“He who doesn’t take risks doesn’t drink champagne” or why you can’t do that. In business, those who don't take risks don't drink champagne.

He who doesn't take risks doesn't drink champagne

It is spoken in the form of moral support when it is necessary to make a risky decision.

And those who take risks don’t drink at all.

Sometimes one of those present will add.

Burning verb: Dictionary of folk phraseology. - Green Age.

V. Kuzmich.

2000. See what “He who doesn’t take risks, doesn’t drink champagne” means in other dictionaries: He who does not take risks does not drink champagne (does not drink champagne)

- (champagne, a drink most often drunk when winning) 1) about the opportunity to sometimes take risks; 2) about a guy who likes to take risks...

Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions Internet fraud

Computer fraud Internet fraud

- Fraud in the broadest sense is deception or abuse of trust with the aim of taking possession of someone else's property or the right to someone else's property (property or money). Fraud is generally a crime. Criminal... ... Wikipedia Internet fraud

Scam Internet fraud

Scammer Divorce (criminal) Liminality

- (liminality) the stage of transition of a system from one state to another, associated with the loss of structure, hierarchy, and status of elements. In the dynamics of comprehension and meaning formation, the most difficult thing for reflection is the transition from one certainty to... ... Projective Philosophical Dictionary Martingale

- (Martingale) Contents >>>>>>>>>>>>>> … Investor Encyclopedia champagne

- noun, p., used compare often Morphology: (no) what? champagne, what? champagne, (I see) what? champagne, what? champagne, about what? about champagne 1. Champagne is a sparkling grape wine that is usually drunk on holidays, on special occasions... ... Dmitriev's Explanatory Dictionary to risk- risk. 1. Take a risky action. BAS 1. Take risks. It means putting yourself in danger in whist. 1779. G. Komov Cart. games 2 137. [Advisor:] Without reading their novels, I would risk remaining a fool forever. Fonvizin Brigadier //… …

Historical Dictionary

• Gallicisms of the Russian language career growth and with a small salary I always... Buy for 428 UAH (Ukraine only)
• A wonderful assistant for a monster, Svobodina V.. He who doesn’t take risks doesn’t drink champagne, right?

I don’t like champagne and I’m not prone to risk. A quiet, calm position with no prospects for career growth and a small salary… Risk is one of the key, most important elements commercial activities . Understanding what risk is is very important. The experience of mankind testifies: those who know how to take risks at the right time find themselves in big win . Let us remember decisive politicians, brave generals, fearless entrepreneurs and engineers, and finally, examples from own life

, when “the city takes courage.”

Risk is not a whim or a “nice gesture.” In many cases, a decision involving risk turns out to be inevitable; avoiding risky actions is simply impossible to do without. It is, of course, necessary to do everything to reduce unwanted risk, but if actions involving risk turn out to be inevitable, then you need to learn to take calculated risks, mastering the science and art of risk. Scientific analysis makes it possible to draw a clear line between justified and unjustified risks, and therefore to take advantage of the benefits that a justified risk can provide. The word “risk” is of Spanish-Portuguese origin and means “underwater rock” (it’s not for nothing that “risk” is similar to “reef”), i.e. danger. At risk, it says explanatory dictionary

Russian language should be understood as “action at random, in the hope of a happy outcome.” From this definition it is clear that we are forced to take risks by uncertainty, the ambiguity of the situation: we need to act, but we don’t know how. The drama of having to choose on insufficient grounds is familiar to economists and engineers, managers and entrepreneurs - everyone who has to make decisions. Moreover, the greater the uncertainty in decision making, the greater the risk. From brief definition

risk follows that, firstly, it represents a course of action in an unclear, uncertain situation (by chance), secondly, that one should take risks only in cases where success is possible (by hope), and, thirdly: that the expected positive result of the risk is natural, a happy outcome). So, let’s summarize the characteristic reasons for risk: uncertainty, expectation of success and hope for a happy outcome.

The first reason for uncertainty is ignorance, i.e. incompleteness, insufficiency of our knowledge about the world around us. Man encountered this kind of uncertainty a long time ago, in those distant times when he first began to make meaningful decisions. After all, even then she was a hindrance to any undertaking. Ignorance of the laws of nature interfered with production activities and did not allow efficient farming. And people began to strive with all their might to expel uncertainty from their lives. The history of human development is, at the same time, the history of the struggle with uncertainty. By revealing patterns in complex natural phenomena, science increasingly limited the scope of this uncertainty: establishing the causes of river floods and astronomical phenomena, discovering the law universal gravity and the melting of metals made uncertainty much more pressing. There were attempts to completely banish her from life. “A mind which would know for any moment all the forces that animate nature, and the relative position of all its components... would embrace in one formula the movement of the greatest bodies of the universe on a par with the movement of the lightest atoms: there would be nothing left that would be unreliable for him, and the future, as well as the present, appeared before his eyes,” wrote the great French scientist P. Laplace at the turn of the XVIII-XIX centuries. According to Laplace, everything in the world is predetermined. One has only to study the world well - and there will be no room left for the uncertainty of ignorance. The naivety of such views is clear to every schoolchild today.

Unfortunately, ignorance and lack of awareness are far from the only cause of uncertainty. Suppose we are well informed and the situation is clear to us. Can we, however, be sure that everything will go “like clockwork”? Alas, it is possible that the weather will suddenly change in an unexpected way, “the mechanism will fail, and the enterprise’s economy will experience a sharp deterioration. Someone powerful and insidious is ready to interfere with our plans. The name of this new source of uncertainty is Randomness.

We call chance what happens differently under similar conditions, and it is impossible to predict in advance what will happen this time. It is impossible to plan for every given case. And since we do not know what an accident can lead to, a risk arises.

So, we have so far noted two reasons for uncertainty and the risk associated with it: Ignorance and Randomness. There is also a third: Counteraction. Thus, opposition manifests itself in the uncertainty of providing the enterprise plan with resources, violation of contractual obligations by suppliers, and equipment accidents. Uncertainty in demand for products and difficulties in marketing them can also hinder initiatives. In the so-called conflict situation opposition often leads to the need to make decisions that involve risk. Examples of such a situation include conflicts between the shipper and the consignee, the builder and the customer, labor conflicts in a team, all kinds of proceedings based on the results of accidents - in a word, all those cases when the interests of the parties do not coincide.

Having found out that main reason risk - uncertainty, it is natural to try to find out how to deal with this uncertainty, what to do with the Ignorance, Chance and Reaction that generates it?

The ways to combat Ignorance are obvious. The more certain our knowledge is, the better we have studied the situation, the more correct the decision, the less the risk. No wonder the information service acquired market economy great value.

The “mechanism” of the process of choosing one of the alternatives for solving a problem associated with risk is studied by psychology. There are two main theories for this choice. The first, the so-called cognitive theory, which most psychologists adhere to today, proceeds from the fact that the choice is made by a person consciously, on the basis of a certain system of rules - a decision algorithm. The second, the so-called behavioral theory, believes that choice is made automatically, in accordance with previously formed associations between stimuli and reactions in a person - according to the type conditioned reflex. The predominant importance of cognitive theory is supported by the fact that a person is considered as an actively acting subject, independently creating a representation of a problem and developing rules for solving it depending on the goals set. At the same time, in behavioral theory there is a certain rational element - tracing the connection between past experience and actions in a situation containing risk. This is especially important for actions in extreme conditions, when there may not be time for reflection.

The system of rules that a person uses in the process of choosing an alternative is called a strategy. The presence of certain rules in a person making a decision involving risk is the result of a learning process. They can be of very different quality. Strategies that allow you to get as close as possible to your goal are called optimal. The presence of an optimal strategy, however, does not mean that the task will be solved the best way. In addition to effectiveness, each strategy has its own inherent difficulty in implementation. Just as knowledge of the rules and the best ways playing chess does not guarantee success, having effective strategy does not mean that it can be successfully applied. The art of accepting is no less important. right decisions, associated with risk.

When making decisions involving risk, along with objective environmental conditions important have subjective factors determined, first of all, by the personality traits of the businessman - the one who takes risks. Before analyzing these features, it is necessary to answer a seemingly elementary question: who exactly makes decisions involving risk? This question, however, is far from elementary. By decision maker we will understand a system (a person or group of persons) that makes a choice of an alternative and is responsible for its decision. Only if these two conditions are present - choice and responsibility - is it possible to with good reason say that a decision has been made specifically legal entity. The choice of an alternative indicates a strong-willed rational action; the mention of responsibility indicates the decision-maker’s interest in achieving a certain goal.

For psychological analysis traits of businessmen making decisions, it is necessary to establish general and individual properties the nature of the decision makers and assess their influence on the risk decision. General features decision makers are purposefulness, characteristics of the memory system, structure cognitive activity, the presence of certain rules (strategies) when choosing an alternative. The individual traits of the decision maker are the person’s personality traits and his creative abilities.

Let's consider the most important feature of businessmen making decisions. This is purposefulness, because actions involving risk are always purposeful. In this case, the goal is understood as the result that the decision maker seeks to obtain and which is of a certain interest to him - utility. For the same problem, the solution goals may be different. Each goal illuminates the solution in a completely different way. The absence of a goal makes a decision, especially a decision involving risk, meaningless and even reckless.

A goal-oriented system (a person or circle of decision-makers) differs from an ungoal-oriented system by a number of indicators, which are called criteria for goal-oriented behavior. Here are the main ones:

1. A goal-oriented system is capable of creating subgoals that form hierarchical structure. So, if the ultimate goal is to minimize the time it takes to complete a task, then subgoals may be to analyze the variables that influence this result.

2. Purposeful systems are able to select means and methods appropriate to a given task. If the chosen method does not lead to the intended goal, the system changes it after some time.

3. If the decision process is interrupted by any circumstances - external or internal, a purposeful system is able to return to the decision again after some time.

4. A goal-oriented system, due to the presence of memory, avoids repetition.

5. If the decision-making system has achieved its goal, it stops working on the task, considering it solved.

In practice, the decision maker pursues not one, but several goals. Several goals set together form a complex goal. A complex goal can be achieved simultaneously, one by one, or by the so-called placement method. The last method differs from the previous one only in that the order of achieving goals is determined not only by decision, but also depends on the objective conditions of activity, time of day, time of year, etc. The decision maker must in this case adapt, for example, to existing biological phenomena: time of sleep, eating, etc.

Individual traits of a person making a risk-related decision include such properties as originality of thinking, level of anxiety, aggressiveness, independence, extroversion or introversion, selfishness, etc.

Do individual decision makers have a risk appetite? Is it possible to divide people into reinsurers, who have an aversion to risk, and adventurers, who take risks with pleasure? Most psychologists believe that risk taking or risk aversion in general case are not personality traits. Attitude to risk is determined mainly by environmental conditions or some individual psychological characteristics person, such as aggressiveness or anxiety level. The manifestation of these features in relation to risk may be different. We know from practice that the same person can be a dashing amateur motorist, systematically exceeding the speed of the car, but a very careful and prudent business executive. However, in modern psychology there is a hypothesis according to which certain groups of people have the same attitude towards any risk.

The theory of the desire for success has become somewhat widespread, according to which the decision maker’s attitude towards risk is determined primarily by his desire for success. This theory is based on the analysis of the direction, strength and sustainability of human activity. It is suggested that a decision maker, in cases where his desire for success is stronger than his desire to avoid failure, will prefer average level risk. In those cases where the desire to avoid failure is stronger than the desire to succeed, a low or high level of risk will be preferred. The explanation for these preferences is as follows. If a person strives first of all to achieve success, then he makes a decision in such a way as to insure himself against failure in all cases. Let success be small, but guaranteed. This corresponds to a certain average level of risk. If a person first of all wants to avoid failure, then he makes a decision in which there is either no risk at all, or the risk is so great that he can explain his failure by the difficulty of the task. The theory of the desire for success has been repeatedly tested experimentally.

Psychologists have carried out a number of studies to establish the influence on decisions involving risk of certain individual traits human personality. It was found, for example, that decisions with a greater degree of risk were made by people with a strong need for dominance, self-affirmation and more aggressive. Great risk provides great opportunities to meet these needs. Careful decisions with little risk were made by people with a strong need for independence and great persistence in action. The need for independence was satisfied because, with little risk, the decision maker depends little on chance. Perseverance made it possible, despite little success with each individual action (due to little risk - little gain), to ultimately achieve the desired result.

At the same time, psychological research showed that most other personality traits, such as selfishness, conformism (accommodation), etc., do not affect decision-making related to risk.

Analyzing the connection between personality traits and the role of intellectual abilities, psychologists have come to the conclusion that when making decisions involving risk, individuals who are able to put forward a significant number of alternative solutions usually have such qualities as self-confidence, low levels of anxiety, attitude towards the external environment (extroversion), etc. On the other hand, opposite qualities- lack of self-confidence, high level of anxiety, introversion (orientation to internal motives) - do not favor the generation of alternative solutions.

An important psychological factor for risk-related actions is the decision maker's assessment of the source of control. In relation to this assessment, we can conditionally divide decision-makers into two groups: those with an internal strategy and those with an external strategy. Individuals with an internal strategy believe that their success or failure is determined primarily by their personal qualities: abilities, will, level of intelligence, etc. People of this type have great responsibility for their decisions. It is this type of people that should be selected for positions that require greater independence and, at the same time, competence and determination. Individuals with an external strategy, on the contrary, assume that their defeats and victories depend mainly on external factors which they cannot influence. The decision maker’s orientation towards an internal or external strategy is achieved primarily by education and has great importance in actions involving risk.

Individuals with an internal strategy are significantly more active and more purposeful when searching for information in an uncertain environment. They behave better in complex, changing conditions and overcome difficulties more easily. This group of people is more objective in assessing the results obtained and drawing conclusions from them. Individuals with an internal strategy more often make decisions with an average level of risk and less often - with the highest level. high level risk. This can be explained by the fact that people with an internal strategy mainly rely on their own strengths and abilities and do not strive to make decisions in which they have to rely mainly on chance.

Along with personal characteristics For a businessman, the most important role in making decisions related to risk is played by the conditions in which the risky activity is carried out. action, factors environment.

Environmental factors influencing a risky decision can be divided into two types: those related to a given task and those that go beyond the scope of a given task.

The first type includes, for example, environmental conditions that arose during the solution of the problem. The second type of factors are those that exist independently of the problem being solved.

The influence of factors of the second group can be taken into account in advance in standard standard recommendations, while the factors of the first group require non-standard answers from the decision maker.

Factors of the second type are more conservative, while those of the first are more mobile and changeable.

The role of environmental factors is manifested primarily in the fact that they can limit the number of alternatives and thereby reduce freedom of choice when making decisions.

Psychologists have noted that the exclusion of some possible alternatives causes a response in the decision maker, the so-called reactance. Its essence is that a person strives to return an alternative lost due to the influence of the environment, which becomes more attractive for him due to the loss itself.

Reactive resistance of the individual to changes in environmental conditions also manifests itself when new alternatives appear. In this case, the old alternatives begin to seem more attractive. We can cite as an example the attitude of some managers towards old production methods, the attitude of designers towards old traditional design solutions and technical schemes, etc.

IN in some cases the relationship between environmental conditions and the decision to take risky actions is paradoxical. Experiments have established, for example, that when making decisions on risk-related actions, preference is usually given to the magnitude of the possible result rather than the magnitude of the risk.

The preference, however, is reversed if the decision associated with the risk is not made by this person, but is proposed to be made by another person. In the latter case, the magnitude of the risk is given clear preference. This confirms the above statement about the direct dependence of the decision made on the content of the problem.

Of particular interest is the influence of the environment on decisions made in difficult, stressful situation X. Difficult situation characterized by the following main features: information overload, interference, threats.

Information overload means an excessively saturated flow of information about the environment, which is impossible to understand in the required time frame. At first glance, it seems that a deficit, a lack of information, is more dangerous for the decision-maker, but this is not so. Lack of information is a typical, normal situation in decision-making related to risk. For the case of information deficiency, developed special methods making decisions in an uncertain environment. As for information overloads, they block the work of making decisions and cause significant complication.

Interference in making decisions can be external reasons (weather conditions, etc.), extraneous influence - we called it counteraction - or lack of time. Decision-making under conditions of interference is carried out using the apparatus of Game Theory and statistical decisions.

Threats in the process of making decisions related to risk are understood as various physical or moral dangers that await the decision maker as a result of the choice he makes. Analysis of the consequences of threats is carried out using the apparatus of Game Theory.

There are special studies of the characteristics of human decision-making in difficult, stressful situations.” The impact of these situations is ambiguous. On the one hand, stressful influences reduce the quality of decisions made, on the other hand, they can have a certain mobilizing effect.

One of the researchers conducted an experiment on risk-related decision making. The subjects showed two types of reactions to the difficulty of the situation. The first type is ordinary, specific reactions corresponding to the type of interference or threat. The second, most interesting type is nonspecific reactions. They are not directly related to a specific cause of stress and are of three types: mobilization, disorder and strain.

The mobilization reaction consists in the emergence of a special emotional state, which improves the quality of decisions made by increasing the flexibility of thinking, the emergence of original associations, etc. The time required to solve a problem is reduced, alternatives and their consequences are more easily found.

The reaction of the disorder is the appearance of individual difficulties in decision-making. The mobility of thinking decreases. The number of alternatives is reduced, and the prediction of their results worsens. Too general and imprecisely defined options for action are chosen (global reactions), the practical implementation of which turns out to be impossible. Despite all this, this reaction does not exclude the decision maker from fulfilling his responsibilities.

The strain reaction consists of a complete disruption of decision-making activities. The ability to find a rational choice is lost. The decision becomes stereotypical, strong emotions appear, attacks of anger and malice appear, and self-control is lost. Decisions in such conditions depend mainly on random factors and lose their effectiveness.

The sequence of the nonspecific reactions described above may be different in to a greater extent is determined by a person’s psychological stability, which in turn is determined both by innate qualities and, most importantly, by systematic training.

There are two extreme points views on what factors - personal or environmental - are decisive in the formation of decisions related to risk. Supporters of the predominant role of the individual in the formation of decisions (they are sometimes called subjectivists) argue that decisions made are largely determined by the personality qualities of the decider. Success or failure, reinsurance or adventurism - everything depends on the psychophysiological data, upbringing, training and experience of the decision maker. Proponents of the predominant role of environmental factors (situationists), in contrast, believe that the decisive factors are not the properties of the human personality, but the environment, the situation in which the decision is made. The same person in different situations can be either a reinsurer or an adventurer; he can both succeed and fail.

As in many other cases, the truth in this matter lies in the middle: only in a combination of personal characteristics and environmental conditions is a solution born. Ignoring or even underestimating any one of these groups of factors distorts the picture and leads to incorrect conclusions.

Decisions related to risk depend not only on the state of the environment and its changes, but also on how the decision maker's understanding of the environment is formed. It turns out that if the decision maker obtains information about the environment on his own, based on his own experience, his decision becomes more conservative and cautious: he prefers those alternatives in which the probability of winning is greater and the probability of losing less.

.., he doesn’t drink champagne, and whoever takes risks goes home without pants Who If you are not able to take risks, you will achieve nothing; without taking risks, you can lose everything.

• - Spoken in the form of moral support when it is necessary to make a risky decision. And those who take risks don’t drink at all. Sometimes one of those present will add...

  Dictionary of folk phraseology

• - 1) about the opportunity to sometimes take risks; 2) about the guy who likes to take risks...

  Live speech. Dictionary of colloquial expressions

"Who doesn't take risks" in books

17 Who doesn't take risks...

17 Who doesn't take risks... Major Tar Robertson personally came to congratulate Chapman on the success of the fake sabotage. They sat in the living room of 35 Crespini Road while Backwell and Toos busied themselves in the kitchen and Frida, as always, went for a walk with Diana. “You are brave,” declared Tar. -

3.2. What does an entrepreneur risk when accepting investments?

3.2. What does an entrepreneur risk when accepting investments? Let's consider risk options for an entrepreneur. So, when we say that an investment for a business can be dangerous, we mean by danger the possible loss of the enterprise. This is practically the only final

Chapter 6. What the fortune teller risks

WHO IS AT RISK OF BECOMING A VICTIM OF NATURAL CHANGES Hopes are hopes, but prophecies about the end of the world - both ancient and modern - give, frankly speaking, frightening forecasts regarding the number of people who will become victims of a global natural “cleansing” in the form

WHO IS AT RISK OF BECOMING A VICTIM OF NATURAL CHANGES

WHO IS AT RISK OF BECOMING A VICTIM OF NATURAL CHANGES Hopes are hopes, but in prophecies about the end of the world, both ancient and modern, frankly speaking, frightening forecasts are given regarding the number of people who will become victims of a global natural “cleansing” in the form

VII. V. P. Koloshenko. “He who doesn’t take risks doesn’t fly with Ermak”