness

Agreeableness Conscientiousness

12

Figure 4 Project Management Success Scores in Relation to Education Level (Mean)

Table 1 Correlations for Personality and Education Level

Results: Research question 1

What influence does personality have on project management success and is there a

significant correlation between success and certain personality traits?

Pearson’s correlation coefficient was chosen to identify and analyse the correlation between

each personality trait and project management success. Results were considered significant

at p < 0.05. Table 2 shows the correlation results for project management success and the

five personality traits of Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness, Agreeableness, and

Neuroticism. The strongest correlation found was a positive one between Conscientiousness

and success, r = 0.46, p = < 0.001. The second strongest correlation was a negative one

between Neuroticism and success, r = -0.37, p = 0.001. Extraversion also showed a

positive correlation with success (r = 0.24, p = 0.042), although not as strong as

Conscientiousness. A slight positive correlation was found with Openness (r = 0.21, p =

0.073) although it was marginally significant, and lastly, there was no correlation between

Agreeableness and success (r = 0.04, p = 0.705).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Su

cces

s Sc

ore

postgraduate lower level

13

Table 2 Correlations for personality and success variables

Figure 5 gives a visual representation of the five personality traits and their

relationship with project management success. It is clear from the scatter plots that

Conscientiousness had the strongest positive correlation with success and Neuroticism had

the strongest negative correlation with success.

Figure 5 Correlations between Personality Traits and Project Management Success

Results: Research question 2

Which commonalities do project managers possess when it comes to personality and other

measured factors?

The participants’ NEO FFI-R scoring was compared to the general population in Iceland to

explore the possible commonalities among project managers. Jónsson (2005) conducted a

survey of 655 Icelanders and the sample consisted of 56% female and 44% male

participants, with an average age of 43 years old (closely matching this study’s average age

of participants). The results from the present study were compared to these findings in

Figure 6.

14

Figure 6 Project Manager Personality Traits Compared to the General Population in Iceland (Mean) (N=Neuroticism, E=Extraversion, O=Openness, A=Agreeableness, C=Conscientiousness)

Project managers in Iceland scored higher than the general population in all

personality traits except for Neuroticism, where they scored lower. There was a considerable

difference in Openness to experience, where project managers scored 28% higher than the

general population. Table 3 shows the average scores for personality traits in each study.

Table 3 Personality Traits Scores (NEO FFI-R) of Project Managers Compared to the General Population (Mean)

Personality trait Icelanders (Jónsson, 2005) Icelandic project managers

Extraversion 27.84 32.63

Conscientiousness 30.39 35.24

Openness to experience 25.06 32.19

Agreeableness 32.24 33.92

Neuroticism 19.18 17.67

The qualitative data regarding strengths and weaknesses was analysed, and the key

results are shown in Figures 7-9. For the strength category, the theme that was most

prevalent in the data was Conscientiousness, with references such as organisation skills and

discipline (see Figure 7). The most prevalent weakness was related to excessive

Agreeableness (see Figure 8), and secondly, to low Conscientiousness (see Figure 9).

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

N E O A C

NEO

FFI

-R S

core

Icelanders (Jónsson 2005) Icelandic project managers

15

Figure 7 Number of Positive References to the Themes in the Qualitative Data (High in Theme)

Examples of references related to strengths and weaknesses in the themes, were as follows:

Conscientiousness: organisational skills, prioritising, order, overview, management,

information, detail, discipline.

Extraversion: leadership, assertiveness, achievement, quick worker, quick thinking,

initiative, drive, energy.

Openness to experience: open-minded, solution orientated, innovation, change,

creativity, courage, challenge.

Agreeableness: adaptability, respect, flexibility, honesty, servicing, kindness,

listening, cooperation.

Neuroticism (reverse): emotional intelligence, setting emotions aside, calmness,

patience, positivity, resilience.

Technical skills: finance, project management tools, quality management,

complexity, strategy, planning, analysis.

Communication skills: communication, conflict management, diplomacy,

collaboration.

05

1015202530354045505560

Nu

mb

er o

f P

osi

tive

Ref

eren

ces

Conscientiousness Extraversion

Openness to experience Agreeableness

Emotional Stability (low Neuroticism) Technical Skills

Communiation Skills

16

Figure 8 Number of Negative References to the Themes in the Qualitative Data (Excessive in Theme)

Examples of negative references, related to being too high in a theme, appeared in four of

the seven themes and were as follows:

Conscientiousness: too meticulous, too detail orientated.

Extraversion: too aggressive and impatient.

Openness to experience: risk-taking and lack of focus.

Agreeableness: too soft, too flexible with people, saying yes to everything, too

tolerant of mistakes.

Figure 9 Number of Negative References to the Themes in the Qualitative Data (Low in Theme)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20N

um

ber

of

Neg

ativ

e R

efer

ence

s

Conscientiousness Extraversion

Openness to experience Agreeableness

Emotional Stability (low Neuroticism) Technical Skills

Communiation Skills

05

10152025303540455055

Nu

mb

er o

f N

egat

ive

Ref

eren

ces

Conscientiousness Extraversion

Openness to experience Agreeableness

Emotional Stability (low Neuroticism) Technical Skills

Communiation Skills

17

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of the study was to examine the relationship between personality and

project management success. The results give some valued answers to the two research

questions, i.e. what influence personality has on project management success and what

commonalities project managers possess. Overall, the results validated all assumptions

made, except for assumption 4 (Agreeableness).

Discussion – descriptive results

The participants represented a somewhat broad group with regards to age and gender,

although the youngest and oldest groups were rather small for analysis purposes.

There was not a significant difference in success levels for gender. Age differences

for success showed an overall upward trend, increased success with increased age. This

may be expected with increased experience, especially as, the data also showed that there

was a correlation between age and experience, i.e. the youngest age group had the least

amount of experience in project management and the oldest age group had the most

experience. Level of education was highest around middle age and there was a significant

correlation between higher education and increased success. Since the sample sizes for the

youngest and oldest groups were limited, these conclusions are speculative. It appears that

experience increased with age, which is a natural phenomenon when looking at a group of

professionals such as project managers. Moreover, it would be a logical assumption that

individuals with higher levels of education and experience are more successful at their job in

comparison to less experienced and less educated individuals in the same role.

Personality differences were minimal for gender. Women measured slightly higher in

all traits, the biggest difference being Neuroticism, where women were around 10% higher

than men. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were similarly around 8% higher for

women. These results correspond with previous findings which invariably measure women

higher in Neuroticism and Agreeableness (Feingold, 1994). Gender differences in personality

traits are traditionally modest in magnitude and the literature does not show clear gender

differences for Extraversion, Conscientiousness and Openness, except when the traits are

being studied on a facet level, since there are key gender differences within the traits (Costa

et al., 2001). Personality differences between age groups were also minimal.

Conscientiousness and Extraversion were highest in middle age. Neuroticism appeared to

decrease with age. Other findings were not significant. The cross-sectional literature

indicates corresponding results for Conscientiousness and possibly Neuroticism but shows

incongruent results regarding other traits (Donnellan & Lucas, 2008). Lastly, correlations

between personality traits and level of education were also only slight and marginally

significant. Postgraduate level participants were slightly higher in Agreeableness and

Conscientiousness, compared to those with lower level education. Previous cross-sectional

studies have shown the strongest correlation between education level and the traits of

Openness and Conscientiousness, thus the results are only partly comparable with the

general population (Goldberg et al., 1998).

Discussion – research question 1

With regards to research question 1, the results confirmed assumptions regarding

Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to experience and Neuroticism. The assumption

regarding Agreeableness was not supported.

18

1. Extraversion correlates positively with project management success.

There was a positive correlation between Extraversion and project management success,

corresponding to the assumption made, as well as to the literature. Extraversion is

commonly found to relate to leadership success, although the literature for project

management specifically is somewhat ambiguous. The results correspond with Hassan et

al.’s (2017) self-report study, which was focused solely on NGO’s in Pakistan. It is intriguing

to see corresponding results for a relatively broad industry sample in the current study.

2. Conscientiousness correlates positively with project management success.

The results showed a significant positive correlation between Conscientiousness and project

management success. This was the strongest correlation of the five personality traits. This

corresponds to the assumption made and the strong evidence overall in the literature (Thal

& Bedingfield, 2010). This should be considered a positive result, since evidence suggests

that Conscientiousness is a key ingredient in job performance and important for project

management roles. It would be interesting to investigate the possible negative effects of

very high Conscientiousness, as stated by Hassan et al. (2017), although the values for

participants in the current study are not exceedingly high. We may therefore assume that

the levels of Conscientiousness were beneficial.

3. Openness to experience correlates positively with project management success.

There was a slight positive correlation between Openness to experience and project

management success, which corresponds to the assumption made and to literature for

project management. This is an interesting finding as this supports the claims that project

management is inherently different from general management and calls for a different set of

skills and competencies (Turner & Müller, 2005), and specifically, increased Openness to

experience ((Thal & Bedingfield, 2010).

4. Agreeableness correlates positively with project management success.

Agreeableness did not show a significant correlation with project management success. The

basis of this assumption was Hassan et al.’s (2017) findings that Agreeableness showed a

clear positive correlation with project success. However, the present results are more in line

with the literature on leadership in general, which show a weak or no correlation between

Agreeableness and leadership success (Barrick et al., 2001). As noted earlier, Hassan et

al.’s (2017) study was focused on NGOs in Pakistan and can therefore not be generalised to

all project managers. However, Agreeableness is considered an important trait for project

management and especially the team environment so common in project management.

Research suggests that it can be difficult for individuals high in Agreeableness to emerge as

leaders (Judge et al., 2002). These individuals are not commonly perceived as leaders and

this is often based on people’s predisposed notion of what are effective leadership

characteristics (Judge et al., 2002).

5. Neuroticism correlates negatively with project management success.

Neuroticism had the second strongest correlation with project management success. These

results match prior findings (Barrick et al., 2001; Thal & Bedingfield, 2010) and the

assumption made that Neuroticism relates negatively to success. Neuroticism has often

been negatively linked to performance and is overall negatively correlated with project

success. It is not surprising that emotionally stable and emotionally intelligent individuals

thrive in project management.

Discussion – research question 2

There were some interesting findings related to the secondary research question, i.e.

whether project managers possess any commonalities. The results reveal that project

19

managers score higher than the general population for all traits except for Neuroticism. The

biggest difference was seen in Openness to experience, which supports assumption 6:

6. Project managers are more open to experience than the general population.

The results demonstrate that Openness to experience is a prevalent trait among project

managers. This corresponds to previous findings, which indicate that project managers are

generally more open to experience than other groups, and better suited for change

management and the unpredictable nature of projects (Cohen et al., 2013). This further

supports the slight positive correlation found in this study between Openness to experience

and project management success. This suggests that project managers are generally more

open to experience, regardless of success level. There is also the possibility that the success

spectrum is somewhat limited, meaning that the participants scored overall quite high on

the success scale. Further studies could address this issue by conducting research between

groups such as other professions.

The qualitative data obtained through the questionnaire also suggests a strong focus

on Openness, with characteristics such as innovation, creativity, and ingenuity. It is

intriguing to compare the findings of the NEO FFI-R test results and the qualitative

descriptions of strengths and weaknesses. There is a strong parallel between the NEO FFI-R

results and the self-descriptions regarding Conscientiousness. Participants scored high in

Conscientiousness and likewise seemed to see the importance, or strength, of having the

skills related to this trait. The study did not demonstrate a correlation between

Agreeableness and success, yet the qualitative data did show that the participants value

interpersonal relationships and communication skills greatly and furthermore, measure

higher in Agreeableness compared to the general population. The participants’ descriptions

of their strengths support the importance of characteristics related to Agreeableness, i.e.

listening skills, cooperation, flexibility, adaptability, and kindness. The most common

references in the strength category were, however, related to Conscientiousness, i.e.

organisational skills, prioritising, discipline, and good overview. Good communication skills,

conflict management and diplomacy can be covered by more than one personality trait,

such as Extraversion, Agreeableness, and low Neuroticism, and were common strengths in

the qualitative data. The qualitative data also showed that the participants’ mostly saw

weaknesses in their organisational skills, especially regarding project management

methodology. Results for strengths and weaknesses related to Neuroticism were uniform,

i.e. there was a comparable number of negative and positive references to the trait.

Participants described strengths such as emotional intelligence, calmness, patience, and

resilience (low Neuroticism) and weaknesses such as impatience, low resilience, and low

self-esteem (high Neuroticism). The same homogeneity was found for Extraversion.

Strengths related to Extraversion were leadership skills, drive, initiative, and energy.

Weaknesses mentioned were boredom, procrastination, and communication skills.

An interesting finding was that a high number of references in the weakness section

were to characteristics related to excessive Agreeableness, such as not being assertive

enough and being too trusting and lenient, i.e. participants considered themselves too

agreeable. These negative references did, however, not exceed the number of references to

Agreeableness as a strength. It is therefore evident that the participants saw the

importance of this trait in project management, but perhaps some struggle with a lack of

assertiveness, which is associated with high Agreeableness and/or low Extraversion

(Kammrath et al., 2015).

20

Limitations and future studies

A few limitations of the study should be considered when interpreting the results:

1. Sample size.

The small sample size is a major threat to the validity of the findings, and therefore the

results are unsuitable for generalising to the whole population of project managers. Future

studies should attempt to have a larger sample size, including cross-cultural samples, since

this study focused on Icelandic project managers, and possibly other professions for

comparison. The sample size did, however, cover a broad spectrum of industries, ages,

education, and an equal split of gender.

2. Self-reporting.

Self-report assessments can be problematic, since they are usually very subjective

measurements. Therefore, there is a high possibility of response biases. Respondents often

answer questions in a way that shows them in a more favourable way, so they may

overestimate positives and underestimate negatives (Müller & Moshagen, 2019). Low

Neuroticism and high levels of self-esteem can lead to overconfidence in self-assessments

(Farh & Dobbins, 1989; Judge, 1997) although offering anonymity has been proven to

reduce social pressure to do well in self-assessment tests (Paulhus, 1984). These limitations

are a possible issue in this study. However, participants in the study had full anonymity, and

this should counteract the social desirability bias. Sackett (2014) found that contextual

measuring of personality was more predictive of success, i.e. asking participants to fill out

the personality test with respect to their character at work. The participants in the study

were not specifically asked to answer in the context of work. However, the context of the

study may have a positive influence since the study was presented as an exploration of the

link between personality and project management. The participants may have answered the

personality questions with their behaviour at work in mind. Other possible assessment

options could be peer assessments, supervisor assessments, and subordinate assessments.

3. Subjectivity.

Evaluating success is, to a certain degree, a subjective undertaking, since there is not a

universal agreement on what success is, which criteria is the most important, and why. The

nature of projects also means that people’s perceptions and assessment of success vary

depending on the time of measurement (Shenhar et al., 2001). Evaluating which aspects of

management and personality are most important and why, is also a subjective matter, both

culturally and individually.

4. Oversimplification of traits.

The five personality traits each consist of six facets and some studies suggest that

personality needs to be assessed on a facet level, since they can differ immensely (Bono &

Judge, 2004). Each trait may contain positives and negatives with regards to project

management success, so a high score in one trait does not necessarily mean that the

person is high in all facets of that trait. As Judge et al. (2002) pointed out, the

Agreeableness facets of Trust and Altruism might be positive factors in a leadership role,

whereas the Agreeableness facets of Compliance and Modesty might have a negative effect

on leadership success. This is also an issue with other traits, for example Extraversion,

which has the distinct and almost contradictory facets of assertiveness and warmth.

5. Behaviour and situational influences.

Personality is not the only factor in project management success. Moreover, personality

traits are not always indicative of behaviour. Possessing certain traits does not guarantee

21

successful performance (Gehring, 2007; Lord et al., 1986). Certain traits, however, may be

preconditions for successful leadership (Andersen, 2006). Hogan et al. (1994) emphasised

the importance of followers’ personality when looking at organisational success. De Hoogh

and Den Hartog (2009) further indicated that leadership characteristics can greatly affect

followers’ job satisfaction and well-being. More research is needed on the moderating

factors in relation to personality and project management success, such as followers’

personality and organisational dynamics. It is not just the leader’s personality which has an

impact on success but also how the leader matches with his or her team and the individuals

in the team. Some research has also indicated that different managerial qualities may be

needed depending on the project phase (Turner & Müller, 2005). Turner et al. (2010)

suggested recruiting different project managers for different types of projects, matching

projects with project managers with a suitable personality.

Implications

Considerable positive implications may be collected from past literature with regards to the

usefulness of exploring personality traits in the project leadership context. These studies

can support recruitment, promotion and succession planning, individual development, and

career pathing. In addition to recruitment purposes, the trait model can also be helpful for

individuals choosing a career path and identifying development opportunities (Thal &

Bedingfield, 2010). An important step is to recognise the right competencies for project

leadership based on research evidence, instead of depending on stereotypical notions of

leadership. However, it is critical to bear in mind that that personality traits can change,

even though underlying dispositions are quite fixed (Donnellan & Lucas, 2008; Roberts &

DelVecchio, 2000; Sackett & Walmsley, 2014). Research has shown that people can

certainly develop their underlying traits and train to improve weaknesses (Hogan & Kaiser,

2005; Thal & Bedingfield, 2010).

Given the importance of personality in project leadership and the high stakes

implicated in project management, it is critical that we identify ways to develop effective

project leaders. Thal and Bedingfield (2010) recommended personality based training where

teaching styles are matched with students and gaps between the students personality and

the required personality are identified. Interestingly, McCormick and Burch (2008) suggest

the methodical use of personality trait theory in executive coaching.

Based on the results of the present study, it would be beneficial for project-based

organisations and educational institutes to emphasise the development of skills related to

Conscientiousness, Openness to experience, Emotional stability (low Neuroticism), and

Extraversion. Project managers high in Neuroticism might benefit from developing resilience

and self-esteem, while individuals low in Conscientiousness might benefit from personal

effectiveness training. Focusing on creative thinking would be useful for managers low in

Openness, and conversation skills and a positive mindset would benefit those low in

Extraversion.

Applying personality theory for recruitment purposes is a delicate process that should

be managed professionally and based on scientific knowledge. This should not be used to

exclude candidates, but rather as an aid in decision making (Gehring, 2007). Employing

personality tests for human resource purposes may not be a perfect method but can

certainly be used for general predictions in realistic settings (Pittenger, 1993) and research

strongly reveals the value in human resource management (Morgeson et al., 2007).

22

As was evident from the prior literature, the impact a project manager can have on

project success is substantial and underscores the importance of selecting the right person

for the job. Despite the limitations of this exploratory study, the results have important

theoretical and practical values. On the theoretical level, the results indicate the value of

collaboration between project management theory and personality psychology, and

specifically the value of further studies on this topic. On the practical level, the findings can

be used for development and recruitment purposes and assist employers in creating a

better fit between project managers and projects and/or project teams.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the relationship between personality traits and project management success

was examined. The study supported the assumptions made, that Extraversion,

Conscientiousness and Openness to experience, have a positive correlation with project

management success and Neuroticism has a negative correlation with project management

success. The results do not support a correlation between Agreeableness and project

management success. This is largely consistent with the literature, and therefore the study

provides support for the assumption that personality can have an impact on project

management success, as well as indirectly impacting project success. Thus, success in

project management is not solely dependent on technical aspects and the iron triangle of

time, budget, and quality. Successful projects are also greatly dependent on the human

factor, i.e. interpersonal skills, and behaviours.

Historically, results tended to be inconsistent and unclear in studies about personality

and success, partly because there was not a universal structure available to classify

personality traits. With the development of the five-factor model, this changed for the

better, but earlier results may account for the common impression that personality theory is

lacking in validity and usefulness (Judge et al., 2002).

Based on the present results, we can speculate that project managers are disciplined

and competent in their role (high Conscientiousness), imaginative and solution orientated

(high Openness to experience), positive and socially adept (high Extraversion), as well as

being emotionally stable and calm (low Neuroticism). The study also suggests that project

managers are generally more open to experience than the general population, regardless of

levels of success.

Developing and recruiting based on personality fit can encompass a range of

measures, from stages of the recruitment process, to workshops and seminars on project

leadership skills, such as emotional stability and organisational skills. These research

findings may be an encouragement for project managers to focus on their interpersonal

skills, emphasize their strengths and improve on their weaknesses. Also, this should be an

encouragement for employers and companies to rethink their concept of leadership and

focus on research findings in this area, so that they can make informed, unbiased

recruitment choices. Furthermore, project managers who are not necessarily the classic or

stereotypical ‘leader’, may still have what it takes to lead projects successfully, and can

certainly develop their skills in the right direction.

Directing more attention to using personality theory for development and recruitment

purposes, would certainly lead to greater project success, and should therefore be a key

consideration for the field of project management.

23

REFERENCES

Agreeableness. (n.d.). Psychology Today United Kingdom. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/basics/agreeableness

Amirazodi, F., & Amirazodi, M. (2011). Personality traits and Self-esteem. Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 29, 713–716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.296

Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project Performance.

Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.

Atamanik, C. (2013). The Introverted Leader: Examining the Role of Personality and Environment. Center

for Leadership Current Research, 2, 10.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and Performance at the Beginning of the

New Millennium: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go Next? International Journal of

Selection and Assessment, 9(1 & 2), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00160

Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A

Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.89.5.901

Borkenau, P., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2001). Genetic and environmental influences

on observed personality: Evidence from the German Observational Study of Adult Twins. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-

3514.80.4.655

Bredillet, C. (2014). Ethics in project management: Some Aristotelian insights. International Journal of

Managing Projects in Business, 7(4), 548–565. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-08-2013-0041

Canli, T. (2004). Functional Brain Mapping of Extraversion and Neuroticism: Learning From Individual

Differences in Emotion Processing. Journal of Personality, 72(6), 1105–1132.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00292.x

24

Casper, C. M. (2002). Using emotional intelligence to improve project performance. Project Management

Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, San Antonio, Texas.

https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/emotional-intelligence-improve-project-performance-

1019

Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI Personality Types of Project Managers and Their Success:

A Field Survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21338

Conscientiousness. (n.d.). Psychology Today International. Retrieved 1 May 2020, from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/basics/conscientiousness

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2010). NEO Inventories professional manual. Psychological Assessment

Resources, Inc.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across

cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2),

322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2013). From Every Direction–-How Personality Traits and Dimensions of

Project Managers Can Conceptually Affect Project Success. Project Management Journal, 44(6),

36–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21372

Del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & García, L. F. (2004). Relationship Between Empathy and the Big Five

Personality Traits in a Sample of Spanish Adolescents. Social Behavior & Personality: An

International Journal, 32(7), 677–682. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.7.677

Donnellan, M. B., & Lucas, R. E. (2008). Age differences in the big five across the life span: Evidence from

two national samples. Psychology and Aging, 23(3), 558–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012897

Farh, C. I., Seo, M.-G., & Tesluk, P. E. (2012). Emotional intelligence, teamwork effectiveness, and job

performance: The moderating role of job context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 890–

900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027377

25

Farh, J.-L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1989). Effects of Self-Esteem on Leniency Bias in Self-Reports of

Performance: A Structural Equation Model Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 42(4), 835–850.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1989.tb00677.x

Feingold, A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 116(3),

429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Fischer, H., Wik, G., & Fredrikson, M. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism and brain function: A pet study of

personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(2), 345–352.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00027-5

Gehring, D. R. (2007). Applying Traits Theory of Leadership to Project Management. Project

Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280703800105

Gentry, W. A., Weber, T. J., & Sadri, G. (2016). Empathy in the workplace: A tool for effective leadership.

Center for Creative Leadership. https://doi.org/10.35613/ccl.2016.1070

Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Demographic variables and

personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and ethnic/racial status on self-descriptions

of personality attributes. Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 393–403.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00110-4

Grant, A. M., Gino, F., & Hofmann, D. A. (2011). Reversing the Extraverted Leadership Advantage: The

Role of Employee Proactivity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(3), 528–550.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.61968043

Hass, K. B., & Lindbergh, L. B. (2010). The bottom line on project complexity: Applying a new complexity

model. PMI® Global Congress 2010—North America, Washington, DC, US.

https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/project-complexity-model-competency-standard-6586

26

Hassan, M. M., Bashir, S., & Abbas, S. M. (2017). The Impact of Project Managers’ Personality on Project

Success in NGOs: The Mediating Role of Transformational Leadership. Project Management

Journal, 48(2), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800206

Helgadóttir, H. (2008). The ethical dimension of project management. International Journal of Project

Management, 26(7), 743–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.11.002

Helgi Thor Ingason. (2012). Skipulagsfaerni: Verkefni, vegvisar og vidmid. JPV utgafa.

Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1999). Uncertainty Orientation and the Big Five Personality Structure.

Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2244

Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2011). Management derailment. In APA handbook of industrial and

organizational psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp.

555–575). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12171-015

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994). What we know about leadership: Effectiveness and

personality. American Psychologist, 49(6), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.49.6.493

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2005). What we know about Leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9(2),

169–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

Holt, S., & Marques, J. (2012). Empathy in Leadership: Appropriate or Misplaced? An Empirical Study on

a Topic that is Asking for Attention. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 95–105.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0951-5

IPMA. (n.d.). Certification. IPMA International Project Management Association. Retrieved 10 May 2020,

from https://www.ipma.world/individuals/certification/

IPMA. (2006). IPMA Competence Baseline, version 3.0. International Project Management Association.

https://www.academia.edu/7585164/ICB_-IPMA_Competence_Baseline_Version_3.0

27

IPMA. (2015). IPMA Competence Baseline, version 4.0. International Project Management Association.

https://www.vsf.is/static/files/VottunICB4/ipma_icb_4_0_web.pdf

Jensen, A., Thuesen, C., & Geraldi, J. (2016). The Projectification of Everything: Projects as a Human

Condition. Project Management Journal, 47(3), 21–34.

https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700303

Jónsson, F. H. (2005). Próffræðilegir eiginleikar ıslenskrar útgáfu NEO-FFI-R [The psychometric properties

of the Icelandic version of the NEO-FFI-R]. Rannsóknir í Félagsvísindum VI, 429–439.

Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). The relationship between project governance and project success.

International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 613–626.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.01.008

Judge, T. A. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 19, 151–188.

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and

quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765–780.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765

Kaiser, R. B., LeBreton, J. M., & Hogan, J. (2015). The Dark Side of Personality and Extreme Leader

Behavior. Applied Psychology, 64(1), 55–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12024

Kammrath, L. K., McCarthy, M. H., Cortes, K., & Friesen, C. (2015). Picking one’s battles: How

assertiveness and unassertiveness abilities are associated with extraversion and agreeableness.

Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 622–629.

Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling

(10th ed). John Wiley & Sons.

Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.

28

KPMG, AIPM, & IPMA. (2019). The future of project management: Global Outlook 2019 (p. 20). KPMG,

AIPM, IPMA.

Kuofie, M., Stephens-Craig, D., & Dool, R. (2015). An Overview Perception of Introverted Leaders.

International Journal of Global Business, 8(1), 93–103.

Lord, R. G., de Vader, C. L., & Alliger, G. M. (1986). A meta-analysis of the relation between personality

traits and leadership perceptions: An application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71(3), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.402

Magalhães, E., Costa, P., & Costa, M. J. (2012). Empathy of medical students and personality: Evidence

from the Five-Factor Model. Medical Teacher, 34(10), 807–812.

https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.702248

Mailk, M. (2016). Impact of openness to experience on project success with mediating role of creativity

and moderating role of uncertainty avoidance. Jinnah Business Review, 4(2), 58–64.

Maqbool, R., Sudong, Y., Manzoor, N., & Rashid, Y. (2017). The Impact of Emotional Intelligence, Project

Managers’ Competencies, and Transformational Leadership on Project Success: An Empirical

Perspective. Project Management Journal, 48(3), 58–75.

https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800304

McCormick, I., & Burch, G. St. J. (2008). Personality-focused coaching for leadership development.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(3), 267–278.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.60.3.267

Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007).

RECONSIDERING THE USE OF PERSONALITY TESTS IN PERSONNEL SELECTION CONTEXTS.

Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 683–729. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00089.x

29

Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-Factor Model of personality and Performance

in Jobs Involving Interpersonal Interactions. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 145–165.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.1998.9668029

Müller, S., & Moshagen, M. (2019). Controlling for Response Bias in Self-Ratings of Personality: A

Comparison of Impression Management Scales and the Overclaiming Technique. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 101(3), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1451870

O’Boyle, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between

emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 32(5), 788–818. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.714

odtadmin. (2019, February 20). The Standish Group report 83.9% of IT projects partially or completely

fail. Open Door Technology. https://www.opendoorerp.com/the-standish-group-report-83-9-of-

it-projects-partially-or-completely-fail/

Packendorff, J., & Lindgren, M. (2014). Projectification and its consequences: Narrow and broad

conceptualisations. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 17(1), 7–21.

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v17i1.807

Pant, I., & Baroudi, B. (2008). Project management education: The human skills imperative. International

Journal of Project Management, 26(2), 124–128.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.010

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 46(3), 598.

Perera, H. N., McIlveen, P., Burton, L. J., & Corser, D. M. (2015). Beyond congruence measures for the

evaluation of personality factor structure replicability: An exploratory structural equation

modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 23–29.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.004

30

Pitagorsky, G. (n.d.). The Practical Side of Empathy—A Critical PM Success Factor. Project Times.

Retrieved 1 May 2020, from https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/the-practical-side-of-

empathy-a-critical-pm-success-factor.html

Pittenger, D. J. (1993). The Utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research,

63(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004467

PMI. (2017). Pulse of the Profession 2017. PMI. https://www.pmi.org/-

/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-

2017.pdf

PMI. (2018). Pulse of the Profession 2018. PMI. https://www.pmi.org/-

/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-

2018.pdf

PMI. (2019). Pulse of the profession 2019. PMI. https://www.pmi.org/-

/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-

2019.pdf?v=ff445571-0b23-4a2b-a989-44eb20df55bd&sc_lang_temp=en

PMI. (2020a). Pulse of the Profession 2020—Research Highlights by Industry and Region. PMI.

https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/learning/thought-

leadership/pulse/pulse-all-comparison-reports-final.pdf?v=dd7afb39-1fe0-4063-923f-

11410463244d

PMI. (2020b). Pulse of the Profession 2020. PMI. https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-

leadership/pulse/pulse-of-the-profession-2020

Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic

performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135(2), 322–338. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014996

31

Quinn, J. F., & Wilemon, D. (2009). Emotional intelligence as a facilitator of project leader effectiveness.

PICMET ’09 - 2009 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering

Technology, 1267–1275. https://doi.org/10.1109/PICMET.2009.5262022

Roberts, B. W., & DelVecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from

childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin,

126(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.1.3

Sackett, P. R., & Walmsley, P. T. (2014). Which Personality Attributes Are Most Important in the

Workplace? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(5), 538–551.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614543972

Salgado, J. F. (1997). The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European

Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.82.1.30

Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2018). Humble leadership: The power of relationships, openness, and trust

(First edition). Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Schoper, Y.-G., Wald, A., Ingason, H. T., & Fridgeirsson, T. V. (2018). Projectification in Western

economies: A comparative study of Germany, Norway and Iceland. International Journal of

Project Management, 36(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.008

Seibert, S. E., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Career Success. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 58(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2000.1757

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic

Concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-

8

32

Skulmoski, G. J., & Hartman, F. T. (2010). Information Systems Project Manager Soft Competencies: A

Project-Phase Investigation. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 61–80.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20146

Smillie, L. (2017, August). Openness to Experience: The Gates of the Mind. Scientific American.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openness-to-experience-the-gates-of-the-mind/

Spark, A., Stansmore, T., & O’Connor, P. (2018). The failure of introverts to emerge as leaders: The role

of forecasted affect. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 84–88.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.026

Sutin, A. R., Costa, P. T., Miech, R., & Eaton, W. W. (2009). Personality and career success: Concurrent

and longitudinal relations. European Journal of Personality, 23(2), 71–84.

https://doi.org/10.1002/per.704

Thal, A. E., & Bedingfield, J. D. (2010). Successful project managers: An exploratory study into the impact

of personality. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(2), 243–259.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320903498587

Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The Project Manager’s Leadership Style as a Success Factor on Projects:

A Literature Review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49–61.

https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600206

Wang, Y., & Li, F. (2009). How does project managers’ personality matter? Building the linkage between

project managers’ personality and the success of software development projects. Proceedings of

the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems

Languages and Applications, 867–874.

Waude, A. (2017, May 8). Five-Factor Model Of Personality.

https://www.psychologistworld.com/personality/five-factor-model-big-five-personality

33

Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model®: Linking success criteria and critical success

factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411–418.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00112-6

Widiger, T. A., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). Neuroticism is a fundamental domain of personality with

enormous public health implications. World Psychiatry, 16(2), 144–145.

https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20411

1.

Mark only one oval.

< 1 ár

1-3 ár

4-6 ár

7-10 ár

11-15 ár

16-20 ár

21+ ár

Er ekki með vinnu

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

2.

Mark only one oval.

Starfa ekki við verkefnastjórnun

<20%

20-40%

40-60%

60-80%

80-90%

100%

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Persónueinkenni og verkefnastjórnunÞessi spurningakönnun er þrískipt: fyrst eru spurningar varðandi verkefnastjórnun þína og verkefni sem þú hefur stýrt, því næst er eins konar persónuleikapróf og að lokum eru nokkrar bakgrunnsspurningar.

Svörin verða á engan hátt persónugreinanleg. Fyllsta trúnaðar og öryggis er gætt við söfnun gagnanna og þeim verður eytt þegar búið er að vinna úr þeim.

Mikilvægt er að þú svarir spurningunum af fullri hreinskilni þannig að svörin endurspegli hlutina eins og þeir eru í raun og veru að þínu mati.

Könnunin tekur um 15 mínútur að svara.* Required

Hve lengi hefur þú verið í núverandi starfi? *

Hvert er starfshlutfall þitt við verkefnastjórnun í núverandi starfi? Miðaðu við síðasta starf ef þú ert ekki meðvinnu núna. *

3.

Mark only one oval.

Aldrei

< 1 ár Skip to question 4

1-3 ár Skip to question 4

4-6 ár Skip to question 4

7-10 ár Skip to question 4

11-15 ár Skip to question 4

16-20 ár Skip to question 4

21+ ár Skip to question 4

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara Skip to question 4

Þar sem þú merktir við að þú hafir aldrei starfað við verkefnastjórnun ferð þú nú beint í seinni hlutakönnunarinnar og sleppir spurningum um verkefni og verkefnastjórnun.

Skip to question 14

4.

Mark only one oval.

Engin

1-3 manns

4-10 manns

11-15 manns

16-20 manns

21+ manns

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

5.

Mark only one oval.

Ég var valin(n) úr hópi margra umsækjenda

Ég var valin(n) úr fámennum hópi umsækjenda

Ég var færð(ur) til innan fyrirtækis

Ég fékk stöðuhækkun innan fyrirtækis

Mér bauðst starfið sérstaklega

Annað

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Í eftirfarandi spurningum er gott að miða við verkefni sem þú stýrðir nýlega, til dæmis öll verkefni síðastliðin1-2 ár eða síðustu 5 verkefni sem þú stýrðir.

Hve lengi hefur þú starfað við verkefnastjórnun í heildina á starfsævi þinni? *

Hver eru mannaforráð þín í núverandi starfi? Miðaðu við síðasta starf ef þú ert ekki með vinnu núna. *

Hvernig fékkst þú núverandi starf? Miðaðu við síðasta starf ef þú ert ekki með vinnu núna. *

6.

Mark only one oval.

Byggingarstarfsemi og mannvirkjagerð

Orku- og veitustarfsemi

Heilbrigðis- og félagsþjónusta

Upplýsingaþjónusta, upplýsingatækni og fjarskipti

Fjármála-, banka- og vátryggingastarfsemi

Menningar-, íþrótta- og tómstundastarfsemi

Menntun og fræðslustarfsemi

Ferða-, gisti- og veitingaþjónusta

Opinber stjórnsýsla og almannatryggingar

Landbúnaður, skógrækt og sjávarútvegur

Verslun og viðgerðir

Matvæla- og drykkjaframleiðsla

Lyfja- og efnaframleiðsla

Önnur framleiðsla

Flutningur og geymsla

Sérfræðileg, vísindaleg og tæknileg starfsemi

Félagasamtök og önnur þjónustustarfsemi

Annað

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Á hvaða sviði eru verkefnin sem þú stýrir aðallega? *

7.

Mark only one oval per row.

Merktu við svarið sem á best við hverja staðhæfingu. Hafðu dæmigert verkefni sem þú hefur stýrt í huga. *

Ekki viss / vil ekkisvara

Mjögósammála

Ósammála Hlutlaus SammálaMjög

sammála

Tímarammi verkefnis var þröngur(ósveigjanlegur)

Verkefnið var einstakt

Verkefnið var tæknilega flókið

Talsverð nýsköpun var fólgin íafurðinni og/eða aðferðinni

Nauðsynlegt var að nýtaaðferðafræði verkefnastjórnunar

Hagsmunaaðilar voru margir ogóþekktir

Stjórnskipulag verkefnisins varflókið

Leita þurfti víða að þekkingu til aðtakast á við verkefnið

Áhætta og/eða tækifæri vorutalsverð

Áhrif verkefnis voru talsverð

Þátttakendur í verkefninu vorumargir

Verkefnið var þverfaglegt

Umfang aðfanga var mikið

Þörf var á óvissustjórnun

Breytingar urðu á áætlun/umfangi

Tímarammi verkefnis var þröngur(ósveigjanlegur)

Verkefnið var einstakt

Verkefnið var tæknilega flókið

Talsverð nýsköpun var fólgin íafurðinni og/eða aðferðinni

Nauðsynlegt var að nýtaaðferðafræði verkefnastjórnunar

Hagsmunaaðilar voru margir ogóþekktir

Stjórnskipulag verkefnisins varflókið

Leita þurfti víða að þekkingu til aðtakast á við verkefnið

Áhætta og/eða tækifæri vorutalsverð

Áhrif verkefnis voru talsverð

Þátttakendur í verkefninu vorumargir

Verkefnið var þverfaglegt

Umfang aðfanga var mikið

Þörf var á óvissustjórnun

Breytingar urðu á áætlun/umfangi

8.

Mark only one oval per row.

9.

Mark only one oval.

IPMA A-vottun

IPMA B-vottun

IPMA C-vottun

IPMA D-vottun

Engin vottun

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Vinsamlega svaraðu eftirfarandi spurningum eftir bestu samvisku og af fullri hreinskilni. Það eru engin rétteða röng svör.

10.

11.

Merktu við svarið sem á best við hverja staðhæfingu. *

Ekki viss / vil ekkisvara

Aldrei Sjaldan Stundum Oftast Alltaf

Verkefnum lýkur almennt innantímaáætlunar

Verkefnum lýkur almennt innanfjárhagsáætlunar

Verkefnin uppfylla almennt kröfur umgæði

Verkefnin uppfylla almennt þarfirhagsmunaaðila

Verkefnum lýkur almennt innantímaáætlunar

Verkefnum lýkur almennt innanfjárhagsáætlunar

Verkefnin uppfylla almennt kröfur umgæði

Verkefnin uppfylla almennt þarfirhagsmunaaðila

Hver er hæsta alþjóðlega verkefnastjórnunarvottunin (IPMA) sem þú hefur hlotið? *

Hverjir eru helstu styrkleikar þínir sem verkefnastjóri? *

Hverjir eru helstu veikleikar þínir sem verkefnastjóri? *

12.

13.

Mark only one oval per row.

Ef þú hugsar um þrjú síðustu verkefni sem þú stýrðir, hvað hefði mátt betur fara hjá þér íverkefnastýringunni? *

Merktu við svarið sem á best við hverja staðhæfingu *

Ekki viss / vil ekkisvara

Mjögósammála

Ósammála Hlutlaus SammálaMjög

sammála

Ég er góður verkefnastjóri

Ég er reynslumikill verkefnastjóri

Yfirmaður minn myndi lýsa mérsem góðum verkefnastjóra

Undirmenn mínir myndu lýsa mérsem góðum verkefnastjóra

Samstarfsfólk mitt er ánægt meðverkefnastjórnun mína

Ég er árangursríkari en aðrirverkefnastjórar

Hagsmunaaðilar eru ánægðir meðstörf mín

Ég á ýmislegt ólært þegar kemurað verkefnastjórnun

Ég hef trú á mér í starfi mínu

Ég er ánægð(ur) í starfi mínu

Ég er í draumastarfi mínu

Ég á erfitt með að standa mig ístarfi mínu

Ég upplifi streitu í starfi mínu

Vinnustaðurinn uppfyllirvæntingar mínar

Ég er góður verkefnastjóri

Ég er reynslumikill verkefnastjóri

Yfirmaður minn myndi lýsa mérsem góðum verkefnastjóra

Undirmenn mínir myndu lýsa mérsem góðum verkefnastjóra

Samstarfsfólk mitt er ánægt meðverkefnastjórnun mína

Ég er árangursríkari en aðrirverkefnastjórar

Hagsmunaaðilar eru ánægðir meðstörf mín

Ég á ýmislegt ólært þegar kemurað verkefnastjórnun

Ég hef trú á mér í starfi mínu

Ég er ánægð(ur) í starfi mínu

Ég er í draumastarfi mínu

Ég á erfitt með að standa mig ístarfi mínu

Ég upplifi streitu í starfi mínu

Vinnustaðurinn uppfyllirvæntingar mínar

Merktu við hversu vel eftirfarandi staðhæfingar eiga við þig. Staðhæfingarnar eru 60talsins. Það eru engin rétt eða röng svör og eingöngu er óskað eftir því að svarað sé eftirbestu samvisku og af fullri hreinskilni.

Mjög ósammála = á alls ekki við migÓsammála = á ekki við migHlutlaus = óvissSammála = á að einhverju leyti við migMjög sammála = á vel við mig

14.

Mark only one oval per row.

Staðhæfingar 1-10 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Ég er ekki áhyggjufull(ur) að eðlisfari.

Mér finnst gaman að hafa fullt af fólki íkringum mig.

Ég nýt þess að einbeita mér að ímyndunumeða dagdraumum og kanna alla þeirramöguleika, hlúa að þeim og þróa.

Ég reyni að vera kurteis við alla sem ég hitti.

Ég held eigum mínum hreinum og fínum.

Stundum hef ég verið bitur og full(ur) afgremju.

Það er stutt í hláturinn hjá mér.

Mér finnst áhugavert að læra og koma mérupp nýjum áhugamálum.

Stundum ráðskast ég með fólk eða hrósa þvítil að fá það sem ég vil.

Ég er nokkuð góð(ur) í að skipuleggja tímaminn.

Ég er ekki áhyggjufull(ur) að eðlisfari.

Mér finnst gaman að hafa fullt af fólki íkringum mig.

Ég nýt þess að einbeita mér að ímyndunumeða dagdraumum og kanna alla þeirramöguleika, hlúa að þeim og þróa.

Ég reyni að vera kurteis við alla sem ég hitti.

Ég held eigum mínum hreinum og fínum.

Stundum hef ég verið bitur og full(ur) afgremju.

Það er stutt í hláturinn hjá mér.

Mér finnst áhugavert að læra og koma mérupp nýjum áhugamálum.

Stundum ráðskast ég með fólk eða hrósa þvítil að fá það sem ég vil.

Ég er nokkuð góð(ur) í að skipuleggja tímaminn.

15.

Mark only one oval per row.

Staðhæfingar 11-20 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Þegar ég er undir miklu álagi, finnst mér semég muni kikna.

Ég vel heldur störf þar sem ég get unniðein(n) án þess að vera trufluð/truflaður aföðru fólki.

Þau mynstur sem ég finn í list og náttúruvekja áhuga minn.

Sumt fólk telur mig vera sjálfselska(n) ogeigingjarna(n).

Ég lendi oft í aðstæðum sem ég er ekkifyllilega undirbúin(n) fyrir.

Ég er sjaldan einmana eða niðurdregin(n).

Ég nýt þess virkilega að tala við fólk.

Ég tel að það rugli og afvegaleiði nemendurað hlusta á umdeilda fyrirlesara.

Ef einhver byrjar rifrildi er ég alltaf til í aðrífast á móti.

Ég reyni að inna samviskusamlega af hendiþau verkefni sem mér eru fengin.

Þegar ég er undir miklu álagi, finnst mér semég muni kikna.

Ég vel heldur störf þar sem ég get unniðein(n) án þess að vera trufluð/truflaður aföðru fólki.

Þau mynstur sem ég finn í list og náttúruvekja áhuga minn.

Sumt fólk telur mig vera sjálfselska(n) ogeigingjarna(n).

Ég lendi oft í aðstæðum sem ég er ekkifyllilega undirbúin(n) fyrir.

Ég er sjaldan einmana eða niðurdregin(n).

Ég nýt þess virkilega að tala við fólk.

Ég tel að það rugli og afvegaleiði nemendurað hlusta á umdeilda fyrirlesara.

Ef einhver byrjar rifrildi er ég alltaf til í aðrífast á móti.

Ég reyni að inna samviskusamlega af hendiþau verkefni sem mér eru fengin.

16.

Mark only one oval per row.

Staðhæfingar 21-30 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Ég er oft spennt(ur) og taugaóstyrk(ur).

Mér líkar að vera þar sem eitthvað er aðgerast.

Ljóð hafa lítil eða engin áhrif á mig.

Ég geri mér grein fyrir því að ég er betri enflest fólk.

Ég á mér skýr markmið og vinn að því að náþeim á skipulagðan hátt.

Mér finnst ég stundum einskis virði.

Ég forðast fjölmenni.

Ég ætti erfitt með að láta hugann reika ánstjórnar eða leiðbeininga.

Þegar ég hef verið móðguð/móðgaður reyniég að fyrirgefa og gleyma því.

Ég eyði miklum tíma til einskis áður en égsest niður við vinnu mína.

Ég er oft spennt(ur) og taugaóstyrk(ur).

Mér líkar að vera þar sem eitthvað er aðgerast.

Ljóð hafa lítil eða engin áhrif á mig.

Ég geri mér grein fyrir því að ég er betri enflest fólk.

Ég á mér skýr markmið og vinn að því að náþeim á skipulagðan hátt.

Mér finnst ég stundum einskis virði.

Ég forðast fjölmenni.

Ég ætti erfitt með að láta hugann reika ánstjórnar eða leiðbeininga.

Þegar ég hef verið móðguð/móðgaður reyniég að fyrirgefa og gleyma því.

Ég eyði miklum tíma til einskis áður en égsest niður við vinnu mína.

17.

Mark only one oval per row.

Staðhæfingar 31-40 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Ég er sjaldan óttaslegin(n) eða kvíðin(n).

Mér líður oft eins og ég sé að springa úrorku.

Ég tek sjaldan eftir þeim tilfinningum eðahugarástandi sem mismunandi aðstæðurleiða af sér.

Ég hef tilhneigingu til að trúa því besta umfólk.

Ég legg hart að mér til að ná settummarkmiðum.

Ég verð oft reið(ur) yfir því hvernig fólkkemur fram við mig.

Ég er glaðvær og fjörmikil(l).

Ég missi stundum áhugann þegar fólk talarum mjög óhlutbundna, fræðilega hluti.

Sumir telja mig vera kalda(n) og útsmogna/útsmoginn.

Þegar ég skuldbind mig til að gera eitthvaðmá treysta því að ég geri það.

Ég er sjaldan óttaslegin(n) eða kvíðin(n).

Mér líður oft eins og ég sé að springa úrorku.

Ég tek sjaldan eftir þeim tilfinningum eðahugarástandi sem mismunandi aðstæðurleiða af sér.

Ég hef tilhneigingu til að trúa því besta umfólk.

Ég legg hart að mér til að ná settummarkmiðum.

Ég verð oft reið(ur) yfir því hvernig fólkkemur fram við mig.

Ég er glaðvær og fjörmikil(l).

Ég missi stundum áhugann þegar fólk talarum mjög óhlutbundna, fræðilega hluti.

Sumir telja mig vera kalda(n) og útsmogna/útsmoginn.

Þegar ég skuldbind mig til að gera eitthvaðmá treysta því að ég geri það.

18.

Mark only one oval per row.

Staðhæfingar 41-50 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Of oft þegar hlutirnir fara úrskeiðis, missi égkjarkinn og langar að gefast upp.

Ég fæ ekki mikla ánægju út úr því að spjallavið fólk.

Stundum þegar ég les ljóð eða virði fyrir mérlistaverk setur að mér hroll eða ég fyllistánægju.

Ég er þver og ákveðin(n) í skoðunum.

Stundum er ég ekki eins áreiðanleg(ur) ogtraust(ur) eins og ég ætti að vera.

Ég er sjaldan döpur/dapur eða þunglynd(ur).

Ég lifi hratt.

Ég hef lítinn áhuga á að velta fyrir méruppruna alheimsins eða mannlegu eðli.

Ég reyni yfirleitt að vera hugulsöm/samur ogtillitsöm/samur.

Ég er afkastamikil manneskja sem kemhlutunum alltaf í verk.

Of oft þegar hlutirnir fara úrskeiðis, missi égkjarkinn og langar að gefast upp.

Ég fæ ekki mikla ánægju út úr því að spjallavið fólk.

Stundum þegar ég les ljóð eða virði fyrir mérlistaverk setur að mér hroll eða ég fyllistánægju.

Ég er þver og ákveðin(n) í skoðunum.

Stundum er ég ekki eins áreiðanleg(ur) ogtraust(ur) eins og ég ætti að vera.

Ég er sjaldan döpur/dapur eða þunglynd(ur).

Ég lifi hratt.

Ég hef lítinn áhuga á að velta fyrir méruppruna alheimsins eða mannlegu eðli.

Ég reyni yfirleitt að vera hugulsöm/samur ogtillitsöm/samur.

Ég er afkastamikil manneskja sem kemhlutunum alltaf í verk.

19.

Mark only one oval per row.

Bakgrunnsspurningar

20.

Mark only one oval.

Karl

Kona

Annað

Vil ekki svara

Staðhæfingar 51-60 *

Mjög ósammála Ósammála Hlutlaus Sammála Mjög sammála

Mér finnst ég oft hjálparvana og vil látaeinhverja aðra leysa úr vanda mínum.

Ég er mjög virk(ur).

Ég bý yfir mikilli fróðleiksfýsn.

Ef mér líkar ekki við fólk, þá læt ég það vitaaf því.

Ég virðist aldrei ná því að veraskipulögð/skipulagður.

Stundum hef ég skammast mín svo mikið aðmig hefur langað til að jörðin gleypti mig.

Ég myndi frekar fara mínar eigin leiðir en aðvera leiðtogi annarra.

Ég nýt þess oft að leika mér að kenningumog óhlutbundnum hugmyndum.

Ef nauðsyn krefur þá er ég tilbúin(n) til aðráðskast með fólk til að fá það sem ég vil.

Ég reyni alltaf að ná framúrskarandi árangri íöllu sem ég tek mér fyrir hendur.

Mér finnst ég oft hjálparvana og vil látaeinhverja aðra leysa úr vanda mínum.

Ég er mjög virk(ur).

Ég bý yfir mikilli fróðleiksfýsn.

Ef mér líkar ekki við fólk, þá læt ég það vitaaf því.

Ég virðist aldrei ná því að veraskipulögð/skipulagður.

Stundum hef ég skammast mín svo mikið aðmig hefur langað til að jörðin gleypti mig.

Ég myndi frekar fara mínar eigin leiðir en aðvera leiðtogi annarra.

Ég nýt þess oft að leika mér að kenningumog óhlutbundnum hugmyndum.

Ef nauðsyn krefur þá er ég tilbúin(n) til aðráðskast með fólk til að fá það sem ég vil.

Ég reyni alltaf að ná framúrskarandi árangri íöllu sem ég tek mér fyrir hendur.

Hvert er kyn þitt? *

21.

Mark only one oval.

18-24 ára

25-34 ára

35-44 ára

45-54 ára

55-64 ára

65 ára eða eldri

Vil ekki svara

22.

Mark only one oval.

Á höfuðborgarsvæðinu

Á landsbyggðinni

Erlendis

Vil ekki svara

23.

Mark only one oval.

íslensk(ur) Skip to question 25

annað

Vil ekki svara Skip to question 25

24.

25.

Mark only one oval.

Já

Nei

Ég er í náminu núna

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Hver er aldur þinn? *

Hvar býrð þú? *

Hvert er þjóðerni þitt? *

Vinsamlega tilgreindu þjóðerni þitt *

Hefur þú lokið MPM námi við HR? *

26.

Mark only one oval.

Grunnskólapróf eða minna

Framhaldsskólapróf eða iðnmenntun á framhaldsskólastigi

Sveinspróf

Meistarapróf í iðnnámi

Grunnnám í háskóla

Framhaldsnám í háskóla

Doktorsnám í háskóla

Annað

Ekki viss / vil ekki svara

Takk kærlega fyrir þátttökuna

27.

This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.

Hver er hæsta prófgráða sem þú hefur lokið? *

Ef þú vilt bæta einhverju við eða ert með athugasemdir, vinsamlega skráðu það hér í reitinn

 Forms