Abstract EN:

When shared signs that signal professional potential remain largely based upon surface appearences, those who strive to be seen, rather than to contribute significantly to a company's growth, can give the illusion of having potential. The biases that distort the evaluator's perception, the employee's tactical strategy, and the common traps (e. G. , heightened self-confidence gained through the achievement of ostensibly objective signs, such as an esteemed diploma or past mobility) are in fact ambiguous. In this study, we propose alternative evaluation criteria which can be widely employed throughout a compagny whithout procuring additional cost. Framed whithin a HR Development approach, the proposed alternative evaluation criteria include : the modesty with which a candidate speaks about his performance and his ability to incorporate past experiences in order to strengthen his professional competencies. We tested the hypothesis that these alternative criteria constitute better signs for detecting real potential than conventional ones. Utilizing participative observation, our research was carried out in a company strongly informed by a cannoned approach to detecting potential and entrenched within a cultural elitism. The target group constituted recently promoted managers and we sought to determine if the former presented the presumed indicators of potential in addition to the deep-level criteria that we have posited. Using the standardized company performance evaluation tool, we compared the expected and the real performance of this population and found the existence of a performance gap occuring when a manager does not possess the deep-level indicators. The findings validated our hypothesis and the functionality of our criteria for detecting potential ; managers possessing unconventional indicators performed well, while those without exhibited a sub-standard performance level, thereby demonstrating the pertinence of fundamental signs to detec managerial potential.