Full Professor, Lazar Stankov

Full Professor, Jan Dul

Full Professor, Paolo Gomes De Sousa

TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE

Keywords: Communication 0, 82199 Collaboration Critical Thinking -0, 01949 0, 17563 Communication 0, 45350 Collaboration Creativity Critical Thinking Communication Collaboration Creativity

Detailed presentation of the P21 framework

The most used and accepted taxonomy of 21st century skills is the P21 framework. The P21 framework of 21st century skills identifies twelve skills, divided into three categories. Four skills are identified as central in the framework: creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration, called the 4C, alongside three other literacy-focused skills: information literacy, information and communication technology literacy and media literacy. These are followed by five life-skills linked to the day-to-day experiences of 21st century citizens: flexibility, initiative, social skills, productivity and leadership. As mentioned earlier, five complementary skills are sometimes associated with these via a fourth category aiming to regroup elements linked specifically to the core themes of our Complete sample Creativity Critical Thinking Communication Collaboration Creativity 0.

Résumé et mots-clés

Titre :

Relation entre les Compétences du 21 ème Siècle et la Performance Professionnelle des Cadres et Managers.

Résumé :

L'objectif général de cette thèse est (i) de comprendre la composition perçue des compétences du 21è siècle chez les actifs cadres, (ii) et d'identifier le rôle perçu de ces compétences dans la performance professionnelle. Quatre compétences, appelées les 4C, créent progressivement un consensus au sein de la communauté internationale en matière de prérequis pour la performance professionnelle : la créativité, l'esprit critique, la communication, et la coopération. Nous nous sommes intéressés à la compréhension de ces compétences par les actifs, afin d'identifier les composantes pour chacune autant que les potentielles composantes communes, notre hypothèse de départ étant que ces quatre compétences sont liées. Nous ne sommes pas parvenus à trouver d'étude travaillant à partir d'une telle hypothèse. Dans ce contexte, nous avons d'abord effectué une revue de la littérature afin de définir au mieux les 4C, ainsi que les notions de performance et de compétence, et les liens mis en évidence dans la littérature entre ces concepts. Pour approfondir cette compréhension des 4C, une première étude basée sur la méthode des incidents critiques a permis d'appréhender les spécificités des individus performants sur le plan professionnel, de manière ouverte, puis de manière ciblée à travers le prisme des 4C. Jusqu'à 20 items ressortent pour chaque compétence, et la maitrise avancée de plusieurs des 4C se retrouve fortement corrélée à la performance professionnelle. Nous avons ensuite proposé à 8 experts en sciences cognitives et 8 non experts de regrouper de manière cohérente les items identifiés pour chacune des 4C, puis nous avons effectué un échelonnement multidimensionnel pour chacune des 4C à partir des matrices de similarité construites avec les résultats des experts et non experts. A partir des items retenus, nous avons construit un questionnaire quantitatif, permettant de déterminer auprès d'actifs cadres l'importance perçue de chaque item dans la performance professionnelle. La structure factorielle déterminée à partir de ces résultats fait ressortir un modèle à trois facteurs pour les 4C, suggérant une proximité beaucoup plus forte qu'attendue entre la communication et la collaboration notamment, et ouvrant la voie à une réflexion plus large sur la composition et la structure réelles des 4C.

Mots-clés :

Compétences du 21è siècle ; 4C ; créativité ; esprit critique ; communication ; coopération ; performance.

Abstract and keywords

Title:

Relationship between 21st Century Skills and Executives and Managers Professional Performance Summary:

The overall objective of this thesis is (i) to understand the perceived composition of 21st century skills for executives and managers, and (ii) to identify the perceived role of these skills in professional performance. Four skills, called the 4Cs, are gradually building consensus among the international community on the prerequisites for professional performance: creativity, critical thinking, communication, and cooperation. We were interested in the understanding of these skills by executives and managers, in order to identify the components for each as much as the potential common components, our starting hypothesis being that these four skills are related. We have not been able to find a study working from such a hypothesis. In this context, we first carried out a review of the literature in order to better define the 4Cs, as well as the notions of performance and skill or competency, and the links highlighted in the literature between these concepts. To deepen this understanding of 4Cs, a first study based on the critical incidents method made it possible to understand the specificities of individuals performing professionally, openly and then in a targeted manner through the lens of 4Cs. Up to 20 items stood out for each skill, and the advanced mastery of many of the 4Cs was strongly correlated with professional performance. We asked to 8 cognitive science experts and 8 non-experts to coherently group the items identified for each of the 4Cs, then we performed a multidimensional scaling for each of the 4Cs from the similarity matrices built with the results of the experts and non-experts. From the selected items, we constructed a quantitative questionnaire, which allowed us to determine the perceived importance of of each item for professional performance. The factor structure determined from these results highlights a three-factor model for 4Cs, suggesting a much stronger proximity than expected between communication and collaboration in particular, and opening the way for a broader reflection on the actual composition and structure of 4Cs.

Keywords:

21st century skills; 4C; creativity, critical thinking; communication; collaboration; performance.

• Niluphar Ahmadi, Maud Besançon, Jean Pralong, Martin Storme and Cyrille Feybesse, all talented researchers, who have taken the time to work with me and tackle challenges, as well as professors Jan Dul, Lazar Stankov, and Lee Jihyun, for their precious help and contributions at critical moments, and their great experience of academic writing. A special mention to Laurent Sovet who took some precious time to help me for some of the specific analyses carried out during the thesis.

• Boris Sirbey, who shares the same ambition of a future more ethical, optimistic and inclusive, where everyone can make a difference.

• Michel Barabel, who became a friend over the years, and a very talented and humble professional that I am proud to be able to work with.

• Fabrice Monna and Gilles Grolleau, research professors, for giving me the taste for research in the first place, more than fifteen years ago.

• All my colleagues at Monkey tie and Le Lab RH, who lived with me the rollercoaster adventures of combining thesis and work.; and my colleagues at JobTeaser for allowing me to keep fighting for a world with more social justice, particularly Nicolas & Adrien.

• My family, to an extent I could not describe here, my close friends, and a special thought for Charles-Henri, Jimin, Cassandre, Christa, Joséphine, Fabien & Sharon, Alexandre & Alexandre, for their unalterable support, their loyalty and their understanding at all times.

Technical note

The realization of the tables, the figures as well as the quotation of the authors in the body of text followed the standards defined by the American Psychological Association (APA or Association American Psychology) in 2012.

All figures with copyright and reproduced in this thesis have been the subject of a written request for authorization from their authors. All material cited and used in this thesis has also been the subject of a written request for authorization from their authors. The bibliographical references associated with all these elements have been carefully mentioned.

All the research carried out within the framework of this thesis complies with the requirements defined by the Code of Ethics of French Psychologists and the ethical rules governing scientific research in France.

Table of Contents

Foreword

The motivations of an entrepreneur to write a doctoral thesis are not necessarily obvious, and a priori hardly compatible with the focus required by entrepreneurship to create and develop a successful business. As far as I can remember, I have always expressed a taste for the scientific approach, and the discipline it requires. Discipline is the only way to improve, regardless of the field. Thanks to this discipline, I have acquired a solid understanding of 21st century skills, and how they may play a role in our common future.

We live in a constant state of competition, where victory means success. At the same time, in nearly every country in the world, education and employment systems continue to focus on the mastery of technical skills and knowledge. As we move into the future, this dual state of affairs leaves humans in direct competition with a USB stick, a sound mixer or a computer. Knowing that technology will always be the eventual winner in this type of competition, and unsure as to whether humans can come out of defeat with dignity intact, I feel driven to question the relevance of those dogmas still upheld by these two economic pillars of our society: education and employment. Competition as it is today just seems outdated; and it is interesting to notice that it will always be the last choice of action available in a mature ecosystem, where collaboration or symbiosis are preferred.

These reflections pushed me to pursue this doctorate and to campaign in favour of bringing about a world less focused on the past. The link between humans and society or an organisation, predominantly lies in our skills; skills management must therefore become a national priority for all countries and a strategic priority for all businesses. Far from being an idealist, I believe that our apparent inertia when it comes to preparing for tomorrow's world means that a dystopian future is no longer a matter reserved for fiction.

Across human history, our incredible capacity to adapt to our environment has pushed us to the very top of the food chain -it is this same capacity which will prove crucial in securing an optimistic future for our children. In writing this dissertation I set out to understand with the intention of helping others to understand; to act in order to help others to act. Because today's choices determine tomorrow's reality.

Introduction

What are the links between skills and performance in the professional world? While in many countries, such as France, organizations have become accustomed to recruiting their talents according to their diplomas or their experiences, the accelerated penetration of digital tools profoundly disrupts the beliefs in the field of qualification and talent management. It would seem that organizations are now looking for more creative talents, better able to work in groups, and therefore a priori more adaptable and agile. This pivotal period of developing skills very different from those sought in the 20th century will be the backbone of the work presented in this thesis.

The notion of 21 st Century Skills proposes a different approach to consider school and job performance. These skills, or competencies, are not technical, and seem even harder to define. Frameworks for such skills have become quite common. Some of these skills are even very well documented in literature. But when it comes to understanding deeply the core of these skills, how they interact together, and how they actually relate to performance, literature shows very little information or evidence.

To summarize, the goal of this dissertation is to better understand 21st Century Skills, more precisely the so-called 4Cs, their interrelationships, as well as their perceived role in executive job performance.

About 21 st Century Skills and the 4Cs

1.1.

Emergence of the concept of 21 st Century Skills

1.1.1.
Literature review of the concept of skill

The French researcher, Patrick Gilbert, describes skills as that which an individual invests in his work in order to secure a given performance [START_REF] Gilbert | Jalons pour une histoire de la gestion des compétences[END_REF]. Gilbert sees skills as a form of investment made over a certain period of time with the aim of reaching a specific performance level. However, this definition is substantially different to the day-to-day and rather more vague use of the word among the general population. On this point, Gilbert himself points out that the reach of a particular idea is often inversely proportional to the precision of its content. That is, the more widely we discuss and use a term, the less we know what it truly means. And so, despite all the synonyms, related words and terminology mentioned above, the social representation of the word "skill" remains dominated by the narrow notion of technical competence.

Before the 1970s, within the professional domain, the term qualification was used much more widely than skills. Interestingly, this term was typically attached to the professional role itself, rather than the individual candidate: what qualifications does this specific role require? A skill, on the other hand, is an attribute belonging to a person: what skills does this candidate have? As a result, at that time, a job description constituted a veritable doctrine and an individual simply was or was not suitable for a position, with little room for anything in-between.

From the end of the 1970s, economic transformation driven by technological progress brought to light the urgent need for individuals to be able to adapt to shifting contexts and changing professional roles. Workers had to keep up with significant transformations in systems of production and so an individual's skillset began to be considered as a more effective measure of human input and a better way of influencing productivity levels than their qualifications.

During the subsequent and drawn-out period of deindustrialisation that took place in developed countries during the 1980s, millions of people were forced to embark on a career change. In 1998, the economists Ljungqvist and Sargent termed this twin process of technological progress and skills obsolescence economic turbulence [START_REF] Ljungvist | The European Unemployment Dilemma[END_REF]. For them, a period characterised by economic turbulence increased significantly the risk of human capital depreciation, and thus threatened a massive growth in unemployment levels as employability plummeted.

It was therefore following these years of economic transformation that, when assessing someone's professional profile and skillset, the individual's background started truly being considered. Nevertheless, this shift from seeking out qualifications that were specific to a position, to appreciating the ensemble of skills offered by an individual was still characterised by a very technical understanding of what constitutes a skill. And so, a worker was deemed incompetent, for example, if he or she appeared to be incapable of mastering the techniques required to accomplish a specific task.

In the second half of the 1980s, the first formal attempts to map the skills requirements of different jobs were made. In the UK, for example, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) launched its Social Change and Economic Life Initiative Survey [START_REF] Gallie | Social Change and Economic Life Initiative: an overview, Economic and Social Research Council Social Change and Economic Life Initiative Working Paper 1[END_REF]. This signalled the start of formalised forward-planning in the world of employment and skills development, a process now commonly referred to as strategic Human Resource Planning. It was also during this time that HR professionals began to distance themselves from quantitative, collective approaches to talent management in favour of more qualitative, individualised methods.

But an important drawback remained: the skills in question continued to be very technical in nature and many crucial ones failed to be identified, clarified or defined. More significantly, factors such as seniority, position in the hierarchy, qualification type or level and numerous other social attributes quickly supplanted the good-intention of placing skills at the heart of decision-making in the workplace. And this situation has only changed quite recently.

At the beginning of the 1980s, when the professional attributes of an employee became the focus of many academic studies, several more complex definitions of the word skill emerged, propounded by leading academics in the field of Organisation Theory. For example, in 1982, the researcher Richard Boyatzis defined a skill as "an underlying characteristic of a person which has a causal relationship with their average or superior performance in a given function" [START_REF] Boyatzis | The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance[END_REF]. Although this definition does allow us to link action to performance, it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.

In the same vein, de Montmollin spoke of "a fixed set of knowledge and know-how (…) of standard procedures, of types of reasoning that can be applied without new learning" (De Montmolin, 1984). Despite having been developed more than thirty years ago, this approach highlights the crucial role of reasoning methods within the concept of skills. In the simplest terms, the 21st century skills represent primarily our capacity to learn, reflect and interact and therefore call for reasoning and dynamic logical thinking much more than any kind of fixed-level expertise.

A few years later in 1991, the researchers Serge Michel and Michel Ledru presented a skill simply as the capacity to solve a problem in a given context [START_REF] Michel | Capital compétence dans l'entreprise[END_REF].

Although this was proposed more than 25 years ago, this problem-solving interpretation has never been more relevant. But despite being inclusive and very practical, this definition is so general that it can be difficult to apply directly. Indeed, by depicting skills in such general terms, we detract from the specificity of their character. For example, if you master the English language, you cannot simply say that you know how to speak or have mastered foreign languages; it simply does not describe your skill specifically enough. [START_REF] Parlier | La compétence au service d'objectifs de gestion[END_REF] defined skills as a dynamic combination of knowledge, know-how and know-how-to-be, transformed into action. Later on, he even refined this concept [START_REF] Gilbert | La compétence : du mot valise au concept opératoire[END_REF][START_REF] Parlier | Les démarches compétences, Anact. Partnership for 21 st Century Skills[END_REF]. Over time, despite its flaws, this interpretation has proven to be highly accessible and has thus gained ground among HR professionals.

It speaks to the multi-dimensional nature of skills and at the same time encourages us to remain humble as to the level of understanding that we can hope to have on this subject.

It also introduces the idea that a person can possess a skill without necessarily being competent in it. Other notions have since been drawn into this idea of skills, such as, for example, that of responsibility. In fact, Geay (1998), a person is not competent in a certain skill unless he employs it in a responsible manner. Geay highlights also the fact that a skill largely operates on a subconscious basis, hence the difficulty in identifying and evaluating it. His work compares to the work realised by other researchers [START_REF] Stroobants | Savoir-faire et compétences au travail. Une sociologie de la fabrication des aptitudes[END_REF][START_REF] Rope | Savoirs et compétences. De l'usage de ces notions dans l'école et dans l'entreprise[END_REF][START_REF] Schwartz | Les ingrédients de la compétence : un exercice nécessaire pour une question insoluble[END_REF].

Within the context of Human Resource studies, the general consensus seems to have settled on a definition proposed and refined by Le [START_REF] Boterf | Construire les compétences individuelles et collectives[END_REF][START_REF] Boterf | Repenser la compétence[END_REF]. According to this

French sociologist, a skill is the capacity of an individual to accomplish tasks by mobilising the appropriate resources, including those acquired through training or previous experience: a skill is know-how which is specifically pertinent to a given situation.

Even though numerous academic before him came close to a definition of this sort, Le

Boterf was the first to offer a three-dimensional reading of the term, presenting a skill as being the result of three simultaneous factors:

• The knowledge to act, which calls forth the required capabilities and combines them with internal and external resources at the right moment and in the right dosage.

• The desire to act, which determines the will of the individual to pass from inaction to action, in the specific context.

• The power to act, which provides the opportunity and rationale for an individual to pass from inaction to action in accordance with environmental conditions.

Beyond mastery, wanting to use this asset and having the opportunity to use it in that context seems to actually make an individual competent. This definition leads us to acknowledge the fact that it is no longer enough to simply teach knowledge or, technical skills or even behavioural skills in isolation; we need also to consider mobilising a person's motivation to implement and apply that learning and their ability to control the environment in which the person will use it.

Many other researchers and specialists in the field of human resources have proposed alternative definitions of the concept of skills. Although they are often more difficult to apply, it is interesting to note them here to give us a more rounded interpretation of the term. For Claude Lévy-Leboyer (Lévy-Leboyer, 2009), a French researcher and occupational psychologist, a skill puts into action, in a coordinated manner, the capacities, personality traits and knowledge an individual possesses, with the aim of fulfilling a mission which has a specific objective and context. For the sociologist Philippe Zarifian [START_REF] Zarifian | La compétence, une approche sociologique[END_REF][START_REF] Zarifian | Le modèle de la compétence, trajectoire historique, enjeux actuels et propositions[END_REF][START_REF] Zarifian | Le travail et la compétence : entre puissance et contrôle[END_REF], a skill is the result of three convergent factors: taking initiative and recognising responsibility; transforming knowledge into action; mobilising the support of a network of actors.

Also, there is no consensus surrounding any categorisation of different skills, although it seems that they do not all relate to the same mechanisms: some skills correspond to a technique which has been learned; others are more a matter of feeling and a way of reacting; others are directly linked to our capacity to adapt to a given situation. One of the first attempts to respond to the growing interest of job markets in non-technical skills and the related need to categorise these skills was to distinguish between hard (technical) skills and soft (non-technical) skills. Actually, the term soft skills was first used in 1972 by a researcher name Paul G. Whitmore, in charge of organizing a training conference in Texas for the US Army Continental Army Command (CONARC), and called "CONARC Soft Skills Conference Training". Whitmore used the term soft skills to denote "important jobrelated skills which involve little or no interaction with machines" (CONARC, 1972).

Later, William Tate would define them as the ensemble of behaviours that a person must mobilise in order to reach a given objective competently [START_REF] Tate | Developing managerial competence: a critical guide to methods and materials[END_REF]. From these rather vague starting points, the concept of soft skills has gradually been refined and is now understood to describe the set of social aptitudes and personality traits that characterise relationships in certain environments. Soft skills are therefore strongly linked to processes of reflection and interaction and their role has been demonstrated in job motivation, confidence, organisational culture, competition, ethics and even the prevention of burn-out. Most recently, however, the term has experienced something of a backlash in the English-speaking world, critics arguing that the distinction between hard and soft skills evokes a sense of a hierarchy in the collective subconscious, suggesting soft skills are inferior to their harder counterparts.

Conversely, in France, the term soft skills seems to gain popularity amongst the community of executives and managers. But even this appropriation of the Anglo-Saxon term is indicative of the very same issues of definition and word use we have already discussed: by using the English terminology, the French, for whom the interpretation of skills remains predominantly technical, subconsciously avoid the need to redefine what a skill actually is. Beyond the technical bias in the word skill, there is also a common tendency to believe in the absolute nature of a skill. In other words, we either know how to do something or not; we have either mastered the skill, or not. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary of Current English (2010) defines the word skill as a particular ability in a task, specifically a great ability. This rather binary interpretation has etymological roots: the modern English word skill comes from the Old Norse skilja meaning to divide or separate.

However, as we have seen, skills are much more dynamic and relative than static and absolute. There is, therefore, a growing argument that the word skill, with its stubbornly persistent and restrictive connotations, is no longer the most appropriate term. A growing trend in English-speaking countries has emerged, distinguishing between skills and competencies. The latter is a much more responsive concept, defined by the European Union as "the ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social or methodological abilities in a defined context." (ESCO, 2018). A competence or competency is not limited to cognitive elements but also encompasses functional aspects, interpersonal attributes and ethical values. Even etymologically-speaking this word seems more appropriate to what we are referring to when we talk of 21st century skills:

the word competency comes from the Latin competentia simply meaning conjunction or agreement (Petit Larousse en couleurs, 1989).

One thing is clear: the lexical debate has not been settled and many of the best researchers and sociologists working in this field continue to seek adequate solutions, including Le Boterf, Piaget, Dubar, Zarifian, Goleman, Lazarus, Boyatzis or Ingram (Theurelle-Stein & Barth, 2017).

In the 1950's, Benjamin Bloom, an American psychologist specialising in pedagogy, worked with a community of researchers to develop a classification framework [START_REF] Bloom | Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals[END_REF]). Bloom's taxonomy offers a hierarchical interpretation of the way in which humans acquire and usefully-implement knowledge.

In fact, it is now considered so useful that it is used to underpin approaches to curriculum design and assessment within education systems across the world.

According to Bloom's taxonomy, knowledge is only the first stage when learning a particular subject. There are five other levels, each one encompassing and building on the former. All six are most commonly represented as a pyramid, building up from knowledge to the final step, evaluation:

1. Knowledge: this level principally describes the ability to identify, define, memorise and state facts about a given concept.

2.

Comprehension: once knowledge has been mastered, level two incorporates the ability to summarise, reformulate and explain the concept.

3.

Application: at this level, the learner can apply the concept to a variety of concrete subjects. This generally requires implementing the concept in the real world.

4.

Analysis: this allows the concept to be compared, critiqued and deconstructed.

5.

Synthesis: following the deconstruction seen in level four, this level sees something new and distinct being created out of, or inspired by, the original concept.

6.

Evaluation: the final level refers to the complete mastery of the concept and its subordinate parts, enabling a reasoned and structured evaluation to be made as to the relative value of the concept, as well as a fair assessment of the level of mastery among other learners.

It seems appropriate to bring up Bloom's taxonomy when trying to understand skills and how they relate to performance. Each level of the taxonomy requires so-called superior cognitive functions which are employed to handle complexity. Bloom's model is principally about our capacity to learn, reflect and interact, exactly the same capacities that the 21st century skills are based on. As such, we can assume that, given that Bloom's taxonomy structures the way in which we pick up and master knowledge, so as to put it into action, 21st century skills are of vital importance in the pursuit of knowledge, performance and even intelligence.

1.1.2. Socio-economic context for the emergence of 21 st

Century Skills

Gone are the days when we might have expected to carry out the same job for the same company across the course of an entire professional career. In today's world, the skills that enable us to bring added value to a job have a much more limited shelf-life. This phenomenon was called skills obsolescence as early as in the 1970s [START_REF] Kaufman | Obsolescence & Professional Career Development[END_REF], and describes the moment when the knowledge and know-how possessed by a worker no longer enable her to be high-performing in her chosen professional activity. There has always been a certain amount of job evolution: some occupations change; others simply disappear. Many jobs from the 19th century and prior no longer exist, such as bear-tamer, lamp-lighter or town crier. In fact, as early as 1918, the Carnegie Foundation for The Advancement of Teaching pointed out that soft skills were going to become more critical than hard skills for success in job performance [START_REF] Mann | A Study of Engineering Education, The Carnegie Foundation for The Adancement of Teaching[END_REF]. Why, then, are we so perturbed by the prospect of jobs disappearing from today's world? Certainly, much of the fear stems from the fact that skills obsolescence appears to be happening at a much faster rate and is affecting a much wider spectrum of jobs and people than ever before [START_REF] Levy | The new division of labor: how computers are creating the next job market[END_REF].

Over the past 30 years, salaries have risen by 20% for jobs where social skills are required (OECD, 2017), showing an increasing value to employers Up until the 1970s, the principal qualities of a good employee were obedience and technical competency. Work followed an industrial model in which blue-collar workers operated production lines, overseen and managed by white-collar workers. Everyone had a specific role that they needed to fit into; it was routine work made up of many repetitive tasks. As a result, during this industrial period, key competencies included mastering a particular job, respecting the rules and hierarchy and upholding a certain level of professionalism; in other words, effectiveness, integrity and a sense of fairness. Linking this to what we know about cerebral functioning, we can see that the industrial era required an advanced application of the parietal lobe, the part of the brain that manages habits and routines.

Today's society, however, runs on information. Information circulates on a mass scale and at a rapid pace, facilitating and building connections between individuals of all backgrounds. But perhaps most significantly, more and more routine tasks are being operated by machines rather than humans. The routine skills mentioned above are still necessary, but they no longer form the basis for high-performance. Nowadays, the keys to success include conducting logical reasoning processes, questioning the reliability of available information, demonstrating creativity, working in a team and communicating clearly. Faced with rapidly changing situations, we need to know how to adapt, how to take the initiative and how to produce unexpected results.

When a job disappears, it is simply a matter of one particular combination of skills no longer being pertinent. In the same way, a new job consists of nothing more than a fresh combination of skills. It is legitimate to suggest that a significant number of today's occupations -just like that of the lamp-lighter -risk becoming obsolete within the coming decades. These jobs consist of skillsets which will no longer be required. But it is not all doom and gloom. Most of the time, simply adding one or two skills to these outdated skillsets will suitably adapt them to demands of a new role.

In 2013, researchers from the University of Oxford, published a study demonstrating that 47% of the jobs that currently exist in the USA are at high-risk (more than 70% chance) of being automated by 2030 [START_REF] Frey | The Future of Employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerization?[END_REF]. Of these, nearly half have more than 90% chance of becoming automated. These findings sent ripples of fear across the world as people envisaged a major social catastrophe looming on the horizon. In 2016, the researchers Mélanie Arntz, Terry Gregory and Ulrich Zierhan responded with a comparable study commissioned by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This time, the analysis considered the labour market in each of the OECD's member countries, that is 35 of the most economically-developed countries in the world. Far from the 47% announced by Frey and Osborne, this study labelled only 9% of jobs as being at high-risk of obsolescence. In other words, five times fewer than stated in the former study. This disparity is explained by looking at the level of detail in which the jobs were considered. At the centre of both studies was the same list of over 700 professional roles. However, while the English researchers worked from a wide definition of the word job, considering the occupation as a whole, the team for the OECD approached the study through the prism of job-tasks in an effort to describe the daily work of each occupation.

Crucially, it is these individual job-tasks that become automated, not the occupations themselves. When the majority of tasks within a particular occupation become automated, having a human do the work ceases to offer any added value and so the job becomes obsolete. By digging deeper into each case, the OECD researchers realised that an occupation is composed of many more tasks than those typically outlined in a job description. Although, in simple terms, the job of an accountant consists of analysing and formatting numbers, it is easy to see that, in reality, an accountant also undertakes numerous interactions with other people, finds creative solutions to complex problems, interprets specific data and does much more besides. As such, fulfilling the role of an accountant would be an extremely big task for a machine -however sophisticated it might be. In breaking down the list of 700 jobs in this way, it is therefore possible to reduce the number of occupations identified as being at high-risk of obsolescence by a factor of five, slashing it from 47% to 9%.

Beyond these alternative macro and micro framings of the word job, the variation between the two predictions could also be explained by their authors' contrasting notions of what constitutes a skill. The skills considered for each occupation in the Frey and

Osborne paper are much more routine than those identified in the OECD study. This is due to the paper's overly-simplified description of an occupation as being whatever a worker spends the majority of her time doing. It is precisely this sort of regular and routine work in which machines excel; non-routine tasks are, by definition, too complex to reproduce or simulate.

This means that the fundamental building blocks of the labour economy are no longer jobs but rather skills. The OECD has since commissioned a follow up to the 2016 study, published in March 2018 by Ljubica Nedelkoska and Glenda Quintini. In an effort to drill down even further into the nature of skills and to identify those job-tasks most susceptible to automation, the OECD makes use of its far-reaching "Survey of Adult Skills", launched as part of the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competences or PIAAC.

At every annual event of the World Economic Forum since 2016, the world's leading economists have stressed the urgent need to rethink our vision of skills, employment and the relationship between the two, in order to prevent the world from descending into some dystopian nightmare. In 2018, it was the turn of Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba, an online marketplace then valued at 450 billion euros. In the interest of enabling their citizens to maintain a competitive advantage over machines, he called upon all nations of the world to modernise profoundly their education systems by actively teaching skills such as creativity, emotional intelligence, solidarity, teamwork and other non-technical skills. The premise he put forward is wholly aligned with the ideas in this dissertation:

when faced with machine competition, humans can only create added economic and social value by offering the skills that machines cannot master.

In May 2018, it was the turn of international consulting firm McKinsey to join the debate on the challenges of automation [START_REF] Bughin | Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce[END_REF]. Their detailed analyses by job category and country showed that, as a result of trends in automation, a significant number of jobs will actually be created within the coming years. These new occupations will appear principally in creative industries, technology, education and training, leadership and management and, most notably, health and social care. Their 2018 report entitled "Skill shift: Automation and the future of the workforce", predicted that between now and 2030, the hours of work requiring higher-order cognitive skills will increase by an average of 8% and those requiring social, emotional and interpersonal skills will grow by 23%. This study offers an extensive treatment of the topic, offering as it does a more accurate depiction of the interdependent mutations and shifts in skills and occupations as opposed to other studies which evoke the independently acting forces of destruction and creation.

Employment is the way in which we employ or use something [START_REF] Dietrich | Management des compétences[END_REF]. Work refers to the value created for an organisation [START_REF] Levy | The new division of labor: how computers are creating the next job market[END_REF], whether that be by a human or a machine, employment simply describes the contract which governs the working relationship between an organisation and a human being, whether it be permanent, fixed-term, temporary, an internship and so on. When the work of a human can be carried out by a machine, the latter ultimately replaces the former and employment is destroyed. The work is still completed but there is no need to establish a working contract with a machine. According to the European Commission and OECD, nearly one job in two could be replaced within the next 15 years [START_REF] Lordan | Robots at work: A report on automatable and non-automatable employment shares in Europe[END_REF]Arntz, Gregory, and Ziehran, 2016). This means dramatically lower employment levels. The so-called fourth industrial revolution has already initiated this process within several well-known sectors.

In the manufacturing industry in France, for example, there would be currently around 137 robots for every ten thousand employees, according to the International Federation of Robotics (IFR, 2018). Although these figures are interesting, it should be mentioned that they were provided by a private organisation, referred to as a lobby for robotics, and seem the source of the main articles published later on.

The world of work, like that of employment, is experiencing a period of transformation.

But there seems to be better solutions than just pitting machines against humans in this process. To allow humans to find their place alongside machines, they need to offer an added-value that machines are not capable of bringing themselves -or not for the same price, anyway. This raises the question of what makes humans unique and how we can take advantage of that in the coming decades, just as we have successfully done across the history of humanity. The human species has reached a degree of technical and social complexity which seems to be unrivalled on our planet. We have developed science, technology, language, abstract thinking, education, art, spirituality and religion, morality, pleasure, existentialism and even philosophy.

One recurring question concerns the subject of an individual's natural ability: are all humans born equal in terms of cognitive skills and intelligence? Over a century ago, the Austro-Hungarian monk, Gregor Mendel, established the three laws of inheritance. This work would become the basic premise on which the study of genetics was built.

Up to now, 52 genes have been identified as being linked to intelligence. But, even if their role is now recognised, a recent meta-analysis of the literature tells us so far that genes seem to explain only 5% of the variation in intelligence levels between humans [START_REF] Sniekers | Genome-wide association metaanalysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence[END_REF].

Far from being a well-defined and mapped-out cerebral feature, intelligence is in a constant state of construction that changes through learning. But the actual mechanics of that learning are extremely complex. [START_REF] Therer | Styles d'enseignement, styles d'apprentissage et pédagogie différenciée en sciences[END_REF] defined learning as an adaptive change in behaviour, which results from interactions between an individual and her environment. In other words, learning is the process of capitalising on a situation in terms of the information that we can garner from it. Therer described a complex, gradual and very long process in which the notion of interaction seems to be essential. This is consistent with [START_REF] Piaget | Réussir et comprendre[END_REF] work which demonstrated that learning occurs when there is some kind of interaction with the outside world. As such, learning is essential for understanding the conditions of failure and success in any given event, as well as for understanding how to handle different objects and symbols.

The human resources industry seems to be struggling with the changing paradigm of performance (Ulrich, Allen, Brockbank, Younger, Nyman, 2012). Literature focusing on human resources management does not show a strong consistency in the new models of assessment or management related to skills [START_REF] Ulrich | HR From the Outside In, Six Competencies for the Future of Human Resources[END_REF][START_REF] Gordon | Future Jobs: Solving the Employment and Skills Crisis[END_REF]. Actually, most of companies create their own set of skills to be referred to or assessed, but the market does not provide any standard in terms of soft skills. The socalled 21 st Century Skills seem to be the closest to a standard.

1.1.3. Rise of the concept of 21 st Century Skills Some skills are related to routine work, performing the same/similar tasks on a repetitive basis. Tasks such as counting, screw driving mechanical pieces, or reading a map are repetitive tasks, with limited input for a predictable success. These routine-skilled work can be classified into three types: craft skills, industrial skills, and knowledge skills [START_REF] Fox | Leapfrog skills: Combining vertical and horizontal multi-skills to overcome skill trade-offs that limit prosperity growth[END_REF]. In the professional environment, whereas the 1970s and 1980s were largely based on routine skills, the last twenty years have seen a clear change, with an ever-increasing demand for non-routine interactive skills (Levy, & Murnane, 2004, 2013). These nonroutine interactive skills are used for collaborative invention and problem solving in our modern societies (Antonczyk & Fitzenberger, 2009). The main reason given is unlimited access to constantly expanding information. In particular, researchers at Berkeley have estimated that the information produced between 1999 and 2002 is the sum of all the information produced so far in world history.

And this amount of information would double every two years [START_REF] Mccain | Windows in the future: education in the age of technology[END_REF].

In an attempt to understand better the relationship between human value creation in the workplace and wider economic performance, the scientific community has been studying

the impact of economic transformations on human skills required for performance.

Performance, in this context, is highly related to the ability to manage processes and operations to reach the expected results. A useful way to define performance, is to contrast "performance" and "non-performance" (Bourguignon, 1996). Performance means an action, the result of an action, and a success. Non-performance may occur when processes are not well defined, structured and formalized, nor managed as specified [START_REF] Malleret | Du contrôle de gestion au management de la performance, in Les Professeurs du Groupe HEC, L'École des rnanagers de demain, Économica[END_REF]. Job and academic performance could be defined as the success of an expected action, meaning that the expected result is obtained thanks to a proper management of the processes and operations required to reach this result. Another understanding of such performance could be to view it in terms of the difference between actual achievements and the expected achievements. In other terms, the skills allowing for performance are the skills that are used to deliver expected results. If value creation within organizations can be increased by individuals' abilities and knowledge, as Human capital theory suggests (Becker, 1964), it is the versatility or flexibility of individuals that would have the most value for job performance in modern organisations (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014).

From about twenty years ago, attention has intensified, driven in large part by a growing sense of urgency to develop skills largely ignored up until that point. These cover a variety of cognitive skills linked to our capacity to learn, to reflect and to interact. The competencies which will bring us success today and tomorrow are not the same as those that previously helped us succeed; the economy shows that we are increasingly reliant on skills relating to interaction and analysis. A recent literature review conducted by Van

Laar and his colleagues (Van Laar, Van Deursen, Van Dijk, De Haan, 2017) defined seven core skills and five contextual skills to be important to people working in the 21st century.

The core skills are creativity, critical thinking, communication, cooperation, problem solving, technical, and information management. The five contextual skills are cultural awareness, flexibility, self-direction, ethical awareness, and lifelong learning. These skills are referred to as the 21st century skills. Although they are widely called skills, they can be seen as abilities [START_REF] Hunter | Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance[END_REF].

As a conclusion for this chapter, a skill could be defined, for its use in the thesis, as a specific set of abilities and behaviours that differentiates this skill from others, and that is necessary to perform a given set of tasks according to the best practices. In this context, the 4Cs can be defined as the core skills necessary to perform non routine tasks.

Presentation of 21 st Century Skills frameworks

1.2.1.

Introduction to the main frameworks

These skills of interest stem from our wider capacities to learn, reflect and interact. 21st century skills would allow to remain responsive to the world around us and its constant evolution. But there is not yet one absolute truth when it comes to 21st century skills;

there are different models, different explanations and even different definitions. In fact, over the last fifteen years, several different frameworks and taxonomies have been proposed by a variety of organisations. The aim is generally to identify a common set of skills vital for creating value and achieving self-fulfilment in a strongly digitalised economy. And even though one model does seem to be gaining more attention and consensus in the scientific, academic and professional communities, it is still interesting to consider some of the other main models, particularly with a view to exploring the differences. The divergence largely relates to the specific skills identified as being key.

Numerous models and frameworks have been put forward to collate and categorise the skills required for success in the 21st century. One of the first initiatives named using the terms "21st Century Skills", was established in 2002 by Ken Kay and Diny Golder-Dardy, under the name Partnership for the 21st Century Skills. This project, better known today as P21, launched a model which has since become the reference point on this topic at the international level. What is interesting is that this initiative was supported by AOL, Apple, Cisco, Dell, Microsoft, SAP and the US Ministry for Education -the world's largest tech giants and a governmental administration financed a significant body of work on the 21st century skills. Having observed the impact of their own technology on society, culture and the workplace, these organisations became extremely interested in the kind of skills, competencies and qualities humans may need in order to find a new role creating value alongside machines.

The notion of skill does not seem to be perceived the same way, depending on the frameworks. The skills presented and studied in this dissertation are the so-called 4Cs.

While most frameworks use the notion of skill to define the 4Cs, the World Economic Forum classifies 21 st Century Skills into three categories (World Economic Forum, 2015):

foundation literacies, competencies, and character qualities. According to this framework, communication, collaboration and critical thinking are labelled as competencies, and creativity is labelled as a character quality.

Another significant initiative, founded in 2008, is the Assessment and Teaching for the 21st Century Skills (ATC21S) project. Assembling researchers from across the world and financed once again by big players in technology (Microsoft, Cisco and Intel), the project set-out to explore different approaches to teaching and evaluating the key competencies.

The OECD also associated itself with this initiative, hoping to learn how to improve the PISA test, a worldwide standardised assessment of educational attainment administered in member and non-member countries.

Beyond these two leading initiatives, groups of experts have joined forces all over the world to investigate the topic, bringing together professionals from education and business, as well as numerous national and international governmental organisations.

Several groups have drawn on either the P21 model or the ATC21S model, whereas others have created their own, offering some interesting variations. This is the case for the enGauge model (NCREL, 2003), or the Seven Survival Skills -which actually identifies ten key skills -or even the models developed by certain American state administrations such as the Iowa Essential Concepts and Skills (Iowa Core, 2012) or the Connecticut Department of Education's model.

day and age: environmental literacy, global awareness, financial literacy, health literacy and civic literacy. According to P21, the 21st Century themes should be approached with the necessary objective of mastering 10 key subjects:

• English

• Reading or language

• World languages

• Arts

• Mathematics

• Economics

• Science

• Geography

• History

• Government and Civics

Among the skills included in the various models of 21st century skills, and also present in the detailed P21 framework, four are consistently represented: creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. These are the 4Cs, cognitive skills which allow us to instantly adapt our behaviour and thinking to a given situation through calling upon and bringing together various cerebral functions. Interestingly, being creative, thinking in a critical manner, communicating and collaborating also seem to be those skills least susceptible to being computerised, at least in the short-or medium-term.

Although there is a general consensus that the 4Cs are essential to high academic and professional performance, the literature shows little evidence of them being interdependent factors of performance. Therefore, however enthusiastic take-up might have been, this idea of four crucial competencies remains just that, an idea. We will need a lot of scientific research and empirical proof to transform it into fact.

Popping-up again and again in different models of 21st century competencies, are three supplementary spheres: technical skills, problem solving and information management.

Technical skills are not strictly-speaking a competency but rather a type of learned procedure, as discussed in Chapter 3. Equally, problem solving, and information management seem to be direct results of the 4Cs, and not skills in themselves;

undoubtedly, without the 4Cs it would be very difficult to handle information and solve problems in an effective manner. Finally, five other aspects are regularly incorporated into these taxonomies, although slightly less often than those formerly mentioned: cultural awareness, flexibility, self-direction, ethical responsibility and lifelong learning.

Certainly, each of these is very important but they are less common in the frameworks because, it appears difficult to truly class them as skills. For example, lifelong learning is more a consequence of the 4Cs than a directly actionable skill in itself. Additionally, selfdirection, ethical awareness and flexibility are very complex constructs linked as much to someone's personality as to a capacity to understand oneself and one's position relative to the rest of society.

Putting all these adjustments to one side, the 4Cs are widely accepted as the core skills crucial to success in the 21st century.

From 2017 onwards, following the recommendations of the scientific community on topics such as education and professional performance, the World Economic Forum has been highlighting the 4Cs as essential in driving the modern economy forward. Since 2012, the OECD has also officially adopted this position, as well as thousands of scientists and education professionals who now endeavour to drive their respective fields forward through embedding and promoting the 4Cs. This constitutes a significant alignment between the worlds of education, research and business; this says a lot about the power of the 21st century skills.

Only the 4Cs are considered in the context of this thesis.

Detailed presentation of 4Cs

1.3.1. Creativity

Many teachers, professionals and international organizations integrate creativity in the essential twenty-first century skills [START_REF] Archibugi | The Globalizing Learning Economy[END_REF]. Although it would appear that the perception of creativity is significantly different in different cultures [START_REF] Trompenaars | Riding the Waves of Culture[END_REF], the unusual, meaningful and transformative character of creative actions provides a common core to definitions of creativity [START_REF] Jackson | The Person, the Product, and the Response: Conceptual Problems in the Assessment of Creativity[END_REF][START_REF] Runco | The standard definition of creativity[END_REF]. Creativity has often been considered as an indicator of job performance [START_REF] Welbourne | The Role-Based Performance Scale: Validity Analysis of a Theory-Based Measure[END_REF] as well.

Creativity as presented in P21's Framework for 21st Century Learning is a core component of students' academic and career success [START_REF] Amabile | A model of creativity and innovation in organizations[END_REF]Craft, 2001;[START_REF] Torrance | Un résumé historique du développement des tests de pensée créative de Torrance[END_REF]. Creativity is defined as « a novelty that is useful » [START_REF] Stein | Stimulating creativity: individual procedures[END_REF] or « the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or small group of individual working together » [START_REF] Amabile | A model of creativity and innovation in organizations[END_REF].

Ultimately, we can say that creativity is a process which aims either to transform something which already exists or to produce something totally innovative [START_REF] Amabile | A model of creativity and innovation in organizations[END_REF][START_REF] Stein | Stimulating creativity: individual procedures[END_REF][START_REF] Sternberg | Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity[END_REF]. Generally speaking, it includes:

• Originality and inventiveness, which can be perceived as a strong tendency to search for new solutions to past, current or future problems.

• Divergent and innovative thought, which is linked to a capacity to consider rare and unusual concepts and links. Ignoring existing codes and norms in order to envisage one's own solution without being tied down by existing rules really is a rare ability.

• Considering failure as an opportunity for growth, which again requires a completely new way of looking at the world around us.

The multivariate approach defined by [START_REF] Sternberg | Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity[END_REF] presents a model of the main components of individual creativity. This model provides a theoretical background to understand individual differences in the production of new and useful ideas:

• A cognitive factor -such as knowledge and divergent or convergent thinking.

While divergent thinking allows us to create disruptive solutions, convergent thinking allows us to associate different pre-existing concepts to solve problems.

• A conative factor -certain personality traits as demonstrated in an individual's behaviour such as strong openness to new experiences or a tolerance for ambiguity. Individuals who are more open tend to be more disposed to learning new things, acquiring new competencies and exploring their environment in order to discover new things.

• An affective factor -emotional states or traits which may reinforce or inhibit creative thought. For example, significant artistic creations often emerge when the artist is going through a moment of particularly intense emotions.

• An environmental factor -whether it be the family, school or friends, our environment can stimulate our creativity through allowing us to discover or associate new concepts.

As with critical thinking, sensitivity and empathy play an important role in the functioning of creative spirit. Creating something that does not already exist requires a real capacity to experience and assimilate oneself to the context in which that creativity will be expressed. When the creative action is responding to a given problem, it must anticipate possible negative effects for the intended audience. Usually, we are motivated to solve problems that directly affect us. But to resolve a problem that does not directly affect us we must be able to put ourselves effectively in the shoes of those who are affected. And finally, when creativity emerges, not in response to a problem but simply as expression as occurs in art for example, sensitivity and awareness seem to be much more crucial than any sense of logic.

Sternberg and Lubart recall the importance of creativity for problem solving in an individual's daily life but also at the societal level. They present creativity as one of the major factors in bringing about scientific discoveries, new works of art or new products and jobs, all of which contribute to economic growth. Lubart reaffirms the latter in 2008 [START_REF] Besançon | Psychologie de la créativité : place de la créativité dans les apprentissages[END_REF]. It is no coincidence that one of the most important assets in an organisation today is intellectual property. Innovation breeds growth, and at the same time creates systems of higher productivity and with more efficient resource use. When solving problems that we have not been able to solve up until now, it is creativity that will make all the difference.

As the reader will see, the literature regarding creativity and performance includes several contributions that differ in (a) the way creativity is assessed; and (b) their results regarding creativity and performance (positive or sometimes negative correlations).

Creativity can be assessed by measuring its cognitive factors, but also considering the conative traits of individuals and finally through its environmental factors (that can explain how creativity is perceived as an important aspect of academic or professionnal success). These factors allow us to understand and explain variability in creativity and performance. Creativity may also be a different concept depending on the context Indeed, there seems to be a difference between creativity from the learning process, (mini-c), everyday creativity, also called 'little-c', expertise or job-related creativity, also called 'Pro-C', and eminent creativity, also called 'Big-C', (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009).

Zoltay, Paprika and Nagy (2012) investigated how creativity is perceived in the job market. Their sample was composed of Hungarian students (N = 337), high school teachers (N =292) and human resource experts (HR, N=112). All participants completed a questionnaire about creativity and additional questions were posed to the human resources experts. The results indicated that for human resources experts, creativity is indeed important at work but mainly in marketing, leadership, management, research and development or design planning jobs. Occupations like finance, accounting, controlling or administration are considered as less oriented to creativity. Also, regarding the recruitment of creative employees, HR experts seem to be more confident about assessing creativity than teachers or students. For the HR experts, measuring creativity is mainly possible through an observation period, tests or interviews (less often with CV, references or qualifications). For the ability to apply creativity to every domain of knowledge, HR experts and teachers were confident whereas most of the teachers thought that creativity can be more developed than assessed. Finally, regarding the ability for everyone to be creative, 44% of the teachers agreed whereas students and HR experts were more doubtful. The results of this study are interesting in the context of our literature review.

In fact, when students (future workers), teachers, or HR experts are not fully confident in everyone's abilities to be creative, it can have an important impact on how creativity can be displayed in work environments and can moderate the relationship between creativity and job performance. The purpose of the review that follows is to present several studies that investigate the relationship of creativity with work environment and specifically with job performance.

A study by [START_REF] Zhang | The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment[END_REF] examined the impact of engagement in creative processes on work performance in complex jobs. For these researchers, creative performance at work is prevalent in complex jobs (requiring substantial autonomy, little routine work, and more flexibility regarding decisions). Zhou and George (2003) defined creative performance at work as the ability to produce new and useful ideas concerning products, services and methods. Creative process engagement refers to the employees' involvement in creative thinking activities (such as problem identification, information searching and alternative generation of ideas). In their study, [START_REF] Zhang | The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment[END_REF] investigated the relationship between creative process engagement, creative performance and overall job performance.

Their purpose was to detect patterns between these constructs and see if there exist direct or indirect relationships between these activities. The study took place in an information technology company in China with the employees engaged in two types of The results indicate significant, weak-to-moderate correlations between overall job performance and creative performance (r = .33). Engagement in creative processes showed a significant positive correlation with job performance (r = .37). Also, a weak positive correlation was found between the openness personality trait and job performance (r = .11). A high correlation between creative process engagement and creativity was found (r =.70) suggesting that these constructs are related but distinct. The researchers found a partial mediating relationship between creative process engagement, creative performance and job performance. In fact, creative process engagement predicts creative performance of employees (β = .34, p<.001), and creative performance predicts significantly overall job performance (β = .50, p<.001).

Regarding the relationship between creative process engagement and job performance, they found a curvilinear relationship (the relationship increases until a certain point (a moderate level of creative process engagement) then become negative). This relationship is also mediated by the work experience of employees. The analysis showed that employees with a low-level of experience exhibit a higher level of job performance when they are in the low or moderate range of creative process engagement. Employees with a high-level of experience seem to present a higher level of job performance when they are in a moderate or a high level of creative process engagement. Put in other terms, in complex jobs, a moderate to high level of creative process engagement leads to a better performance.

To understand the relationship of creative process engagement to work experience, the authors recommend investigating several other variables that may impact it. In particular, to examine how employees choose to allocate their efforts to different types of tasks (the creative ones, or less interesting but essential ones...); how the environmental context can support innovation and creativity and finally, the time to implement creative ideas. The more the job demands high levels of creative process engagement, the less easy it seems to be for employees to allocate time to implement creative ideas (leading to better job performance).

A study by [START_REF] Madjar | Factors for Radical Creativity, Incremental Creativity, and Routine, Noncreative Performance[END_REF] investigated creative performance displayed in a work environment and specifically, how the configuration of an organizational environment can encourage different types of creative performance. These authors investigated the link between radical creativity, incremental creativity, routine and non-creative performance at work. They considered creativity as an alternative to routine work and wanted to examine conditions that will encourage individuals to engage in creative ideas, actions and situations that generate a creative outcome in comparison to routine performance where employees are contributing to their organization's technical core (Borman & Motowildo, 1997).

Researchers distinguished two forms of creativity: radical (considered as "divergent" creativity where ideas and products are different in a significant way from existing practices) and incremental (a more "adaptative" creativity where few changes are implemented, and changes make a minor impact on practices and products that already exist). The authors considered that incremental changes can progressively lead to radical ones. Along with types of creativity, the impact of sensemaking (considered as an important component of creative workers, Unsworth & Clegs, 2010), career commitment and organizational identification (defined as a type of conformity to an organization's values and routines) on creativity or routine at work were investigated. Among the several variables examined, organizational identification can lead employees to engage less in creative performance and specifically, radical creativity.

Ultimately, the values promoted by the organization may determine the ability of employees to display their creativity and in particular radical or incremental creativity.

Also, the presence of creative co-workers can facilitate the ability of employees to display their creativity at work. The participants (employees and their managers, N = 157) had to complete several questionnaires. For the employees, they had self-reports regarding organizational identification, career commitment, resources for creativity, conformity, willingness to take risk and presence of creative co-workers. The researchers found that the three indicators of performance (radical, incremental and routine) have different relationships with the variables studied.

In particular, the effects of career commitment, resources for creativity and willingness to take risks was significantly more related to radical creativity than to incremental creativity or routine performance. In addition, the effect of organizational identification or the presence of creative workers was greater for incremental creativity than radical creativity. Finally, conformity and organizational identification was the strongest predictor of non-creative performance. The results confirmed the presence of two separate kinds of creative performance at work. The environmental (resources for creativity, presence of creative co-workers) or individual-centered variables (willingness to take risk, conformity, career commitment) can lead to different outcomes related to creative performance.

To provide more information about the relationship between creativity and job performance, we will now present some studies investigating variables that are necessary to increase the odds of creative performance at work. The focus will be on studies that explore links between individuals' personality traits directly related to higher creative performance.

Openness to experience was studied in terms of its direct impact on intrinsic motivation to learn; [START_REF] Minbashian | Openness to experience as a predictor of job performance trajectories[END_REF] report that individuals having high scores on the Openness trait tend to be more willing to learn, acquire skills and explore their environment in order to discover new things. Individuals with high openness are also regarded as more engaged in their actions and make more effort when faced with difficulty. [START_REF] Minbashian | Openness to experience as a predictor of job performance trajectories[END_REF] followed 129 young employees (recently graduated) of a service company. The authors' hypothesis was that employees with high Openness score will increase their work performance faster than other individuals and their performance will decrease more slowly than those who are low on openness. The openness trait was assessed by a Big Five measure and job performance was based on a supervisor's assessment (with a 5-point Likert scale from "below expectations" to "exceptional"). The results indicate that there were no differences between high and low scoring individuals either in their initial level of performance or in the rate at which their performance increased. However, individuals with high openness had a level of performance that declined more slowly over time than individuals who were low on openness.

In a meta-analysis, Woo, Chernyshenko, Stark and Conz (2014) examined how facets of the openness-to-experience trait (six facets: intellectual efficiency, ingenuity, curiosity, aesthetics, tolerance and depth) related to job performance measures that were composed of task performance (i.e., activities that contribute to an organization), contextual performance (e.g. voluntary behavior, reciprocity in favor of organizational effect), and counterproductivity (e.g. negative behavior in the organization). There was a weak but significant correlation between the ingenuity facet and task performance (r =

.15) but the correlation between the openness dimensions and the overall performance did not differ significantly from zero. These results can be related to [START_REF] Minbashian | Openness to experience as a predictor of job performance trajectories[END_REF] study where no differences were found between high and low scoring individual on the overall openess trait and their job performance.

In their literature review, [START_REF] Yoon | Mechanisms underlying creative performance: Employee perceptions of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards for creativity[END_REF] noted that showing creativity at work can be associated with "challenging the status quo" or introducing changes in classic procedures in the workplace. The organizational structure of the workplace seems to be determinant in the ability of employees to show creativity. The purpose of their study was to investigate how intrinsic or extrinsic rewards regarding creativity, intrinsic or extrinsic general rewards and commitment to creativity can impact creative performance at work.

To investigate the relation between reward, creativity, and commitment, questionnaires were administered to 241 employees and their peers in 41 organizations. Creative performance was rated by peers (regarding the ability to provide new solutions, suggesting new ideas and the like). Self-report questionnaires measured commitment to creativity, intrinsic rewards for creativity, extrinsic rewards for creativity and the importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in general. Among the results of the study, we can note the direct relationship between intrinsic rewards for creativity and employee creative performance (r = .21) and the absence of a direct relationship between extrinsic rewards for creativity and creative performance. However, commitment to creativity seems to be an intervening variable in the relation of extrinsic rewards and creativity performance. More specifically, extrinsic rewards are significantly related to commitment to creativity, which in turn has a moderating effect on creative performance. Finally, the researchers note that the existence of intrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation serve as a "precondition" for the impact of extrinsic rewards for creativity performance.

Critical thinking

With the development of digital technology, we now have an almost unlimited access to information. This means that identifying and selecting relevant information and coming up with imaginative solutions to new problems takes significant effort. Many researchers, predominantly from the field of cognitive psychology, have worked on this topic, and have reached consensus on a clear definition. The American psychologist, Diane Halpern, defined critical thinking as the use of those cognitive skills or strategies that increase the probability of a desirable outcome (Halpern, 1998).

In other words, critical thinking is about mobilising the specific set of mental processes, strategies and representations required to help us solve problems, making decisions and learn new concepts. Critical thinking involves the specific skills of inductive reasoning (working from the general to the specific) and deductive reasoning (working from the specific to the general), as well as analysis, inference and judicious evaluation [START_REF] Abrami | Strategies for teaching students to think critically[END_REF]. Critical thinking allows us to solve problems through logically processing all the knowledge, facts and data available to us [START_REF] Facione | The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill[END_REF]. It is the only one of the 4Cs whose importance in fostering academic success is largely proven (Greiff & Killonen, 2016). Critical thinking as a measure of cognitive performance is related to job performance [START_REF] Kuncel | Cognitive ability and socio-economic status relations with job performance[END_REF].

In the literature, critical thinking is systematically considered to be a part of the key competencies of the 21st century. It includes inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning, as well as proposing relevant analyses, inferences and evaluations (Faccione et al., 1995). Critical thinking makes it possible to solve problems by using knowledge, available facts and data through logic. The importance of critical thinking is increasingly recognized by the academic and educative world [START_REF] Facione | The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill[END_REF]. With the development of digital technology, access to information is almost unlimited, which requires people to identify and select relevant information and to consider solutions for problem-solving. In cognitive psychology in particular, numerous researchers have worked on critical thinking and there is a consensus on its definition.

Critical thinking is defined as "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based" (Facione, 1990, p. 2). In the literature, some researchers assess the cognitive skills involved in critical thinking with a measure of dispositions corresponding of behaviors oriented to critical thinking [START_REF] Facione | The disposition toward critical thinking: its character, measurement, and relation to critical thinking skill[END_REF]. Another way of considering critical thinking may be to include specific abilities to identify and evaluate implicit theoretical assumptions [START_REF] Yanchar | Critical thinking as disciplinary practice[END_REF]. However, this approach seems to receive mixed support from experts [START_REF] Bensley | Thinking Critically about Critical Thinking Approaches: Comment on Yancher, Slife, and Warne[END_REF].

Frequently highlighted dispositions are curiosity, openness and flexibility in considering others' opinions, an ability to seize opportunities for the use of critical thinking, and the valorization of alternative opinions (Abrami, Bernard, Borokhovski, Waddington, & Persson, 2015;[START_REF] Facione | Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction-The Delphi report[END_REF]. Four major abilities are also frequently listed: (a)

observation corresponding to the collection and analysis of arguments, evidence and beliefs in order to observe differences and similarities between facts [START_REF] Facione | Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction-The Delphi report[END_REF]Halpern, 1998;[START_REF] Willingham | Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach?[END_REF]; (b) identification that involves the generation of inferences from verified elements and the identification of causal relationships between arguments [START_REF] Facione | Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction-The Delphi report[END_REF][START_REF] Florea | Critical thinking in elementary school children[END_REF][START_REF] Willingham | Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach?[END_REF]; (c) the ability to evaluate the relevance of arguments based on criteria such as truth, utility, positive or negative effects [START_REF] Florea | Critical thinking in elementary school children[END_REF][START_REF] Willingham | Critical thinking: why is it so hard to teach?[END_REF], and (d) selection which is defined as decision-making or problem solving to provide the most appropriate response to an initial problem.

Although it is often claimed that critical thinking is important for job performance. There are few studies relating the two. [START_REF] Pai | The relationships among critical thinking disposition, caring behavior, and learning styles in student nurses[END_REF]

Communication

The 20th century represented the era of individual productivity. Everyone had their specific job role and therefore, their own specific tasks. Communication can be defined in this context as a complex cognitive skill which allows information to be exchanged with others [START_REF] Crockett | Cognitive complexity and impression formation[END_REF]Beatty & Paine, 1984). Communication and collaboration were needed and so were enforced within very hierarchical systems, an approach that had varying success. But today's organisations depend on collective success more than ever before. As workers become more and more dispersed due to the changing nature of work, communication skills become more and more critical in facilitating collective highperformance within organisations.

Given that people tend to no longer share a physical space with colleagues or other collaborators, workers are increasingly reliant on technological devices to exchange information. These technological communication tools facilitate oral and written communication but cannot recreate some of the types of communication normally used in a face-to-face exchange. Such constraints mean that the sender must be capable of correctly transmitting information despite a reduced capacity for expression and the receiver must correctly understand the message transmitted despite a reduced capacity for reception.

Communication is a complex cognitive skill that focuses on the exchange of information [START_REF] Crockett | Cognitive complexity and impression formation[END_REF]Beatty & Paine, 1984). Communication is the competence of a transmitter to faithfully transmit a message to a receiver in a given context [START_REF] Barrett | Strong Communication Skills a must for today's leaders, Handbook of Business Strategy[END_REF].

Communication can be verbal, para-verbal and nonverbal, but also written and mediated [START_REF] Adler | Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication[END_REF]. Communication competence can be divided into three distinct qualities: clarity, shared information, and balance among dialogue participants (Mohr, Fisher, & Nevin 1996). The structure of communication competency can be considered to involve four subcomponents [START_REF] Decker | How to communicate effectively[END_REF]: transmit a message, receive and understand a message, give feedback.

As described by Mahrmud ( 2013), the communication process occurs between a sender who encodes and sends a message, and a receiver who processes the received information, in order to provide appropriate feedback. This exchange process can be repeated as long as necessary. People use communication skills on a daily basis, and some communications happens without any intention. Effective communication takes place in a context and can be seen as an exchange of information for the benefits of all parties [START_REF] David | Advantages of Oral Communication over Written Communication[END_REF]. In a context of transactional communication, information needs to be transferred between the parties to achieve the expected results. There is then a necessary level of communication required to succeed in a process, depending on the context, and the characteristics of the sender and the receiver.

While insufficient or degraded communication may lead to isolation of one or both parties, excessive communication can generate conflict [START_REF] Pereira | Important disadvantages of oral communication[END_REF]. In order to enhance communication qualities and effectiveness, technological devices have been used increasingly, fostering the concept of communication of information, which is often referred to as ICT, Information Communication Technology (initially studied and developed from the technical field, see [START_REF] Shannon | The mathematical Theory of communication[END_REF]. The concept has been refined and further developed by various research fields in the human sciences [START_REF] Escarpit | Théorie générale de l'information et de la communication[END_REF].

In terms of academic and professional contexts, the focus is often placed on oral communication, based on speaking and listening, which is considered a prerequisite for personal, academic and professional success [START_REF] Morreale | Why Communication is Important: A Rationale for the Centrality of the Study of Communication[END_REF], as well as for building a successful family [START_REF] Pearson | Family communication and health: Maintaining marital satisfaction and quality of life[END_REF]. Written communication is required in most academic and business tasks [START_REF] Plutsky | Faculty perceptions of students' business communication needs[END_REF]. People with difficulties in understanding a received message can fail to absorb the information and knowledge related to the message. Also, people with difficulties in encoding a message in a way that it can be easily understood may limit their capacity to exchange information with others in social interactions and relationships. Speaking and listening represent major components of efficiency in the communication process [START_REF] Mann | Speaking and listening: The first basic skills[END_REF]. Communication as a vehicle is necessary to recall the past, think in the present and plan for the future [START_REF] Berko | Adult learning and lifelong learning: A communicative perspective. Rationale kit: Information supporting the speech communication discipline and its programs[END_REF]. Effective communication is also an asset to cross intercultural boundaries among people [START_REF] Berko | Adult learning and lifelong learning: A communicative perspective. Rationale kit: Information supporting the speech communication discipline and its programs[END_REF]. [START_REF] Avkiran | Interpersonal skills and emotional maturity influence entrepreneurial style of bank managers[END_REF] argues that communication is the capacity to respond positively to someone else with a considerate and non-discriminatory attitude. This therefore implies positive intention. This means that communication is not simply about the reliable transmission of a message but also concerns avoiding any negative signals or implications alongside this transmission. Communication can of course be, at once, verbal, paraverbal or non-verbal and may be written or transmitted through many other media forms [START_REF] Adler | Interplay: The process of interpersonal communication[END_REF]. This means that there is a lot of opportunity to pass on some form of negative signal. Effective communication is therefore adapted to the specific context in which it exists and should be performed in the most efficient way possible for both parties.

This definition implies a great level of complexity concerning the mental processes at play.

The work of Jakki Mohr, Robert Fisher and John Nevin, can help us structure this by linking quality of communication to three distinct factors: the clarity of the interlocutors, the quantity and quality of the information shared and the balance of dialogue between the participants (Mohr, Fisher, & Nevin, 1996). During a conversation, if the exchanges are incomprehensible, the information is inaccurate or too dense, or, finally, if one of the participants monopolises the exchange then it is an example of low-quality communication.

In total, there are seven elements that seem necessary in order to communicate effectively [START_REF] Moghimi | The Relationship between Communication Skills and Job Performance of the Employees, Fire Managers of Rasht City[END_REF]):

• Openness -the capacity to accept new concepts and new ideas

• Empathy -the capacity to understand the feelings and the emotions of the other person and the context in which they exist.

• Protection -the capacity to create a safe communication environment for the other people involved in the communication process.

• Positivism -the capacity to demonstrate effective interpersonal skills with openness, empathy and protection.

• Social skills -the capacity to adapt to a particular idea, to persuade others and to inspire confidence.

• Inspiration -the capacity to transport others to a higher energy level, through charisma and stimulation.

• Stimulation -the capacity to interest and challenge other people in a way which stimulates their intellect and makes them more creative or develops their leadership.

Whereas these seven skills allow us to engage in a communication process that is both effective and efficient, it would seem that speaking well and listening well are by far the most important factors. People having difficulties in decoding a received message are not able to assimilate the information and knowledge linked to the message. In the same way, those who have trouble with encoding an easily-understandable message, limit their capacity to exchange information with other people, thus negatively impacting their relationships and their social interactions. Speaking and listening represent major components of efficiency in the communication process [START_REF] Mann | Speaking and listening: The first basic skills[END_REF]. Effective communication is also an asset to cross intercultural boundaries among people [START_REF] Berko | Adult learning and lifelong learning: A communicative perspective. Rationale kit: Information supporting the speech communication discipline and its programs[END_REF]. Communication facilitates smooth transmission of information within the organization and generates commitment and productivity [START_REF] Meyer | Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model[END_REF].

Communication training focuses often on developing leadership skills as well as conflict management, team leadership and collaborative decision making. Communicating well, requires systematically adopting the right level of communication, always adapting to the context, in terms of content and form. Low-quality communication can lead to the isolation of one or both parties, but excessive communication can lead to conflict. Finally, effective communication is a valuable asset in overcoming intercultural boundaries, and is critical in job performance where many job tasks involve more than one person to communicate requiring multiple channels of communication [START_REF] Befort | Valuing Task and Contextual Performance: Experience, Job Roles, and Rating of the importance of job behaviors[END_REF].

Communication appears to be an interpersonal skill that is essential for professional success within an organization [START_REF] Barrett | Strong Communication Skills a must for today's leaders, Handbook of Business Strategy[END_REF]. It is a vehicle to educate, create, and negotiate with others, as well as for career success and leadership [START_REF] Michelman | Effective communication: the key to career success and great leadership[END_REF].

Communication facilitates smooth transmission of information within the organization and generates commitment and productivity [START_REF] Meyer | Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model[END_REF]. In the first place, people with good communication skills are more likely to be successful in a job interview, as they appear more confident, effective, and attractive [START_REF] Cockrum | Role-playing the interview[END_REF].

Besides, strong verbal and written communication skills are valued in the job market [START_REF] Bardwell | Standing out in the crowd[END_REF]. Communication is one of the workplace basic skills defined by employers (Carnevale, Gainer, & Meitzer, 1990), and seems to facilitate young college graduates [START_REF] Muchmore | A report of the task force on career competencies in oral communication skills for community college students seeking immediate entry into the workforce[END_REF] in gaining the entry to workforce that they desire.

In a study focused on recruiters' expectations, it appeared that up to 90 percent of 253 respondents considered communication skills to be critical and essential for their job success [START_REF] Peterson | Personnel interviewers' perceptions of the importance and adequacy of applicants' communication skills[END_REF]. Communication is critical in job performance where many job tasks involve more than one person [START_REF] Befort | Valuing Task and Contextual Performance: Experience, Job Roles, and Rating of the importance of job behaviors[END_REF]). An experiment with 1082 school leaders showed that intra-team communication contributes positively to job performance [START_REF] Ibrahim | Model of Virtual Leadership, Intra-team Communication and Job Performance Among School Leaders in Malaysia[END_REF]. Information was gathered from an online cross-sectional survey, and respondents were heads of departments, headmasters, teachers, and assistants, from both primary and secondary schools. Both variables of job performance and intra-team communication were represented by six behaviors. Some fields require particularly strong communication skills, such as public relations, sales, management or consulting [START_REF] Arthur | Customer service training for public services staff at Temple University's central library system[END_REF][START_REF] Wakefield | Communication competence in public relations' management counseling function[END_REF].

As communication is about exchanging information, it can be hypothesized that people with advanced communication skills gain more access to information compared to people with poor communication skills. A study carried out on 448 employees involving many different occupations and organizations showed that career success was related to access to information [START_REF] Seibert | A Social Capital Theory of Career Success[END_REF]. People with advanced listening and speaking communication skills seem to be generally found in higher levels of organisations, and seem to be more upwardly mobile [START_REF] Sypher | Listening, Communication Abilities, and Success at Work[END_REF],

showing a positive relationship between communication skills and career success.

Beyond individual success, there is collective success. As workers are more and more dispersed due to the changing nature of work, communication skills become increasingly critical for collective performance of organisations [START_REF] Schultz | Exploring leadership within the modern organization: Understanding the dynamics of effective leadership of a virtual,multigenerational workforce[END_REF]. By not being in the same physical place anymore, workers need to exchange information using digital tools.

These digital tools allow either oral or written communication, but not all communication modes involve face-to-face exchange. Such constraints require that the emitter be able to properly transmit information with reduced expression abilities, and that the receiver be able to properly understand received information. More generally, communication skills have been shown to be critical for maintaining collective performance (Geddes, 1993).

Collaboration

Vygotsky, father of socio-constructivist approaches to learning, highlights the importance of social interaction in the learning process (Vigotsky, 1978). He demonstrates that the more complex a problem is, the harder it is to solve alone. In slightly more technical terms, we can say that the threshold for successful problem-solving for people working alone is lower than that for those working collaboratively. It appears that we learn more when we learn with others; they are capable of correcting, completing and enriching our own reasoning. Collaboration appears to be a combination of communication skills, added to conflict resolution, decision making, problem solving and negotiation [START_REF] Lai | Collaboration: A Literature Review[END_REF].

Crucially though, it seems likely that successful collaboration is not possible without effective communication [START_REF] Pellegrino | Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st century[END_REF]. Additionally, it appears that there is a positive correlation between successful collaboration and the more the participants believe that other people's success is crucial for one's own success. Without collaboration among its members the very concept of society cannot survive. Indeed, in human societies, those most likely to survive are those who have been best supported to do so by the group.

In this way, successful collaboration seems to be determined more by certain attitudes and moral values than by the existence of shared goals or interdependence. Four attitudes and moral values in particular have been identified as being at the heart of effective collaboration:

• Awareness of the common objectives -this is crucial for activating the will to collaborate.

• Engaging in frank discussion about the common goals -this aligns people's objectives and their approaches to collaboration.

• Intrinsic motivation -this should be related to the common objectives themselves and the strategies employed to reach them. Without this, collaboration will be seen to be too resource-and energy-intensive.

• Self-awareness, awareness of others and contextual awareness -this helps individuals to best position themselves within the collaborative group, finding the role that will allow them to create the most value in pursuit of the common goal.

This set of attitudes and values echoes the vision was expressed by [START_REF] Piaget | Réussir et comprendre[END_REF]; collaboration must be a voluntary action resulting from an inner-need and desire to cooperate, founded on mutual respect between equals and closely linked to an individual's sense of autonomy. The individual who collaborates must be loyal because any evidence of disloyalty destroys mutual trust and the potential benefits of collaboration.

Collaboration between individuals is one of three possible attitudes observed in a controlled environment such as a classroom or an organisation, the other two being competition and individualism. Whereas individualism focuses on each person working towards their own objective, whatever the group's goal may be, competition is about maximising personal gain with respect to other individuals. Collaboration therefore requires specific individual qualities in order to be effective. These qualities are linked to a capacity to balance individual interest with the collective interest, in a way that will not impact the performance of the group and its individual members and which will allow for shared leadership and mutual support when necessary.

Five principal processes seem necessary for collaboration. They cover a variety of qualities such as inspiring moral confidence, being emotionally adaptable, thinking in a strategic manner and empowering others to realise their talents:

• Speaking and listening in order to effectively understand and be understood.

• Decision-making, including compromise.

• Constructing alliances and partnerships

• Negotiating

•

Understanding the dynamic of a discussion and following the order of the day.

Collaboration should not operate in opposition to individualism or competition; all three can fruitfully coexist in group dynamics. But whereas individualism or competition may be more effective in familiar or relatively straightforward situations, collaboration proves to be the most effective approach to handling complex situations requiring non-routine responses. A shared goal justifies the adoption of a collaborative approach, but beyond that, the literature is clear that true collaboration can only be achieved when certain values and attitudes are accepted and employed by all individuals making up the group.

When this situation arises, individuals stop seeking to maximise their personal interests and do their best to ensure that each member of the group realises their goals. Beyond the notion of utility, collaboration seems to be about developing a community reflex [START_REF] Francoeur | Former les bons citoyens : est-ce l'affaire de l'école? Vie pédagogique[END_REF], associated with values of generosity, giving of the self, respecting the contribution of each person according to his or her abilities.

Being an effective collaborator calls for skills in communication, critical thinking and creativity. Indeed, it seems that collaboration is in many ways a combination of these three skills, along with the values and attitudes described previously. This demonstrates the complex interactions taking place between each of the 4Cs and opens up a important discussion about whether it is even possible to fully develop one of the 4Cs while disregarding each of the other three. Although it has yet to be proven empirically, the 4Cs seem to be very strongly linked to each other. For example, communication training improves critical thinking through teaching us to better analyse and detect signals.

Conversely, developing critical thinking makes it easier to detect and anticipate the subtleties contained within non-verbal messages. Also, and as we have already seen, communication skills, particularly active listening, seem to be a major component of successful collaborative processes.

Commercial exchange involves typically a share of trust, like any transaction that takes place over time. One can argue that much of the lags of our society's economic development is due to the lack of mutual trust among its citizens and even among its organisations [START_REF] Arrow | Gifts and exchanges[END_REF]. Collaboration would optimize the productivity of individuals within an organization by solving problems that are too complex to be addressed individually (Huppé, Creech & Knoblach, 2012). Machines and processes are composed of a vast quantity of technologies, theories and concepts, that cannot be mastered or even understood by a single individual. When something goes out of control, actions must be adapted accordingly. Complex situations are increasingly frequent within organizations, due to the exponential increase in the amount of information available to be dealt with, and the challenges of modern society [START_REF] Creech | Performance Improvement and Assessment of Collaboration: Starting points for networks and communities of practice[END_REF].

Within an organisation, collaboration between employees creates more value than competition, as illustrated with the example of the Mondragon corporation [START_REF] Flecha | European research, social innovation and successful cooperativist actions[END_REF]. Mondragon corporation was created in 1956, and is the largest and longest existing cooperative corporation today. It is composed of 289 companies and 60,000 workers, of which 30,000 are shareholders, located in the Basque region in the North of Spain. In such organisations, cooperation allows the organisation to be more competitive on the market, as trust replaces control, which saves resources by reducing internal transactional costs.

Such efficiency needs cooperation at every level of the organisation, and between every level, even including a participatory governance [START_REF] Bernacchio | The virtue of participatory governance: a MacIntyrean alternative to shareholder maximization[END_REF]. The importance of cooperation as a driver for organisational and job performance emerged almost forty years ago [START_REF] Axelrod | The Evolution of Cooperation[END_REF]. Workplaces evolved progressively from closed and separate offices to open spaces, in order to foster collaboration and communication [START_REF] Appelbaum | The New American Workplace: Transforming Worksystems in the United States[END_REF]. In order to promote collaboration instead of competition, the work environment needs to be adapted beyond the workplace, through objectives and processes promoting social interactions and collective success [START_REF] Wisman | Competition, Cooperation, and the Future of Work[END_REF].

At organisational levels, companies cooperate to resist market downward trends and grow collectively, as numerous examples can be illustrated during the automotive industrial era [START_REF] Tezuka | Success as the sources of failure? Competition and cooperation in the Japanese economy[END_REF]. At an individual level, social interactions through cooperation skills seem to be required for job performance [START_REF] Hogan | A Socioanalytic Perspective on Job Performance[END_REF]Chun-Chang, Yu-Hsin, Hsin-Chung, Wei-Wen & Hsu-Hung, 2015). In both cases, collaboration is the most significant parameter in a process to innovate, as found in a study conducted in the manufacturing industry on a sample of 6,500 observations from 1,300 companies, obtained over a five-year period from 1998 to 2002 [START_REF] Nieto | The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation[END_REF].

Collaboration maximizes the probability to deliver the expected results in an innovation process, and organizations are able to become more efficient through repeated attempts to collaborate with external actors for innovation purposes (Levitt & March, 1998). The ability to innovate has proven to be critical to adapt to a fast-changing economy. As cooperation allows organisations to innovate more efficiently, it is critical to develop it within a given organisation to maintain its competitiveness [START_REF] Fukugawa | Determining factors in innovation of small firm networks: a case of cross industry groups in Japan[END_REF].

Established links between 4Cs in literature

Overall, literature shows extensive studies and consideration for each of 4Cs. However, much less studies show actual links between several of 4Cs. Nevertheless, some interesting findings need to be considered. As an example, collaboration and creativity seem to be indirectly linked. Collaboration as an individual competency allows organisations to innovate more efficiently [START_REF] Fukugawa | Determining factors in innovation of small firm networks: a case of cross industry groups in Japan[END_REF]. It could be said that collaboration fosters creativity to a certain extent. Also, communication-related education improves critical thinking [START_REF] Allen | A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking[END_REF], and critical thinking helps with some aspects of communication, such as reading nonverbal messages [START_REF] Metallinos | Cognitive factors in the study of visual image recognition standards[END_REF]. Communication skills seem to be a major component of a successful collaboration process [START_REF] Price | Effective communication: A key to successful collaboration[END_REF], particularly active listening. Collaboration may play a role in the development of general cognitive abilities, through socializing.

Communication, just like collaboration, is a social skill that allows people to become members of communities where they can interact and contribute [START_REF] Hague | Digital participation, digital literacy, and school subjects. A review of the policies, literature and evidence[END_REF][START_REF] Jenkins | Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century[END_REF]). Collaboration appears to be a combination of communication skills, added to conflict resolution, decision making, problem solving and negotiation [START_REF] Lai | Collaboration: A Literature Review[END_REF]. Also, beyond individual performance, communication seems to be an essential skill for collective performance (Magnus & Ugochukwu, 2009).

Education focusing on communication skills can also develop leadership skills, as well as other skills such as conflict management, team management and shared decision making [START_REF] Grace | Values, vision, voice, virtue: The 4 'V model for ethical leadership development[END_REF].

Creativity and critical thinking appear together quite often in the literature. They have been studied jointly in numerous studies for their relationship to cognitive abilities (Glassner & Schwarz, 2007;[START_REF] Hayes | Cognitive Processes in Creativity[END_REF], and for their interdependence in effective problem solving [START_REF] Wechsler | Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components?[END_REF][START_REF] Halpern | Thinking critically about creative thinking[END_REF], and they are considered the key cognitive abilities amongst 21 st Century Skills [START_REF] Wechsler | Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components?[END_REF]. Creativity through creative engagement seems to have a positive impact on the development of critical thinking [START_REF] Kivunja | Creative Engagement of Digital Learners with Gardner's Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence to Enhance Their Critical Thinking[END_REF]. Critical thinking seems closely associated with rational intelligence when seen as the ability to make connections between and among the bits, to create mental models in systems thinking [START_REF] Senge | The Fifth Disciple: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization[END_REF]. Altogether, creativity through ideas and critical thinking through reflection constitute the skills for complex problem solving [START_REF] Wechsler | Creative and critical thinking: Independent or overlapping components?[END_REF][START_REF] Trilling | 21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times[END_REF][START_REF] Lau | An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity[END_REF]. Also, both creativity and critical are largely associated to the concept of intelligence in the literature (Sternberg,1985;[START_REF] Silvia | Creativity and Intelligence Revisited: A Latent Variable Analysis of Wallach and Kogan[END_REF][START_REF] O'hare | Measuring Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Academic Performance in Psychology Undergraduates[END_REF], and are often considered major components of intelligence [START_REF] Albergaria-Almeida | Critical thinking, questioning and creativity as components of intelligence[END_REF]Batey & Furnam, 2010).

The same pairing can be found in the literature between communication and collaboration or cooperation. A large number of publications can be found in relationship to performance in the health industry, where these two competencies seem critical for performance [START_REF] Davenport | Risk-Adjusted Morbidity in Teaching Hospitals Correlates with Reported Levels of Communication and Collaboration on Surgical Teams but Not with Scale Measures of Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, or Working Conditions[END_REF][START_REF] Ellingson | Communication, Collaboration, and Teamwork among Health Care Professionals, Centre for the Study of Communication and Culture, 21[END_REF]. On a more general aspect, communication and collaboration are often associated with the concept of emotional intelligence [START_REF] Salovey | Emotional intelligence. Imagination[END_REF][START_REF] Goleman | Emotional intelligence[END_REF][START_REF] Boyatzis | Clustering competence in emotional intelligence: insights from the emotional competencie inventory (ECI)[END_REF] and personality traits rather than cognitive abilities [START_REF] Luca | Does emotional intelligence affect successful teamwork[END_REF][START_REF] Goleman | Working with emotional intelligence[END_REF][START_REF] Petrovici | The role of emotional intelligence in building interpersonal communication skills[END_REF].

To summarize, the literature shows interesting contributions from one of the 4Cs to another, and we could find numerous examples of such pairings. However, we could not find any study showing together the interdependence and mutual benefits of 4Cs. Also, the 4Cs seem to divide into two distinct categories of skills or competencies. Indeed, it seems from the literature that creativity and critical thinking are associated with cognitive abilities, whereas communication and collaboration seem to be associated with personality and emotional abilities. Another way of saying it could be to consider that the 4Cs are, to a certain extent, a combination of the concepts of rational intelligence and emotional intelligence. As such, this validates the idea that intelligence is more than just cognitive abilities [START_REF] Kyllonen | Extended Intelligence, Enhancemcent and New Constructs[END_REF]). This appears to be an interesting way of seeing the relationships between the 4Cs, through those two constructs. Indeed, recent literature underlines the relationship between cognitive and personality attributes, showing that cognitive performance can be predicted using self-beliefs [START_REF] Stankov | Self-beliefs: Strong correlates of mathematics achievement and intelligence[END_REF]. 1.3.6. Discussion This thesis relies on the concept of 4Cs, as necessary and critical for modern professional performance. Each of these 4Cs was described from the literature, as well as their suggested relationship with performance.

For creativity, some studies provide results indicating that the relationship between creativity and job performance is positive, but they show that several variables change in a significant way the direction and strength of this relationship. In fact, the literature review carried out in the thesis raises questions about why we want to determine the existing relationship between creativity and performance in organizational environments when creativity seems to depend of the settings of the environments, the perception of individuals of creativity and how it is considered and promoted every day.

Indeed, from an academic point of view, if creativity is not considered as a part of performance, why should people exhibit creativity and why would creativity be associated with performance?

The literature shows that several conditions are needed for creativity and if the environment is not encouraging it, the individuals will not develop it or display in their activities.

Also, another limit of this review is the way that creativity or performance are assessed. In most cases, it was by self-report or by a manager making a judgment. These are subjective points of view, and the literature will probably gain from using objective assessments, which will facilitate comparisons. Moreover, creativity is a multidimensional construct and its' expression varies by the domain of activity, age, expertise, etc. [START_REF] Sternberg | Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity[END_REF]. It is also possible that we could find individuals displaying creativity in different domains of their lives.

To our knowledge, no clear distinction exists between the assessment of the different domains of creativity displayed in an academic or professional environment. Finally, there is no definitive response regarding the relationship of job performance and creativity indicating the need for further research.

Regarding critical thinking, to our knowledge, there are only a few reliable studies that focus on its impact. As an indication, [START_REF] Stupnisky | The interrelation of first-year college students' critical thinking disposition, perceived academic control, and academic achievement[END_REF] highlight the need for considering critical thinking in the context of students' academic performance. Critical thinking appears to be positively correlated with GPA and perceived academic control; students with strong critical thinking abilities are also the ones who have a better understanding of the expectations of the academic world and are more able to answer and behave accordingly [START_REF] Pitt | The influence of critical thinking skills on performance and progression in a pre-registration nursing program[END_REF]. Regarding job performance few studies were found. However, [START_REF] Kuncel | Cognitive ability and socio-economic status relations with job performance[END_REF] shows that critical thinking as a measure of cognitive activity is related to performance.

A major limitation of this literature review, beyond the scarcity of studies, is also the great variability of measures used. Indeed, measures of cognitive critical thinking abilities and dispositions for critical thinking may be assessing different constructs. In such circumstances, reliable conclusions on the topic are difficult to make. Also, critical thinking is sometimes considered to be synonymous with reasoning, which remains a subject of debate.

Finally, regarding the 4Cs, critical thinking seems to be less studied than the other competencies. However, critical thinking can be found during many daily tasks involving problem resolution and rarely in the absence of the other C's. Indeed, when people are debating, they need communication skills as much as they need critical thinking skills to be relevant.

About communication, beyond individual performance, it seems to be an essential skill for collective performance (Magnus & [START_REF] Ugochukwu | Success of an organization depend on the manager's communication skills[END_REF] and career success [START_REF] Michelman | Effective communication: the key to career success and great leadership[END_REF].

Communication skills allow self-confidence and reasoning to be developed [START_REF] Ford | The differential impact of a basic communication course on perceived communication competencies in class, work, and social contexts[END_REF]. Communication is therefore a fundamental skill that allows the development of other skills used on a day to day basis in every person's life. The quality of the communication process depends on the communication skills of both parties. Also, it may be easier for an employee to perform in an organisation when colleagues have strong communication skills. In this way, communication is a preliminary condition for cooperation, another skill that is important for success and performance.

Collaboration is opposed to individualism and competition, although each of these can be found in group situations. Whereas individualism and competition may prove to be more efficient in the well-known or simple task situations, cooperation appears to be more efficient in managing complex situations that require non-routine tasks to be performed. Beyond the common objective that justifies the utility of cooperation, the literature shows that true cooperation occurs when some values and attitudes are shared by the individuals being part of the group.

When this happens, individuals stop looking for the maximization of their personal interests, and give their best to make sure every member of the group reaches objectives. Being able to cooperate requires communication skills, critical thinking, and also creativity. It seems that cooperation in itself is a compound of these three skills, added with the set of values and attitudes described earlier in this paper.

This shows the complex interactions between the 4Cs, and opens the discussion on whether one of the 4Cs can be fully developed without the presence of the three others. Also, from the literature, it seems that the 21st century skills should rather be called the 21st century competencies. The word competency seems to integrate more complexity such as behavioral and cognitive aspects. However, "21st century skills" has become a common concept widely used. All along the thesis, the word skills is used, considering this particularity.

In the literature, there are numerous studies showing a relationship between one of the 4Cs and one or several others. For example, communication-related education improves critical thinking [START_REF] Allen | A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking[END_REF], and critical thinking helps with some aspects of communication, such as reading nonverbal messages [START_REF] Metallinos | Cognitive factors in the study of visual image recognition standards[END_REF].

Communication skills seem to be a major component of a successful cooperation process [START_REF] Price | Effective communication: A key to successful collaboration[END_REF], particularly active listening. Some of the 4Cs allow to develop other skills, such as leadership enhanced through communication [START_REF] Grace | Values, vision, voice, virtue: The 4 'V model for ethical leadership development[END_REF]. Collaboration may play a role in the development of general cognitive abilities, through socializing. In this sense, it seems that the 4Cs are related to each other and the need to study their relationship and their impact in performance must be further explored.

1.4.

Literature review of the notion of job performance 1.4.1.

Definition of performance

As noted earlier, a useful way to define job and academic performance, is to contrast "performance" and "non-performance" (Bourguignon, 1996). Performance means an action, the result of an action, and a success. Non-performance may occur when processes are not well defined, structured and formalized, or managed as specified [START_REF] Malleret | Du contrôle de gestion au management de la performance, in Les Professeurs du Groupe HEC, L'École des rnanagers de demain, Économica[END_REF].

Job and academic performance could be defined as the success of an expected action, meaning that the expected result is obtained thanks to proper management of the processes and operations required to reach this result. Another understanding of such performance could be to view it in terms of the difference between actual achievements and the expected achievements. [START_REF] Ng | How broadly does education contribute to job performance[END_REF] include citizenship behaviours and counter-productive behaviours as aspects of job performance. Job performance is generally related to skill levels or productivity (Benson, Finegold, & Mohrman, 2004). If value creation within organizations can be increased by individuals' abilities and knowledge, as Human capital theory suggests (Becker, 1964), it is the versatility or flexibility of individuals that would have the most value for job performance in modern organisations (Bennett & Lemoine, 2014). This relates to the ability to adapt in a very short term to a new environment or a new task. Such changes characterize the new economy, or VUCA, which refers to volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity.

The evaluation of job performance can be conceived in terms of the value of the performed tasks. In the literature, however, job performance does not relate to effectiveness, or the quantity of resources used to perform the tasks. It seems that this element can bring value to the concept of job performance, when resources, such as time, money, people or even physical resources, are limited, as proposed by [START_REF] Martuccelli | Critique de la philosophie de l'évaluation[END_REF]. Also, job performance refers to the notion of evaluation, in terms of defining whether the objectives are reached.

The philosophy of evaluation suggests that objective assessment is a real issue, as is the feasibility to compare several cases or types of performance. [START_REF] Martuccelli | Critique de la philosophie de l'évaluation[END_REF] views evaluation as a concept within a collective belief system, used to promote continuously better performance. Indeed, the cult of performance is one of the hallmarks of our contemporary Western models [START_REF] Habermas | Connaissance et intérêt, La technique et la science comme idéologie, Gallimard, collection Tel, traduit de l'allemand Technih und Vîssenschaft ah Ideolagie[END_REF].

In a similar way [START_REF] Llewellyn | Performance Management in the Social Services: its Meaning and Measurement[END_REF] relates performance evaluation to the notion of accountability, whereas [START_REF] Bessire | Définir la performance[END_REF] establishes a strong relationship between performance, coherence and relevance. The concepts of logic, objectivity and measurement are very present in descriptions of performance. However, subjectivity and relativity are also considered to address the need to judge and represent a potential success [START_REF] Lorino | Comptes et récits de la performance, essai sur le pilotage de l'entreprise[END_REF]. Evaluation of performance includes cultural, personal and subjective aspects whereas evaluation of results is rather objective, leading to the necessity to differentiate between these two concepts [START_REF] Bescos | Contrôle de gestion et management[END_REF]. The inclusion of both objective and subjective perspectives may point to an enriched definition of job performance. Job performance involves the judgement of the difference between expected and actual results in a specific context of processes and operations. Job performance is therefore optimized when the expected achievements are reached, according to each specific context [START_REF] Lau | An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity[END_REF]. As noted by [START_REF] Habermas | Théorie de l'agir communicationnel[END_REF]:

it is not the simple observation of job behavior but the meaning of this behavior in its' context that is important.

Skills required for performance

Performance is highly related to the ability to manage processes and operations to reach the expected results. Skills can be defined as the ability to combine resources to implement a specific activity or process of actions. A skill is not limited to knowledge or know-how nor a state or set of knowledge which is possessed. According to Bloom's taxonomy [START_REF] Marzano | Designing a new taxonomy of educational objectives[END_REF], knowledge is the basic cognitive material whereas skills are needed to create value with the knowledge, such as comprehension, analysis and evaluation. Although Bloom's taxonomy model was created for learning, it provides a framework to understand better the relationships between skillsets and job performance.

It also allows us to appreciate the need to mobilize resources such as skills to meet a complex demand of a performance context [START_REF] Rychen | Key Competencies for a Successful Life and a Well-Functioning Society[END_REF].

Some skills are related to routine work, performing the same/similar tasks on a repetitive basis. Tasks such as counting, screw driving mechanical pieces, or reading a map are repetitive tasks, with limited input for predictable success. This routine-skilled work can be classified into three types: craft skills, industrial skills, and knowledge skills [START_REF] Fox | Leapfrog skills: Combining vertical and horizontal multi-skills to overcome skill trade-offs that limit prosperity growth[END_REF]. However, there has been an increasing demand for non-routine skills over the past fifty years while the demand for routine skills has decreased in similar proportions (Levy & Murname, 2013). Routine skills have become computerized or outsourced and many of them even disappeared due to the changing nature of work. Non-routine tasks tend to be specific or complex and do not allow for the simple repetition of previous schemes.

Managing a conflict, creating a masterpiece, or leading a team are contextualized in complex situations requiring the flexibility and ability to evaluate and adapt to the particular context.

Non-routine interactive skills are used for collaborative invention and problem solving in our modern societies (Antonczyk & Fitzenberger, 2009). They are part of the 21st Century Skills framework, as recognized by OECD. Among the 21st Century Skills, what are commonly called the 4C's: Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, Cooperation can be seen as abilities [START_REF] Hunter | Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance[END_REF]Ree, Earles, & Teachout, 1994). The global trend of computerization [START_REF] Arntz | The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis[END_REF] has contributed to the 4C becoming essential skills for job performance, as jobs with only routine tasks will be more automatized in near future. The core mission of education needs to adapt consequently, and schools must equip students with these 4C, for domain general use as well as domain specific knowledge or problem solving strategies (Greiff, Wüstenberg, Csapó, Demetriou, Hautamäki, Graesser, Martin, 2014).

This article will focus on how each of these 4C skills is related to job and academic performance. In addition, beyond the added value of each of them, it is interesting to look into the combined effect of the simultaneous presence of several 4C skills, and try to define whether their full presence is enough to create adaptability in any professional context.

STUDY 1 -Detailed composition of 4Cs

2.1. Hypothesis and methodology

Hypothesis

The first study was built on a series of interviews with professionals from the world of business or administration, in order to identify the perceived role of each 4C in professional performance. The interviews were conducted using the critical incident method [START_REF] Chell | Critical Incident Technique[END_REF][START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]. We made the hypothesis that specific items could be isolated to understand better the role played by each of 4Cs in high performance for executive professions. Using the critical incident method, we aimed at identifying specific items for high performance and how these items link to 4Cs. Also, on a more general aspect, we made the hyptothesis that the 4Cs played a role in high performance, and we aimed at identifying to which extent for each of them.

Methodology

2.1.2.1.

Choice of methodology

The critical incident method is usually used to understand the reasons for a conflict between two or more individuals, based on behavioural, affective and cognitive elements [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]. This method consists of collecting, analysing, categorizing and classifying the elements of the behaviour, through the description of a specific and precise moment, translating an incident between individuals. The aim is to transcribe in detail the facts, feelings and behaviours of the actors involved in the incident, in order to awaken an awareness of the individual bias of behavioural interpretation [START_REF] Ward | The Psychology of Culture Shock[END_REF].

This method can however be used to determine performance criteria. Indeed, the method itself was created in 1941 to assist successfully in the selection and ranking of aircrew in the US Air Force, through the analysis of previous driver failures. In the study, the method of critical incidents was chosen in this same spirit, namely to study concrete situations, in order to understand the determining elements in the professional performance of an individual. The literature repeatedly describes the possibility of using this method to determine skill standards, or to select and classify individuals for a given job [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF][START_REF] Bachet | Psychologie appliquée[END_REF].

Samples and instruments

The study was conducted through a live questionnaire submitted to 71 respondents, including 37 men and 34 women, with a mean age of 42, and all executives or managers in the private or public sector. Each of these respondents spoke about 1 or 2 persons (1 person per interview), managers or subordinates, for his/her professional performance or his/her lack of professional performance. This means that some respondents were interviewed twice for two different types of situations, whenever they had a relevant experience to tell. Respondents reported detailed critical incidents on 94 individuals, including 52 men and 42 women:

• 22 women considered for their high performance,

• 20 women considered for their low performance,

• 27 men considered for their high performance,

• 25 men considered for their low performance,

The questionnaires were all administered by the same person, during physical or telephone appointments, for a period ranging from 30 minutes to 1 hour per interview.

The interviews were recorded in order to transcribe as faithfully as possible later.

About a third of the respondents were direct or indirect business relationships of the author, contacted through email and social networks, whereas the other two thirds was constituted of people recommended by the first half following the interviews. The industries represented are numerous: healthcare, automotive, military, energy, administration, association, textile, retail, construction, telecom. As well as for the jobs represented: sales, marketing, human resources, R&D, accounting, general management.

For most of them, all they share in common is their executive or management position. As much as possible, when selected, a particular interest was given to the diversity of profiles in terms of industries and jobs.

In this study, respondents were asked to assess a previous colleague based on the performance level. Following the critical incidents method, 'low performance' or 'high performance' was the main criteria to choose the colleague to describe. When preparing the respondents at the beginning of the interview, performance was briefly described as the ability to reach expected results. As such, 'low performance' referred to people who would almost never reach the expected results and would objectively be considered mediocre or incompetent, failing where most people would be successful if at their position. 'High performance' referred to people who would systematically exceed expectations and be successful in situations where very few people would have been if at their position. To summarize, in the context of the study, performance was considered in the context of the organization, relatively to the expected and informal social norm for results.

Procedure

In the spirit of the critical incident method, we followed the classical procedure. It comprises typically five stages [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]Hettlage & Steinlin, 2006):

• Identifying general aims. In this study, the critical incident method is used to gain a greater understanding of the composition of 4Cs, as well as to determine how they relate to performance and to each other. These general aims were chosen as they directly connect to the focus of the thesis.

• Planning.

o The situations to be observed. The study focused on two types of situations.

The first type of situation is considered positive and involves an executive or manager showing uncommon aptitudes in succeeding in his/her job, working at this moment in the direct professional environment of the observer. The second type of situation is considered negative and involves an executive or manager showing uncommon aptitudes in failing in his/her job, working at this moment in the direct professional environment of the observer. The situation may have happened recently or a long time ago, as long as the observer is able to describe it faithfully and in detail. These two types of situations were chosen for their relevance to and impact upon the general aims that were defined.

o The observers. The observers were executives or managers, aged between 25 and 60 years old. They must have been involved directly in the situations to be observed, in such a way they can precisely describe the context and the events. For the study, they are considered experts regarding the situation they describe.

o The method of data collection. A questionnaire and specific instructions were developed to carry out live interviews with observers. Interviews were accompanied by clear and explicit instructions, common to all participants, to allow for objectivity [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]. In the study, a questionnaire was developed, allowing a structured progression in the interview, and the understanding of the incidents reported. This questionnaire was structured in two main parts: a relatively free part, allowing an open description of the situation, the relevance of the situation in relation to the general objective, the effect of the incident on this objective. The second part of the questionnaire aimed to determine the link between the situation and the presence or absence of each of 4Cs. For the sake of objectivity, 4Cs are not explained nor mentioned in the first part of the questionnaire, so as not to bias or guide responses. (see Appendix 1).

• Data collection. The questionnaire was submitted to the observer, having worked with a person he or she considers highly performing, and a person the observer considers poorly performing. Depending on the experience of the observer, the questionnaire was carried out for each of the two situations or only one. Each time, guided by the interviewer, the observer followed the instructions of the questionnaire, and described and justified in detail the situation to be observed.

The questionnaire was systematically submitted during an individual physical or telephone interview, depending on the availability and preferences of observers.

During the interview, particular attention was given to the freedom of speech of the respondents, in particular to ensure that the reported incidents make it possible to highlight the performance or non-performance of the individuals mentioned. The notions of 4C were only introduced in the second part of the questionnaire, so as not to bias the thinking of the observer. At this stage, the observer was asked to classify the behaviours, aptitudes, qualities and defaults described according to each of the 4Cs. The direct question of the strength of the observed person on each of the 4C was also addressed. At the end of the questionnaire, the observer was asked to rate the subject in question, on the level of development of each of the 4Cs, on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being the minimum and 7 being the maximum. The procedure was repeated identically for all 94 situations to be observed. Contextual data was also collected, on the observers, and on the individuals involved in the incidents. These data relate to age, occupation, and gender, both for observers and for the individuals involved, for the purpose of further analyses.

• Data analysis. The data collected was raw information, necessary to reprocess, summarizing and describing the context as much as possible, so as to increase their value of use. It was essential not to distort these data while preserving their validity and specificity as much as possible [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]. In the study, the information collected during the interviews was transcribed into items in a general table, while keeping the traceability for each item, allowing it to be attached to the related interview. Also, general statistical analysis and factor analysis were carried out on the quantitative data related to the grade given to the subjects for each of 4Cs.

• Interpretation of results. Guidelines for framing data collection should be seen as constraints that should be interpreted in order to use the results and identify a solution for the overall goal [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF].

Results

Analysis of critical incidents

After qualifying the situations for either the poorly performing or highly performing type, and after giving the contextual data about the person involved in the situation to be observed, examples were requested of specific characteristics demonstrating their ability or inability to use each of the 4Cs. For each of the 4Cs, we observed that the number of items corresponding to descriptions of highly performing people was almost always 1.5 times to 2 times higher than the number of items corresponding to the descriptions of poorly performing people. We observed also that respondents mentioned almost twice as many items for communication and collaboration compared to the number of items mentioned for creativity and critical thinking.

• Creativity: 84 items were identified, including 53 for highly performing individuals, and 31 for poorly performing individuals.

o For high performing individuals, there were 13 unique items to define creative behaviors, of which 3 represent 51% of the total 53 items identified: finding solutions (25%), having new ideas (25%), adapting to the context (13 %).

o For non-performing individuals, there were 11 unique items including 3 totaling 60% of the 31 items listed: not proposing solutions (27%), not having ideas (20%), not accepting new ideas (13%).

• Critical Thinking: 161 items were recorded, including 110 for highly performing individuals, and 51 for poorly performing individuals.

o For high performing individuals, there were 20 unique items to define critical-thinking behaviors, of which 3 totaling 51% of the 110 items listed: logic (17%), quick understanding (14%), building relationships (13%).

o For poorly performing individuals, there were 16 unique items of which 4 totaling 58% of the 51 items listed: do not anticipate (19%), not be realistic (14%), make logical errors of reasoning (14%), not having a global vision (12%).

• Communication: 155 items were recorded, including 103 for highly performing individuals, and 52 for poorly performing individuals.

o For highly performing individuals, there were 21 unique items to define communication behaviors, of which 5 totaling 50% of the 103 items listed:

to make clear remarks (14%), to be benevolent (12%), to be attentive (11%), being comfortable (8%), adapting to the other person (7%).

o For poorly performing individuals, there were 16 unique items including 4 totaling 54% of the 52 items listed: not being comfortable (15%), not being clear in his / her comments (15%), lying (13%), do not adapt to the other person (10%).

• Collaboration: 154 items were recorded, including 90 for highly performing individuals and 64 for poorly performing individuals.

o For high-performing individuals, there were 21 unique items to define communication behaviors, of which 4 totaling 50% of the 90 items listed:

being benevolent (20%), helping others to succeed (13%), knowing how to delegate (11%), accept the ideas of others (7%).

o Regarding poorly performing individuals, there were 18 unique items, 4 of which total 49% of the 64 items listed: being individualistic (22%), not facilitating the work of others (9%), not being benevolent (9%), do not get involved in the group (9%).

Interpretation of questionnaire results

The fact that the items identified in relation to Creativity are smaller in number suggest a difficulty for respondents to define creative behaviors. Among all the items mentioned, it is interesting to see that for each of 4Cs and each of the subcategories, the number of unique items is between 11 items (Creativity for the subgroup of Poorly Performing), and 21 items (Communication for the sub-group of Highly Performing), which remains relatively limited. Above all, for each of the 4Cs, and each of the two highly performing and poorly performing subgroups, about 20% of the final items were mentioned in more than 50% of the cases, which shows a strong common understanding of the behaviours associated to each of 4Cs.

Analysis of the 4Cs ratings

Every observer was asked to rate from 1 to 7 the subject involved in the observer situation, for each of 4Cs: creativity, critical thinking, communication collaboration. The 376 ratings for each of 4Cs, coming from the 94 respondents were analysed statistically.

MEAN & STANDARD DEVIATION

The ratings are centered on the scale: the analysis showed an average between 3.85 and 4.34 for the 4Cs, on a scale of 1 to 7 for each of the 4Cs, which was consistent with the theoretical value of the average of such a scale. With a standard deviation of between 2.19 and 2.34, the scores showed good dispersion for each of the 4Cs, and the scale showed good sensitivity.

• For Creativity, the average is 3.85, and the standard deviation is 2.19.

• For Critical Thinking, the average is 4.11, and the standard deviation is 2.34.

• For Communication, the average is 4.34, and the standard deviation is 2.19. showing that we could not assume the hypothesis of equal variances between high performance and low performance.

T-TEST

A t-test analysis was conducted between the two groups of people (low performers and high performers) for each of the 4Cs.

• For Creativity: t (92) = 13.96 with p <0.0001, so the difference observed between the two groups was not random. The difference between the averages of the two groups was 2.88 times the average standard deviation, which showed a significant difference between high performers and low performers on how they performed on 4Cs.

• For Critical Thinking: t (92) = 14.98 with p <0.0001, so the difference observed between the two groups was not random. The difference between the averages of the two groups was 3.07 times the average standard deviation, which showed a significant difference between high performers and low performers on how they performed on 4Cs.

• For Communication: t (75) = 11.61 with p <0.0001, so the difference observed between the two groups was not random. The difference between the averages of the two groups was 2.44 times the average standard deviation, which showed a significant difference between high performers and low performers on how they performed on 4Cs.

• For Collaboration: t (77) = 14.63 with p <0.0001, so the difference observed between the two groups was not random. The difference between the averages of the two groups was 3.09 times the average standard deviation, which showed a significant difference between high performers and low performers on how they performed on 4Cs.

A multivariate t-test was also performed on the whole sample (n=94) to explain differences in the 4Cs rankings, with gender and performance as explicative variables:

• Gender -With p=0.42, because the calculated p-value is greater than the alpha threshold significance level of 0.05, we cannot reject the null hypothesis H0. There was no difference related to gender.

• Performance -With p<0.0001, because the calculated p-value is less than the significance level alpha = 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis H0, and retain the alternative hypothesis. The risk of rejecting the null hypothesis H0 when it is true is less than 0.01%. It seems that the relationship between ratings and performance

is not random at all, there is a strong difference between the high and low performance groups as exposed.

CORRELATION BETWEEN GROUPS

The 4 variables used were 4Cs: Creativity, Critical Thinking, Communication, Collaboration.

• Creativity and Collaboration: we found r2 = 0.79644 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When looking at the subgroup of highly performing individuals, there was a moderately high score of common variances with r2 = 0.40555, with p = 0.0038, which may imply, to some extent, predictability of Creativity from Collaboration and vice versa.

o When looking at the subgroup of poorly performing individuals, we found a low score of common variances with r2 = 0.27851, with p = 0.0639 which supposed a lack of predictability of Creativity from Collaboration and vice versa.

• Creativity and Communication: we found r2 = 0.78509 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When looking at the subgroup of highly performing individuals, we found a very low score of common variances with r2 = 0.05254, with p = 0.7200, which supposed a lack of predictability of Creativity from Communication and vice versa.

o When looking at the subgroup of poorly performing individuals, we found a high score of common variances with r2 = 0.62997, with p <0.0001, which may imply, to some extent, interesting predictability of Creativity from Communication and vice versa.

• Creativity and Critical Thinking: we found r2 = 0.73363 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When looking at the subgroup of highly performing individuals, we found a very low shared variance with r2 = 0.11505, and p = 0.4312, which indicated a lack of predictability of Creativity from Critical Thinking and vice versa.

o When looking at the subgroup of poorly performing individuals, we found very low common variances with r2 = -0.14792, and p = 0.3322, which indicated a lack of predictability of Creativity from Critical Thinking and vice versa.

• Collaboration and Communication: we found r2 = 0.82199 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When looking at the subgroup of highly performing individuals, there were moderately high common variances with r2 = 0.45350, with p = 0.0011, which may imply, to some extent, predictability in the performance of Collaboration from Communication and vice versa.

o When looking at the sub-group of poorly performing individuals, we found high common variances with r2 = 0.52658, with p = 0.0002, which may imply, to some extent, predictability of Collaboration from Communication and vice versa.

• Collaboration and Critical Thinking: we find r2= 0.80497 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When we look at the sub-group of highly performing individuals, we found very low common variances with r2 = 0.17563, with p = 0,2274, which indicated a lack of predictability of Collaboration to from Critical Thinking and vice versa.

o When looking at the subgroup of poorly performing individuals, we found moderately high common variances with r2 = 0.43665, with p = 0.0.0027, which may imply, to some extent, some predictability of Collaboration from Communication and vice versa.

• Communication and Critical Thinking: we found r2 = 0.72191 and p <0.0001, which showed a strong correlation.

o When looking at the sub-group of highly performing individuals, we also found very low common variances with r2 = -0.01949, with p = 0.8942, which indicated a lack of predictability of Communication from Critical

Thinking and vice versa.

o When looking at the subgroup of poorly performing individuals, we found low common variances with r2 = 0.31343, with p = 0.0360, which indicated an absence of predictability of Communication from Critical Thinking and vice versa.

FACTOR ANALYSIS

Factor analysis for the complete sample shows the emergence of a factor common to 4Cs.

Regarding the percent of explained variance, with an eigenvalue of 3.33311, it seems that a common factor explains 83.33% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs:

• For Creativity: the saturation is 0.90787.

• For the Critical Thinking: the saturation is 0.89169.

• For Communication: the saturation is 0.91221.

• For Collaboration: the saturation is 0.93896. When analysing separately high performing subjects and low performing subjects, the results show a different pattern for the high performing group.

For the low performing group, factor analysis shows only one factor. Regarding the percent of explained variance, with an eigenvalue of 2.19474, it seems that a common factor explains 54.87% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs.

• For Creativity: the saturation is 0.70934.

• For the Critical Thinking: the saturation is 0.76508.

• For Communication: the saturation is 0.86732.

• For Collaboration: the saturation is 0.54497.

Considering the eigenvalue of a potential second factor is potentially interesting, as it shows a value of 0.96033, and explains 24.01% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs. Both factors would account for a cumulative total of 78.88%. However, this eigenvalue was not considered high enough to determine the relevance of a second significant factor for the low performing group.

Factor For the high performing group, factor analysis shows the emergence of a second factor common to 4Cs. Regarding the percent of explained variance, the first factor shows an eigenvalue of 1.67740, and explains 41.94% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs. The second factor shows an eigenvalue of 1.05297, and explains 26.32% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs. The two factors explain cumulatively 68.26% of existing links in the correlation matrix between 4Cs.

Factor 1:

• For Creativity: the saturation is 0.63150.

• For the Critical Thinking: the saturation is 0.31800.

• For Communication: the saturation is 0.63088.

• For Collaboration: the saturation is 0.88288.

Factor 2:

• For Creativity: the saturation is 0.35885.

• For the Critical Thinking: the saturation is 0.73444.

• For Communication: the saturation is -0.61490.

• For Collaboration: the saturation is -0.08182.

Factor

COMPLEMENTARY STUDY OF THE T-TEST

A specific analysis was conducted to evaluate any significant differences between the subgroups of highly performing men and highly performing women. The study shows no significant difference between the results of the subgroups of highly performing men and highly performing women.

• For Creativity: t (92) = 0.35 with p = 0.7248, so the difference observed between the two subgroups is not significant.

• For the Critical Thinking: t (92) = 0.49 with p = 0.6263, so the difference observed between the two subgroups is not significant.

• For the Communication: t (92) = 0.69 with p = 0.4919, so the difference observed between the two subgroups is not significant.

• For Collaboration: t (92) = 0.36 with p = 0.7213, so the observed difference between the two subgroups is not significant.

Interpretation of analysis

Statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between 4Cs high rating and high performing situations, as well as between 4Cs low ratings and poor performing situations.

To a certain extent, it seems that 4Cs play a major role in performance, unlike gender in this study. Also, there seems to be 1 main factor explaining the links between 4Cs, which may suggest within 4Cs the equivalent of a g factor related to intelligence. However, detailed analysis show a more complex distinction to be made between low performance and high performance.

The analysis and detailed analysis show non-ergodicity between high performing and low performing individuals. Whereas low performance in the context of 4Cs seems to be explained by only 1 factor, high performance seems to be explained by 2 factors, meaning that performing individuals might not all perform the same way. For the high performing group, it appears that communication and cooperation could represent a first factor, and creativity and critical thinking could represent a second one. They would appear as a social and a cognitive factor. For low performers, as there seems to be a general factor explaining this low performance, there may be a possible link to establish with the theory of positive manifold (Spearman, 1927).

Another interesting finding lies in the contrast between means and correlation coefficients in this study. Differences between means for low and high performers on all 4Cs are pronounced, but differences in correlation coefficients are not significant.

Whereas the restriction in range is a reasonable explanation for the obtained differences between the overall sample and its constituent parts, this may show that the actual differences in the presence of 4Cs between high and low performers lie at a sub-level for each of 4Cs. This means further investigation is required to explore the internal structure of each of 4Cs. The study shows a clear need for deeper analysis, to understand better the roles and interactions of 4Cs in performance, as well as to better understand the predictability of the quality of each C given the other Cs. NCA is a data analysis method based on necessity logics, that appears to prove useful to determine necessary but not sufficient conditions [START_REF] Dul | Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA): Logic and Methodology of ''Necessary but Not Sufficient[END_REF]. NCA allows to determine the necessity size effect of a condition X for an outcome Y. This size effect may be seen as the total empirical space above the ceiling of the data (see Appendix II).

The NCA was performed using the specific R package [START_REF] Breet | Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA) in Three Steps: A Demonstration[END_REF]:

Necessary Condition Analysis (R Package Version 3.0.1, URL: http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/NCA/ ) 2.2.5.2.

Formulation of NCA hypothesis

To perform NCA, the following hypothesis were formulated:

• H1: A certain sum of 4Cs ratings (SOMME) is necessary for high performance;

• H2: A certain rating of Creativity (Creativity) is necessary for high performance;

• H3: A certain rating of Critical Thinking (Critical Thinking) is necessary for high performance;

• H4: A certain rating of Communication (Communication) is necessary for high performance;

• H5: A certain rating of Collaboration (Cooperation) is necessary for high performance.

Data

The critical incidents' method allowed to collect ratings on each of 4Cs for 94 observed situations, of which 49 were considered high performing, and 45 low performing. For each of the 4Cs, the minimum and maximum scores are 1 and 7, respectively. These 4 variables are discrete, with 7 possible levels. The score of the 4Cs Sum variable (SOMME) was constructed by adding the ratings of 4Cs for a same observation. This variable is discrete with 25 possible levels, from 4 to 28.

Results

The NCA software in R is used to make the 5 scatter plots for the 5 hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4, H5. For each of the following NCA graphical representations, the ceiling is defined by the step function in red, identified as the Ceiling Envelopment -Free Disposal Hull (CE-FDH) ceiling line.

According to NCA graphical representation, using the step function in red to visualize the ceiling line, a score of 13 out of 28 in the 4Cs ratings sum is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order to highly perform as an executive. The scatter plots show that according to the expectation the empty space for the sum of 4Cs (H1) is in the upper left corner. With a deterministic view on necessity, the necessary condition hypothesis H1 is supported.

According to NCA graphical representation, using the step function in red to visualize the ceiling line, a score of 3 out of 7 in Creativity is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order to highly perform as an executive. The scatter plots show that according to the expectation the empty space for Creativity (H2) is in the upper left corner. With a deterministic view on necessity, the necessary condition hypothesis H2 is supported.

GRAPH 7 -NCA PLOT: CRITICAL THINKING -PERFORMANCE.

According to NCA graphical representation, using the step function in red to visualize the ceiling line, a score of 3 out of 7 in Critical Thinking is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order to highly perform as an executive. The scatter plots show that according to the expectation the empty space for Critical Thinking (H3) is in the upper left corner. With a deterministic view on necessity, the necessary condition hypothesis H3 is supported.

GRAPH 8 -NCA PLOT: COMMUNICATION -PERFORMANCE.

According to NCA graphical representation, using the step function in red to visualize the ceiling line, a score of 3 out of 7 in Communication is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order to highly perform as an executive. The scatter plots show that according to the expectation the empty space for Communication (H4) is in the upper left corner. With a deterministic view on necessity, the necessary condition hypothesis H4 is supported. Below is a table summarizing NCA parameters for the 5 analysis performed from the data. The scope is the difference between the minimum and maximum values of the rating considered. For all 5 NCA performed, we could observe that the minimum and maximum from the data are systematically the same as could be theoretically expected. For a rating from 1 to 7, data showed a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 7, for each of 4Cs.

NCA

The ceiling zone is the zone above the ceiling line within the scope. We could observe that the value of the ceiling zone for Communication (1.000) was half the value of the ceiling zone for the other 4Cs (2.000). The ceiling zone for the 4Cs sum was much higher (9.000), which could be expected due to a broader scale compared to each of the 4Cs considered individually.

The effect size is the result of the ceiling zone divided by the scope. It is then comprised between 0 and 1. The higher the effect size the larger the constraint that 4Cs put on performance increases, and the more performance is constrained by the 4Cs. We could observe that the effect size showed a smaller value for Communication (0.167) than for the other 4Cs, that all had twice this effect size (0.333). The effect size for the 4Cs sum is a bit higher (0.375). Performance seems slightly less constrained by communication than by the other 4Cs or the sum of all 4Cs. Although the effect sizes are relatively moderate, they should be considered in their context; effect sizes above 0.500 are rare, where most of the effect sizes calculated through NCA are below 0.1000, almost 40% between 0.100 and 0.300, and 10% between 0.300 and 0.500 [START_REF] Dul | Necessary Condition Analysis (NCA): Logic and Methodology of ''Necessary but Not Sufficient[END_REF]. An effect size of 0.1000 can generally be considered a threshold to accept or reject the hypothesis tested through NCA [START_REF] Karwowski | Is creativity without intelligence possible? A Necessary Condition Analysis[END_REF].

As we can observe from NCA and from NCA graphical representations, the ceiling appears to be 2 out of 7 for communication and cooperation but 3 out of 7 for creativity and critical thinking.

The fit score met expectations with a value of 100%, as it is the result of the ceiling line divided by the effect size of CE-FDH ceiling line. The c-accuracy is maximum. The table

shows the results of the statistical test with 10,000 permutations for each hypothesis. It turns out that the p values of the effect size for all variables are virtually 0, which is well below the benchmark p value of 0.05. This confirms that the observed effect sizes for all variables are likely not caused by chance, and confirms all 5 hypothesis.

All 5 hypotheses are theoretically and empirically supported. Their substantive significance with effect sizes greater than 0.1000 and the statistical significance shown with p ≤ 0.05 are strong enough to support all the necessary condition hypothesis.

Therefore, all hypotheses can be validated:

• H1: A certain sum of 4Cs ratings (SUM) is necessary for high performance;

• H2: A certain rating of Creativity (Creativity) is necessary for high performance;

• H3: A certain rating of Critical Thinking (Critical Thinking) is necessary for high performance;

• H4: A certain rating of Communication (Communication) is necessary for high performance;

• H5: A certain rating of Collaboration (Cooperation) is necessary for high performance.

Discussion

The critical incident method proves very useful to explore and gain insights (Grove & Fisk, 1997;Gabbott & Hogg, 1996) in this study relative to 4Cs and their relationships to performance, as this complex relationship has not been well documented yet in the literature. The critical incidents method allows to turn complex experiences into rich data and information [START_REF] Serrat | Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank[END_REF]. This method has other many advantages, such as its flexibility regarding the general aims of its use or the situations to be observed, and also the inductive and original angle of data collection (Edvardsson, 2001). Indeed, the data expresses the perception of the person involved in the critical incident and is presented in the respondent's own words (Stauss & Weinlich 1997), as regards to another person, but strongly reduces the desirability bias through this indirect approach.

However, the critical incident method has some limitations. Observations must be transcribed without interpretation or misunderstanding, which is an essential point for the validity and reliability of the study (Edvardsson, 2001;Gabbott & Hogg, 1996). Recall and memory biases (Singh & Wilkes, 1996;[START_REF] Serrat | Knowledge Solutions, Asian Development Bank[END_REF] influence data collected through the critical incident method, as memories may be deformed, and then describe unfaithfully the situations to be observed. Eventually, potential ambiguities may emerge when coding or classifying the items (Weber, 1985).

Despite the limitations cited in the literature, the critical incidents method proved to be very effective to engage participants and get detailed information about the situations to be observed and their context. The large amount of data collected shows consistency through the analysis.

The choice of NCA was arguably original, as NCA differs fundamentally from conventional data analysis methods such as structural equation modelling or multiple regression.

Unlike NCA, these models focus on the average effect of a factor on the outcome. The possibility to determine empirically the necessity effect of a variable on a given output can be very interesting, and particularly when addressing the necessary conditions for executives' high performance. The use of NCA contributed strongly to support and validate to a certain extent the main hypothesis supported in the thesis.

The combination of critical incidents' method and NCA led to a new understanding of the role of the 4Cs, as necessary but not sufficient conditions for high performance. Thus, the 4Cs may be considered as critical success factors [START_REF] Ranjan | Critical success factors for implementing CRM using data mining[END_REF] for executive performance.

The scale used to rate the subjects on each of 4Cs ranged from 1 to 7. The maximum sum for the 4Cs was 28. NCA shows that a score of 13 out of 28 is necessary for high performance. However, when simply adding the 4 scores for each of 4Cs, it makes 3 + 3 + 2 + 2 = 10. We considered this finding as very interesting. Indeed, the 4Cs score for high performance is about 30% higher than the simple sum of the score for each of 4Cs, which

shows that the combination of 4Cs may create a joint effect. This could as well be interpreted otherwise: when a given C reaches the necessary minimum score for high performance, it could imply that somehow people need to be very high in some other 4Cs. This is to be investigated further.

Study 2 -Clustering of items for each of 4Cs

3.1. Hypothesis and methodology

Hypothesis

The use of critical incidents method allowed to generate a list of specific items describing the meaning of each of 4Cs in the context of executive job performance: 24 items for Creativity, 36 items for Critical Thinking, 37 items for Communication, 39 items for Collaboration. This study aimed at proposing a coherent clustering of these items for each of 4Cs, to identify specific facets. Also, this study tried to determine levels of similarity between each pair of 4Cs. The literature review shows a significant number of studies relative for each of 4Cs. Fewer of them are focused on the components of each 4Cs relative to professional performance, and none of them addresses all of 4Cs. The purpose of that study was to test the hypothesis that a limited number of facets can be determined from the clustering of items composing each of 4Cs, to understand better their respective role in professional performance. A second purpose of the study was to test the differences of clustering according to experts in cognitive sciences and non-experts.

Methodology

Choice of methodology

Similarity analysis was used to analyse the qualitative results provided through the critical incidents' method. Similarity analysis is a clustering method using hierarchical pattern analysis, that can be performed on discrete or continuous variables [START_REF] Mcquitty | Similarity analysis by reciprocal pairs for discrete and continuous data[END_REF].

Given the qualitative aspect of the data collected with the critical incidents' method, and the limited but still significant amount of these data, there is a clear need of grouping the items to better understand the composition of each of 4Cs. Also, there is a need to better understand relationships and similarities between each pair of 4Cs. To understand better the composition of each of 4Cs, the choice was made to use a clustering analysis method, so as to turn distinct subjective qualitative data into objectivised results. By using both experts and non-experts to propose groupings of the existing items for each of 4Cs, we could generate enough points of views to create two sets of four similarity matrixes by computation of a similarity or dissimilarity coefficient between each pair of items. We could end up with eight similarity matrixes, providing quantitative data for further analysis.

The choice was made to analyze the eight output similarity matrixes using multidimensional scaling (MDS) approach, to quantify the relative weights experts and non-experts give to each pair of items, for each of 4Cs, and generate coherent clusters based on the weightings.

Samples and instruments

Two groups were composed. The first group was composed of eight experts, with a mean age of 41 years, and a standard deviation of six years. Four experts were men and four experts were women, and each of them has a proven track record of their expertise in the field of psychology and cognitive sciences. All of the experts hold a PhD, and an expertise related to the topic. The second group was composed of eight non experts, with a mean age of 37 years, and a standard deviation of seven years. Five experts were women, and three experts were men, and all of them worked in executive jobs, comparable to the jobs of the people observed with the critical incidents' method. They do not have the qualifications nor the advanced understanding of the experts. However, as executives or managers, they are potential users of a framework of the 4Cs for professional performance, and we considered their empirical vision as a useful comparison to make.

During a one-on-one interview, each person was provided with the same document (see Appendix III) showing the lists of items distinctly for each of 4Cs, and was asked to

propose their own grouping of items, as well as their perception of similarity between each pair of 4Cs, on a scale from 1 to 100.

Procedure

During a one-on-one interview, after providing them with information about the study, each of the eight experts and eight non-experts was asked to analyze the lists of items available for each of 4Cs, and to categorize these items in the most logical way according to them. For experts, the analysis was performed without any supervision, which was not the case for non-experts. All non-experts were supervised during their work, to answer their potential questions, as well as to ensure the absence of external information sources in the process of categorization and similarity analysis. Each interview lasted from 30 to 60 minutes. After the similarity grouping task, each participant was asked to rate the similarity between each pair of 4Cs in a separate spreadsheet, on a scale from one to 100.

This represented then six pairs.

The groupings proposed by every expert were then reported into distinct similarity matrices: one similarity matrix for the groupings of experts on Creativity, one similarity matrix for the groupings of experts on Critical Thinking, and so on. Four similarity matrices were generated. Each similarity matrix was composed of the items of a given dimension in both rows and columns. As the matrix was composed of the same items vertically and horizontally, the matrix appeared to be redundant, and half of it could be simply ignored.

The groupings proposed by experts on a given dimension could be then reported into the appropriate matrix: for every pair of items that belonged to the same group, 1 point was added in the corresponding box of the matrix. If not the case, no point was added. This work was repeated for each of the 8 experts. As of it, the 4 matrixes ended up with a number from 0 to 8 in the boxes, corresponding to the number of times when two items were grouped together by experts. The same work was repeated for every dimension, and the same work was repeated then for the work performed by non-experts. A total of 8 similarity matrixes were completed. More precisely, the data we were interested in relies in 8 upper half-matrixes, given that raws and columns share the same labels (items). This process was used as a preprocessing of the original data before applying MDS, as recommended by [START_REF] Kruskal | Multidimensional Scaling, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences[END_REF]. As every box of the halfmatrix is filled in with a value (from 0 to 8), no other preprocessing is required to perform MDS.

Using MDS on the basis of each similary matrix, we aimed at computing dimension weights that represent the similarities perceived by experts and non-experts for each pair of items. MDS allows to reveal a latent structure in a set of data, by maximizing the correspondence between paired similarity judgements and distances in a multidimensional space [START_REF] Halberstadt | Emotional state and the use of stimulus dimensions in judgment[END_REF]Barret & Salovey, 2002).

Although distances and similarity ratings are related, as the former are derived from the latter, they do not provide the same information. The distances provide a direct measure of the use of individual dimensions in the structure perception, whereas similarity ratings

show similarity across all items dimensions.

Results

MDS analysis of similarity matrixes

We analysed the data from each similarity matrix (see Appendix IV) using the MDS model option in XL STAT statistical package (2019.1.3.58210) with Microsoft Excel (16.16910).

For each MDS analysis, 999 iterations were performed and a convergence ratio of 0.00001 was considered to evaluate the stress level, and each analysis started with a random configuration of similarity analysis. A total of 8 distinct MDS analysis were performed, as 8 similarity matrixes were available (see Appendix V):

• Creativity -Experts

• Creativity -Non Experts

• Critical Thinking -Experts

• Critical Thinking -Non Experts • Communication -Experts • Communication -Non Experts • Collaboration -Experts • Collaboration -Non Experts
To determine the appropriate dimensionality for the model of each matrix, we examined the stress and plot of the MDS group spaces for solutions up from one to six dimensions.

Indeed, stress is a standard measure of model fit in a MDS approach. Stress generally decreases as more dimensions are added, but there is no significance test for stress. The appropriate number of dimensions is then determined with a set of subjective guidelines, based on the improvement in fit and interpretability that is gained by adding each dimension [START_REF] Kruskal | Multidimensional Scaling, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences[END_REF]. Kruskal & Wish assume that a heuristic for determining the correct dimensionality of an MDS solution is to examine a plot of dimensionality × stress.

An appropriate dimensionality may be suggested by a sharp bend, called an "elbow" in this function, and especially if it occurs at a low level of stress, indicating that adding new dimensions may have little effect to improve the solution's fit. As a general guideline, the best solution should incorporate as few dimensions as possible to reduce stress to at least a "satisfactory" level. Kruskal & Wish consider that a stress value below 0.15 as a satisfactory level. Therefore, for a given MDS analysis, the number of dimensions selected should be the one corresponding with a stress level below 0.15, considering that stress level does not drop significantly then. Indeed, the "elbow" aspect is to be considered as well. For all 8 analysis, a four-dimensional solution was systematically the most appropriate according to stress level values.

MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Creativity -Experts

A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.106). The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 24 items were available for Creativity. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

•

MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Creativity -Non Experts

A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.113).

The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 24 items were available for Creativity. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 36 items were available for Critical Thinking. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 36 items were available for Critical Thinking. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to understand better the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 37 items were available for Communication. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 37 items were available for Communication. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• Dimension 1

o Mettre à l'aise -Put at ease (-0.533)

o Etre à l'aise -Be at ease (-0.434)

o Ne pas être à l'aise -Not be at ease (-0. The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 39 items were available for Collaboration. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

•

MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Collaboration -Non Experts

A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.121).

THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATION -NON-EXPERTS

The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by non-experts for Collaboration, as shown in the Shepard Diagram. The MDS analysis results for a four-dimensional solution allow to better understand the nature of each dimension, using the coordinates of the items in this space. 39 items were available for Collaboration. For each dimension, we listed the top 3 highest and the top 3 lowest items. From those items each Dimension was named. As the items were proposed in French, they are shown below in French as well.

• The use of the similarity matrices to perform a MDS approach showed interesting patterns beyond the qualitative aspect of the work performed by each expert and non-expert. Some differences of clustering could be noticed between experts and non-experts, particularly when clustering the items for Communication. But in a more general way, the extended similarity analysis shows consistency between the average clusters resulting from both groups. We can assume there is a strong representation and logics about the items, which reinforces the idea of a limited number of facets defining 4Cs. However, the results proved to be difficult to analyse as such, as some incoherences could be detected between items within dimensions.

To give an interpretation, the answers of experts were considered more reliable compared to non experts. We could then assume that the accepted global dimensional model for all 4Cs was the four MDS solution spaces resulting from the experts similarity matrixes. Indeed, the analysis of the way items were clustered together appeared to be more logical for experts. As an example, antagonist items such as 'Have a global vision' and 'Not have a global vision' for Critical Thinking were logically clustered together by experts, but not by non-experts. This specificity was observed as well for other antagonistic items: 'Anticipate' and 'Not anticipate' for Critical Thinking, or 'To be nice' and 'To be not nice' for Communication.

Using the results from experts for each of 4Cs, this gave us a comprehensive understanding of the facets composing each of 4Cs. Every 'C' shows four facets, that can be described using the items listed in the analysis of results. An interpretation of the results was necessary to extract an actual model for each dimension within each of 4Cs.

For each Dimension, several coherent items were selected, in particular those with the most extreme coordinates on the dimension, as exposed in the results. Also, we considered some items as potentially complicated for respondents to understand the specific meaning in the given context of 4Cs.

The interpretation of remaining items relied on the polarity of items, and in the exclusion of some items that appeared to show a lack of coherence with other items from the same dimension. As an example, if an item was negative, such as "ne pas être clair" but had a negative coordinate, the item was turned into a positive one so it became "être clair", and the coordinate became positive. In other words, negative coordinates on a negative item could be turned into positive item with positive coordinates. Other situations had to be dealt with: items with negative coordinates and positive items, or items with positive coordinates and negative items. Such results were considered in their mathematical meaning, and we considered the possibility of reversing the polarity for the whole dimension if necessary during interpretation.

All remaining negative items were formulated in their positive meaning, for convenience of any future use. The selected items for each dimension were interpreted from the above, using the most positive coordinates for each dimension. Some items appeared in several dimensions with very positive coordinates. For such cases, those items considered for the dimension where they showed the best coherence with the other strongest items, but they were discarded for any other dimension. It actually improved the global coherence of the dimensions. The final interpretation dimensional structure of 4Cs showed a refined structure that could be used further.

3.2.2.2.

Refined dimensional structure of 4Cs

CREATIVITY (from experts MDS solution spaces):

• Eventually, we could generate a final structure for 4Cs, resulting in 16 facets, represented by the 4 dimensions of each of 4Cs. It is to be noted that some facets share one or several common items, and seem to have a close pattern:

• Awareness in creativity, openness in critical thinking and adaptability in collaboration seem quite similar;

• Empathy in communication and benevolence in collaboration seem quite similar.

• Proactivity in creativity and optimism in collaboration seem quite similar.

When comparing these results with the MDS solution spaces from non experts answers, we observed very different results. There was no obvious coherent pattern to structure dimensions. It seemed using experts MDS solution spaces was indeed more appropriate.

We performed a work of comparisons between both results of experts and non experts. Some items were found in the same dimensions for both experts and non experts solutions. In total, 47% of the items included in the model generated from experts were found in the same dimensions for non experts results.

• For Creativity, we observed 38% of items overlaps:

o Dimension 1: 1 item out of 2 in common;

o Dimension 2: 4 items out of 6 in common;

o Dimension 3: 0 item out of 2 in common;

o Dimension 4: 0 item out of 3 in common;

• For Critical Thinking, we observed 69% of items overlaps:

o Dimension 1: 2 items out of 3 in common;

o Dimension 2: 3 items out of 5 in common;

o Dimension 3: 3 items out of 5 in common;

o Dimension 4: 3 items out of 3 in common;

• For Communication, we observed 31% of items overlaps:

o Dimension 1: 4 items out of 6 in common;

o Dimension 2: 0 item out of 4 in common;

o Dimension 3: 1 item out of 3 in common;

o Dimension 4: 0 item out of 3 in common;

• For Collaboration, we observed 67% of items overlaps:

o

Discussion

The results using MDS show some noticeable differences between the set of matrixes from experts and from non-experts. As detailed in the interpretation of results, even if the MDS analysis shows the same number of dimensions for experts and non-experts in each case for all 4Cs, several items do not appear according to the same clusterings. The differences might be interpreted as a relative lack of expertise and understanding from non-experts relative to each of 4Cs as concepts. Conversely, the knowledge and skills of experts regarding the concepts underlying 4Cs might have structured and influenced their clustering logics. To complete and challenge the results, it would be interesting to perform a social representation analysis of each of 4Cs as concepts, to better understand possible biases when clustering items. For example, we can suppose that creativity and communication are subject to social representations, which might alter the very understanding of the concept and its composition for non experts.

The dimensional structure emerging from the MDS solution spaces from experts answers showed a strong coherence between top items within the same dimension. In the model built from experts MDS results, some dimensions are common to two or more of 4Cs. This might be an indication of a deeper connexion between 4Cs, and supports the analysis from Study 1 about the role of 4Cs in professional performance. Indeed, low performers scored low in all 4Cs, and high performers scored high in all 4Cs. Openness, Empathy and Proactivity, which are the shared dimensions between several of 4Cs, might represent the very basis of the 4Cs. Further analysis were required (Study 3) to better understand the underlying patterns behind the 4Cs model we created. questionnaire is a commonly used tool to collect data in human and social sciences. The objective of a questionnaire is to generate data from a given population that can be analyzed later. In this study, the main objective was to understand the perception of executives and managers regarding the respective role of 16 dimensions in their own professional performance. Considering a cautious construction of the questionnaire, the possibility to complete it online allowed an increased reach as well as a shorter time required to complete the sample.

Study 3 -Quantitative questionnaire

The construction of the questionnaire was made according the recommendations of Hinkin [START_REF] Hinkin | A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires[END_REF]. The methodology described by Hinkin was originally intended for the construction of psychometric questionnaires, but proved useful for this study, as it gave recommendations for scaling items, which was the main aspect of our questionnaire.

Regarding the scaling of the items of the questionnaire, it was important that the scale used for answers could generate sufficient variance amongst respondents for statistical analyses [START_REF] Stone | Research methods in organizational behavior[END_REF]. A 5-point Likert type scale was used for this questionnaire, composed of five equal appearing intervals with a neutral midpoint [START_REF] Likert | A technique for the measurement of attitude scales[END_REF].

Literature shows that Likert type scales are the most frequently used in questionnaires (Cook et al., 1981). Although Likert type scales are often composed of 7 or 9 equal appearing intervals, 5-point Likert scales are more adapted when performing factor analysis on the data, which was the case for our study. They also show an optimal coefficient alpha reliability compared to other Likert type scales [START_REF] Bass | Magnitude estimations of expressions of frequency and amount[END_REF]. The 5 intervals corresponded to typical questionnaire answers:

• Strongly disagree,

• Disagree,

• Neither agree nor disagree,

• Agree,

• Strongly agree.

Samples, instruments and procedure

The study was conducted through an online questionnaire in French. It was composed of 37 questions, each using a 5-point Likert type scale. Socio-demographic questions were also used, to qualify eligibility for the study, as well as to carry out specific analysis of the answers based. The criteria collected were about:

• executive/management position or not;

• age;

• gender;

• job occupation;

• industry.

The 37 core questions were about:

• the perception of the role of the 32 items (2 items for each dimension, 16 dimensions in total);

• the perception of the role of each of 4Cs in their own professional performance;

• the perception of their general performance.

The questionnaire was shared on professional social networks (Linkedin and Viadeo), and was sent by email to a database of 2 000 thousand French executives and managers from all industries and experience levels. The emails were specifically asking to share as widely as possible. Target respondents were people with executive or management positions.

They represented the qualified respondents. For this study, we aimed at reaching at least 200 qualified respondents before analyzing the data, for statistical significance of the samples and strong factor analysis [START_REF] Hoelter | The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices[END_REF].

The questionnaire was a Google form available online for 10 days.

Results

Analysis and interpretation of results

For the 340 answers to the 32 items, the means vary between 3.15 for 'Je suis patient' (I am patient) and 4.45 for 'Je suis respectueux des autres' (I am respectful of others), on a scale from 1 to 5. The ratings are not centered on the scale, as the theoretical mean would be 3, and 100% of the items show a mean greater than 3. The psychometric qualities of the questionnaire were also examined. We followed the method proposed by [START_REF] Steger | Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI)[END_REF] that the average scores tended to be very high. In other words, the distribution of the scores did not follow the normal distribution. As a result, all statistical analyzes were performed as a result of this feature. All the analyzes were carried out starting from the software R and the various associated packages. The procedures followed were based on methodological works [START_REF] Broc | Stats faciles avec R : Guide pratique[END_REF][START_REF] Gana | Introduction à la modélisation par équations structurales : Manuel pratique avec lavaan[END_REF].

Preliminary analysis of the factor structure

Group 1 was made up of 170 people. A factorial analysis in principal axes with oblique rotation (Oblimin) was carried out. The choice of this factorial analysis is explained by a distribution of data that did not correspond to the normal law, while the choice of an oblique rotation is explained by the fact that the factors were likely to be correlated with each other for theoretical reasons. The eigenvalue graph indicated an optimal 4-factor solution. Nevertheless, several strong inconsistencies were observed in the factorial saturation of the items. Even when removing at least half of the items, the 4-factor solution did not show better consistency. Then we considered the hypothesis that the solution model might not have 4 factors, and we tested the possibility of a 3-factor solution model or even a 5-factor solution model. The 5-factor solution model did not show any consistency. Eventually, a 3-factor solution was finally chosen with the deletion of two items:

• Q1 because of a very low factorial saturation across the set of factors (< .30) [START_REF] Nunnally | Collaborative Problem Solving[END_REF].

Correlations between the three factors ranged from .25 to .48 (mdn = .33).

Confirmatory analysis of the factor structure

Group 2 was also made up of 170 people. The factorial structure identified previously was therefore tested with this new group. Several models were tested successively to improve the fit of the data (see Table 2). The initial model (model 1) had rather poor adjustment indices. By examining the modification indices, a very high covariance relationship was found between item Q23 ("I have courage") and factor 3 relating to innovative and proactive behaviors. As a result, we chose to delete this item. Although the indices were slightly better for Model 2, this was still not enough. We chose to delete all items with factorial saturation below .30, for a total of 7 items (Q2, Q3, Q10, Q13, Q15, Q25, Q26). For example, model 3 presents rather satisfactory adjustment indices in relation to the recommendations made in the scientific literature [START_REF] Hooper | Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit[END_REF][START_REF] Hu | Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives[END_REF][START_REF] Kline | Principles and practice of structural equation modeling[END_REF]. Finally, a last model (model 4) was tested by adding a covariance link between the residual errors of items Q5 ("I am logical in my reasoning") and Q21 ("I am coherent") with r = 31, p <.01. This relationship could be explained by the fact that logic and coherence share a strong semantic proximity. This modification made it possible to improve quite substantially all the adjustment indices. According to the data presented in Table 3, it appeared that the critical mind was significantly correlated with the other two dimensions where average and positive links are observed. On the other hand, there was no link between benevolent communication and innovative and proactive thinking. Moreover, as for the first group, the internal consistency of each dimension was rather satisfactory.

For average scores between 1 and 5, the average observed for each factor remained relatively high. Similarly, the standard deviation was rather low, which suggests a high homogeneity of scores. In other words, the factors may have limits in terms of discriminating power. Indeed, the minimal theoretical values were not found within this sample.

Discussion

In the exploratory factor analysis, the eigenvalue graph indicated an optimal 4-factor solution. Such a structure was expected, to fit with the 4C framework. Initially, we were thinking of performing the confirmatory factor analysis only on a 4-factor solution model.

But using an exploratory factor analysis at this stage was a precaution to validate the hypothesis that the 4Cs fit into a 4-factor solution model. Indeed, despite the strong notoriety of the 4Cs framework, a step by step approach was chosen to challenge the main working hypothesis.

This precaution led to what seems to be one the most valuable findings of the thesis, as several strong inconsistencies in the results made it impossible to keep a 4-factor solution model. After removing 2 items, a 3-factor solution model showed a strong fit, which was totally unexpected, but proved the EFA useful and relevant. The confirmatory factor analysis validated the 3-factor solution model, which was coherent with the EFA, but still disturbing given the expectations of a 4-factor solution model.

Eventually, the perceived skills assessment questionnaire was structured into three factors (critical thinking, caring communication and innovative and proactive behaviors).

The analyses carried out showed a satisfactory factor structure and internal homogeneity.

Critical thinking was strongly correlated with the other two factors. We observed also significant weaknesses in the discriminating power of each dimension where a strong average was associated with a small standard deviation.

Additional analyses are needed to evaluate the criterion validity and temporal stability of each identified dimension so as to have more complete information on psychometric qualities [START_REF] Bernaud | Méthodes de tests et questionnaires en psychologie[END_REF]. More broadly, it is important to consider that the questionnaire simply provides a measure of a person's perception of their skills. An objective measure could introduce significant differences according to individual characteristics.

General Discussion

Reflexions and limitations

Even though the 4Cs seem to rally a growing consensus in the academic and economic communities, more studies need to be carried out to substantiate scientifically the fundamental role of the 4Cs in future socio-economic value creation. Indeed, there seems to be gaps and weaknesses. The structure identified in the thesis shows 3 factors for the 4Cs, which may question the relevance of the concept of 4Cs. Following the factor analysis, if critical thinking and innovative and proactive attitude seem to refer respectively to critical thinking and creativity, caring communication seems to englobe communication and some aspects of collaboration. The other aspects of collaboration seem encompassed with the factor related to innovative and proactive communication. It is to be considered that the 4Cs might actually be the 3Cs.

Indeed, when researching the literature, no evidence could be found on the protocol nor the analysis carried out to determine the structure of 4Cs. The 4Cs has become a buzz concept in the socioeconomic world, used by the World Economic Forum, OECD and several national or international institutions, and the validity of the concept needs to be relativized in accordance with its recent notoriety. It is probable that the behaviours and abilities expected for professional performance are present in the 4Cs, but the split in those 4 distinct Cs would need to be explained more carefully in the literature.

On another consideration, it is to be noted that this thesis was developed specifically in France, focusing on executives and managers. It is highly probable that this geographical and professional segment does not entirely reflect the job market, as considered by national and international institutions in their representations for general professional performance. Also, the studies were carried out using a relatively limited amount of data and were based on the perception of professionals. Both elements may have induced some biases in the analysis and the interpretation of results, and only show the need for further exploration on this topic, using more data and carrying out more studies.

But despite the limited scope and relative strength of the studies, the 3-factor model showed a strong homogeneity, whereas the 4-factor model proved less adequate. We believe this is an interesting sign that the commonly referred to 4C structure needs to be reassessed and clarified. Some other signs showed during the thesis. During the critical incidents interviews, at least half of the people seemed to struggle differentiating collaboration and communication in an obvious way. As a result, several items are shared between those. It seemed for people that both are so closely linked that they could hardly be different concepts.

Eventually, if the 4C structure is used as a general model to define the criteria for professional performance in population in general, this thesis may bring interesting complements at least for the specific population of executives and managers. The 21 st Century Skills frameworks are increasingly used to modify local, national and international policies on education, recruitment and workforce planning. They seem to gain momentum in the public opinion, and their increasing notoriety makes them now hardly challenged.

It is therefore critical that these frameworks actually deliver their promises, as more and more organisations are planning investments and structural modifications using them. As an example, schools and companies will develop specific trainings for 4Cs. If collaboration and communication were to be the same competency, inefficiencies at scale could represent huge amounts of money, as well as a massive waste of time in human capital development.

Recommendations

In order to develop a strong scientific opinion on the relevance of the concept of 4Cs, and their relationship to professional performance, more angles need to be covered on the topic, as the literature shows some blind spots. Here are some suggestions for further work related to understanding the relationships between 4Cs and professional performance:

1. Establish a clear and universal definition for each of the 4Cs. Currently, each of the 4Cs has several dozen recognised academic definitions. But in order to design stable and comparable assessments, it is important to know exactly what we measure. In addition, more precise definitions will offer a clear research and evaluation framework which will then enable the academic community to develop toolkits which can widen access to assessments of the 4Cs.

2.

Study the relationships between the 4Cs. We have already seen that each of the 4Cs plays a role in the development of its counterparts, to the point that we may argue they are interdependent. We must conduct a meta-analysis of studies that establish a direct link between academic and professional performance and each of the 4Cs as well as those which consider the possible interaction between the 4Cs (the relationship between creativity and critical thinking is a good example). Just as there is a G Factor for general intelligence, might we find a common factor running through each of the 4Cs.

3.

Define the notion of performance and its purpose. As explained earlier, the notion of performance is not yet a fully agreed concept. In the world of education, for instance, performance assessments vary considerably. In the professional world, performance evaluation often depends on the culture of the business or organisation, the economic context and other specific aspects. Indeed, performance itself depends on environmental characteristics. The purpose of driving performance standards up is based on the goal that humans can continue creating value as society changes. But, in the interest of ensuring we are not fighting the wrong battles and that we are considering social value as well as economic, we must engage in a redefinition of what constitutes good performance.

4.

Examine the relationship between the 4Cs and academic, then professional performance. There is no study proving that increasing an individual's level of competence in the 4Cs will enable him or her to enjoy greater academic and professional success or improve his or her capacity to handle professional transitions.

5.

Carry out studies based on actual performance ratings for each of 4Cs, and not only the perception of subjects or relatives. Indeed, the numerous biases implied with self-assessment seem to be an obstacle to a strong model for 4Cs.

6.

To build a strong model for 4Cs, there is also a need for more items, better defined each time, even if the work realized in the thesis through critical incidents proved to be already very extensive, with over 60 hours of one to one interviews, and as many hours of transcription.

Possible applications for Human Resources professionals

As seen above, in the context of job performance, this thesis gathers interesting elements from the literature, to support the idea of 4Cs playing a major role in performance. Also, through the three main studies carried out, some indications appeared that may prove useful for human resources professionals:

• Each of 4Cs is necessary at a certain level for performance;

• Whereas one factor seems to explain low performance, high performance needs to be explained with 2 factors a least;

• An empirical dimensional model was proposed for each of 4Cs, with specific items for each dimension, that could be used for job descriptions and training purposes.

• The 4Cs seem to fit with a 3-factor model, that could be used to create a psychometric tool for selection and assessment purposes.

General conclusion 6.1. Literature review

The literature review showed a need for more studies about the relationship between the 4Cs and professional performance. The composition of each of these skills does not seem to reach any consensus. Also, the role of each skill regarding professional performance does not seem clearly defined, as for the interrelations between each skill, and the effects of their joint actions. The thesis tried to give some insights regarding these elements.

Study 1

A first study was conducted to understand the perceived meaning of each of 4Cs, and their perceived role in executives and managers professional performance. For this study, we made the hypothesis that the 4Cs have a major role in professional performance, and another hypothesis that the 4Cs may have a joint impact. The critical incident method was used to collect data, according to standard protocol [START_REF] Flanagan | The critical incident technique[END_REF]. 71 respondents allowed to collect critical incidents relative to 94 executives or managers. All the respondents were executives or managers and had shared a significant professional experience with the subject they described, either as a colleague, a manager or a manage.

Each respondent described a particular professional situation where a subject seemed to outperform in a non-arguable way. They gave details to describe in which way they seemed to outperform, and what they did differently compared to other people. Then they had to rate the subject for the quality they showed for each of 4Cs, on a scale from 1 to 7.

The qualitative data were sorted, so that clear items remained for each of 4Cs, and the quantitative data were used to perform a necessary condition analysis (NCA), showing to which extent each of 4Cs is necessary (but not sufficient) to be considered a high performer.

Using NCA on the data collected, we could provide empirical evidence of the necessity for professional performance of creativity, critical thinking, communication and collaboration. Although they are not necessarily sufficient, NCA analysis shows interesting patterns on the necessity of the combined presence of the 4Cs. Further analysis is required to understand better relationships and interactions between each of 4Cs, and their respective role in professional performance.

Study 2

A second study was conducted to cluster the different items obtained through the critical incidents interviews. We made the hypothesis that each of 4Cs is composed of several dimensions, and we aimed at identifying the nature and the number of dimensions composing each of 4Cs. We asked 8 researchers in cognitive sciences (experts), and 8

executives and managers (non-experts), to cluster manually the items issued from the first study, for each of 4Cs.

Two distinct similarity analyses were performed on the answers (experts and nonexperts). We used a multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS) to perform the clustering for each set of similarity matrix and compared the coherence of results. Using the results from experts, we could determine the dimensions and their nature for each of 4Cs, as well as the strongest items for each dimension. Each of 4Cs had a 4 dimensional model, which resulted in 16 dimensions.

Study 3

A third study was conducted to test the validity of the dimensional model created through MDS. We hypothesized that self-assessment of the 4Cs was an interesting first step to test the validity. We created an online questionnaire using the two strongest items for each of 16 dimensions composing the 4Cs. Some complementary questions were added, to allow respondents to rate themselves on a more general way for creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration and general professional performance.

The questionnaire proposed positively turned items, such as 'I am able to solve problems'.

For each item, respondents had to rate themselves on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)

to 5 (strongly agree). The questionnaire was answered by 340 respondents qualifying as managers or executives, and the second questionnaire by 186 qualified respondents.

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were performed on the data collected, and we reached a 3-factor model: critical thinking, caring communication, innovative and proactive thinking.

In brief

From a general hypothesis that the 4Cs play a major role in professional performance for executives and managers, we reviewed the literature for each of 4Cs, and for potential studies related to their combinations. Then, we carried out successive studies, to get qualitative and quantitative data about the relationships between the 4Cs and professional performance, to create a 16-dimension model, and eventually a three-factor model explaining a general relationship between the 4Cs and professional performance.

QUESTIONNAIRE -TEMOIGNAGES (Méthodologie des incidents critiques)

Bonjour, je travaille sur les différences de performance en entreprise, à travers des témoignages croisés de managers. Après quelques questions générales, je vais vous demander de penser à 2 personnes particulièrement performantes et 2 personnes particulièrement peu performantes, soit actuellement en poste, soit des personnes avec qui vous avez collaboré au cours de vos expériences professionnelles. 1,00 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,88 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25

INFORMATIONS GENERALES

Ne pas proposer de solutions 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,25

Avoir des idées nouvelles 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,75 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,00 S'adapter au contexte 0,38 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50

Ne pas avoir d'idées 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,00 1,00 0,50 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00

Sortir des normes admises 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,50 1,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,00

Etre original mais pertinent 0,25 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,50 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00

Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,13

Résoudre des problèmes 0,88 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,38

Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38

Ne pas résoudre les problèmes 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,38 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,25 Mentir 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,38

Explorer de nouvelles pistes 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13

Etre sensible aux changements 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,88 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,13

Etre ouvert aux changements 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,88 1,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25

Avoir envie d'innover 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,25

Avoir des idées non pertinentes 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,75 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,75 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,00

Avoir des idées constructives 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,75 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00

Renoncer facilement 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,63

Prendre des initiatives 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,50

Ne pas renouveler ses idées 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,63 0,13

Ne pas être spontané 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,25

Copier les autres 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,00 1,00 0,38

Contourner les difficultés 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,38 1,00 Trouver des solutions 1,00 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,75

CREATIVITY NON-EXPERTS

Ne pas proposer de solutions 0,63 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,50

Avoir des idées nouvelles 0,38 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 S'adapter au contexte 0,38 0,13 0,13 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25

Ne pas avoir d'idées 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 Sortir des normes admises 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,38 1,00 0,75 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,75 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38

Etre original mais pertinent 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,75 1,00 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38

Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,00 Résoudre des problèmes 1,00 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,75

Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13

Ne pas résoudre les problèmes 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,50 Mentir 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,75 0,25 Explorer de nouvelles pistes 0,25 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25

Etre sensible aux changements 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25

Etre ouvert aux changements 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,63 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13

Avoir envie d'innover 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,38 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,25

Avoir des idées non pertinentes 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,13

Avoir des idées constructives 0,88 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,88 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,63 Renoncer facilement 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,25 Prendre des initiatives 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,63

Ne pas renouveler ses idées 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,13 0,00

Ne pas être spontané 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,50 0,38

Copier les autres 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,50 1,00 0,25 Contourner les difficultés 0,75 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,25 1,00

COMMUNICATION

Manquer de tact

Avoir des propos clairs 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,88 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,88 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,00 Etre bienveillant 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 1,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,88 0,63 0,13 0,63 Etre à l'écoute 0,00 0,63 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,50 0,75 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,75 1,00 0,50 0,75 Etre à l'aise 0,13 0,13 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13

Ne pas être à l'aise 0,13 0,13 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13

Ne pas être clair 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur 0,13 0,75 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,75 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,38 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,88 Etre pédagogue 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13

Communiquer avec un objectif 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,13 Mentir 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 Etre sympathique 0,13 0,75 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,75 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,63 0,38 0,00 0,50

Avoir des propos structurés 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00

Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur 0,13 0,75 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,75 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,38 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,88 Mettre à l'aise 0,13 0,75 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,75 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,38 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,88 Etre empathique 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 1,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,38 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,88 0,63 0,13 0,63

Ne pas être concis 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00

Ne pas être sympathique 0,13 0,75 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,75 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,38 0,88 0,00 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,63 0,38 0,00 0,50 Savoir convaincre 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,75 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13

Comprendre les attentes implicites 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,38

Ne pas être sociable 0,00 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,25 1,00 0,00 0,63 0,88 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,13 0,88 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,63 Savoir reformuler 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 Etre sincère 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 1,00 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,75 0,38 0,00 0,75 0,38 0,75 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38

Etre respectueux 0,00 0,75 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,38 0,75 0,38 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,75 Etre concis 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00

Ne pas être empathique 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 1,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,88 0,63 0,13 0,50

Ne pas être bienveillant 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,75 0,75 1,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,00 1,00 1,00 0,25 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,88 0,63 0,13 0,50

Ne pas répondre aux questions 0,25 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,38

Critiquer les autres 0,00 0,75 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,75 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,75 0,75 0,25 0,75 0,75 0,38 1,00 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,50 Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,13 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,50

Maitriser ses propos 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 Etre humble 0,00 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,25 0,88 0,00 0,75 0,75 0,13 0,63 0,63 0,38 0,75 0,50 0,13 1,00 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,63 Etre inspirant 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,00

Perdre son sang froid 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,13 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,50

Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,13 0,88 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,88 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,88 0,88 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,38 1,00 0,75 0,25 0,50

Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,00 0,63 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,63 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,75 1,00 0,50 0,75

Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 1,00 0,25 Manquer de tact 0,00 0,63 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,88 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,88 0,88 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,75 0,25 1,00

COMMUNICATION NON EXPERTS

Avoir Avoir des propos clairs 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 Etre bienveillant 0,00 1,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,88 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 Etre à l'écoute 0,13 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,75 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,00 Etre à l'aise 0,38 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25

Ne pas être à l'aise 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,75

Ne pas être clair 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,50 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,88 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 Etre pédagogue 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13

Communiquer avec un objectif 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 Mentir 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,75 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,25 0,88 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 Etre sympathique 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,38 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25

Avoir des propos structurés 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,88 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00

Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,25 Mettre à l'aise 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38

Etre empathique 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,38 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25

Ne pas être concis 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,75 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38

Ne pas être sympathique 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,88 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,25 0,88 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,38 Savoir convaincre 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13

Comprendre les attentes implicites 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,88 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,38 1,00 0,00 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,13

Ne pas être sociable 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,88 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,50 Savoir reformuler 0,63 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,00 Etre sincère 0,00 0,88 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,00 1,00 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 Etre respectueux 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,50 1,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 Etre concis 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,88 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,00 0,00 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,00

Ne pas être empathique 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,00 1,00 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,38

Ne pas être bienveillant 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 1,00 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,25

Ne pas répondre aux questions 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,38

Critiquer les autres 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,88 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,88 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,38 Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,00 0,50 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,25 1,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13

Maitriser ses propos 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 1,00 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 Etre humble 0,13 0,50 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,00 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 Etre inspirant 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 1,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13

Perdre son sang froid 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,63

Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 1,00 0,88 0,38 0,38

Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,88 1,00 0,50 0,13

Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,50 1,00 0,13 Manquer de tact 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,13 0,13 1,00 1,00 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,88 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,00 Etre individualiste 0,38 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,25

COLLABOPRATION

EXPERTS

Aider les autres à réussir 0,63 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,75 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,00 Savoir déléguer 0,25 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,75 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,38

Accepter les idées des autres 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,88 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,25

Ne pas faciliter le travail des autres 0,38 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,13 1,00 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,25

Ne pas être bienveillant 0,63 0,63 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,63 1,00 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,75 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,75 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,75 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,25

Ne pas s'impliquer dans les réunions 0,13 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,38

Chercher à se protéger 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,38 1,00 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,75 0,50 0,50 0,50 Etre optimiste 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,50 1,00 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,50 0,75 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38

Etre à l'écoute 0,50 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,88 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,75 0,63 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,13 S'intéresser au résultat 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 Savoir coordonner 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13 Mentir 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,75 0,25 0,38 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,25

Ne pas déléguer 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,75 Etre directif 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,13 1,00 0,50 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,00 Inspirer confiance 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,50 1,00 0,88 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,63 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,00 Etre disponible 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,88 1,00 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,75 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,13 0,00

Reconnaître ses erreurs et limites 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,75 Faire confiance 0,63 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,63 0,38 1,00 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,75 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 Savoir animer 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,75 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,63 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,13 0,13

Partager ses idées 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,63 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,25 Etre empathique 0,88 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,75 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,50 0,75 0,75 0,25 0,75 0,38 0,25 1,00 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,88 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,00

Accepter les erreurs 0,50 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,63 0,75 0,50 0,38 0,50 1,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38

Etre moteur 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,75 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25

Ne pas prendre d'initiatives 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,00 0,25 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 Etre autoritaire 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,50 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 1,00 0,75 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,63 0,50 0,63 0,38 0,25 Ne pas savoir s'affirmer 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,75 1,00 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,88 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,38

Ne pas accepter les idées des autres 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,50 0,38 1,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,75 0,63 0,38 S'adapter aux changements 0,25 0,00 0,25 0,38 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,63 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,38 1,00 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,75 0,38

Rendre heureux 0,75 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,13 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,75 0,75 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,88 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,25 1,00 0,50 0,63 0,25 0,75 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,13

Faciliter les discussions 0,38 0,25 0,63 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,63 0,75 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,50 1,00 0,63 0,13 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,00 Montrer l'exemple 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,63 1,00 0,13 0,38 0,63 0,13 0,00 0,13 Manquer de courage 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,88 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,13 1,00 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,38

Ne pas être empathique 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,13 0,13 0,50 0,75 0,38 0,75 0,25 0,38 0,25 0,00 0,63 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,38 0,00 0,13 0,63 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,63 0,38 0,50 0,00 0,75 0,25 0,38 0,38 1,00 0,75 0,63 0,25 0,38

Ne pas être exemplaire 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,63 0,50 0,75 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,00 0,50 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,75 1,00 0,50 0,25 0,38

Ne pas être patient 0,38 0,50 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,50 0,63 0,50 0,50 0,25 0,50 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,63 0,50 0,75 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,50 0,63 0,50 1,00 0,63 0,38

Ne pas s'adapter 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,13 0,50 0,25 0,25 0,50 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,38 0,13 0,13 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,13 0,50 0,38 0,38 0,63 0,75 0,00 0,13 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,63 1,00 0,63

Ne pas se remettre en question 0,00 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,38 0,50 0,38 0,13 0,25 0,13 0,25 0,75 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,75 0,13 0,13 0,25 0,00 0,38 0,25 0,50 0,25 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,13 0,00 0,13 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,38 0,63 1,00 0,500 0,500 0,455 5 5 Ne pas proposer de solutions -Avoir des idées constructives 0,500 0,500 0,438 5 5 Ne pas proposer de solutions -Contourner les difficultés 0,500 0,500 0,496 5 5 Avoir des idées nouvelles -Ne pas avoir d'idées 0,500 0,500 0,532 5 5 Avoir des idées nouvelles -Sortir des normes admises 0,500 0,500 0,497 5 5 Avoir des idées nouvelles -Résoudre des problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,631 5 5 S'adapter au contexte -Etre ouvert aux changements 0,500 0,500 0,514 5 5 Sortir des normes admises -Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles 0,500 0,500 0,563 5 5 Sortir des normes admises -Etre ouvert aux changements 0,500 0,500 0,478 5 5 Sortir des normes admises -Prendre des initiatives 0,500 0,500 0,516 5 5 Etre original mais pertinent -Résoudre des problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,608 5 5 Etre original mais pertinent -Etre ouvert aux changements 0,500 0,500 0,387 5 5 Etre original mais pertinent -Avoir des idées non pertinentes 0,500 0,500 0,679 5 5 Etre original mais pertinent -Prendre des initiatives 0,500 0,500 0,434 5 5 Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles -Ne pas renouveler ses idées 0,500 0,500 0,514 5 5 Résoudre des problèmes -Prendre des initiatives 0,500 0,500 0,438 5 5 Ne pas résoudre les problèmes -Avoir des idées constructives 0,500 0,500 0,504 5 5 Ne pas résoudre les problèmes -Ne pas renouveler ses idées 0,500 0,500 0,646 5 5 Ne pas résoudre les problèmes -Contourner les difficultés 0,500 0,500 0,478 5 5 Mentir -Renoncer facilement 0,500 0,500 0,413 5 5 Explorer de nouvelles pistes -Etre ouvert aux changements 0,500 0,500 0,573 5 5 Explorer de nouvelles pistes -Avoir des idées non pertinentes 0,500 0,500 0,466 5 5 Renoncer facilement -Copier les autres 0,500 0,500 0,422 5 5 Ne pas être spontané -Copier les autres 0,500 0,500 0,495 5 5 Trouver des solutions -Avoir des idées nouvelles 0,625 0,625 0,663

COOPERATION NON EXPERTS

Critical thinking -Experts

Tableau de comparaison : Paire Dissimilarité Disparité Distance Rang (Dissimilarité) Rang (Disparité) Rang (Distance) Anticiper -Ne pas anticiper 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort -Savoir se remettre en question 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort -Ne pas se remettre en question 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Savoir se remettre en question -Ne pas se remettre en question 0,000 0,000 0,000 0,500 0,500 0,506 5 5 Etre logique -Etre pragmatique 0,500 0,500 0,557 5 5 Etre logique -Ne pas faire de liens 0,500 0,500 0,462 5 5 Etre logique -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,490 5 5 Etre logique -Favoriser les idées sur la hiérarchie 0,500 0,500 0,480 5 5 Comprendre rapidement -Savoir modéliser 0,500 0,500 0,406 5 5 Etablir des liens -Ne pas avoir de vision globale 0,500 0,500 0,656 5 5 Etablir des liens -Savoir synthétiser 0,500 0,500 0,374 5 5 Etablir des liens -Savoir structurer les idées 0,500 0,500 0,455 5 5 Réfléchir vite -Anticiper 0,500 0,500 0,408 5 5 Réfléchir vite -Ne pas anticiper 0,500 0,500 0,408 5 5 Réfléchir vite -Ne pas prioriser 0,500 0,500 0,469 5 5 Réfléchir vite -Savoir modéliser 0,500 0,500 0,409 5 5 Réfléchir vite -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,408 5 5 Anticiper -Ne pas avoir de vision globale 0,500 0,500 0,441 5 5 Anticiper -Ne pas comprendre 0,500 0,500 0,562 5 5 Anticiper -Réfléchir lentement 0,500 0,500 0,444 5 5 Ne pas anticiper -Ne pas avoir de vision globale 0,500 0,500 0,441 5 5 Ne pas anticiper -Ne pas comprendre 0,500 0,500 0,562 5 5

Ne pas anticiper -Réfléchir lentement 0,500 0,500 0,444 5 5 Ne pas être réaliste -Ne pas être objectif 0,500 0,500 0,367 5 5 Ne pas être réaliste -Etre objectif 0,500 0,500 0,296 5 5 Faire des erreurs de raisonnement -Etre cohérent 0,500 0,500 0,406 5 5 Faire des erreurs de raisonnement -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,380 5 5 Etre pragmatique -Etre cohérent 0,500 0,500 0,522 5 5 Etre pragmatique -Savoir structurer les idées 0,500 0,500 0,522 5 5 Etre cohérent -Ne pas faire de liens 0,500 0,500 0,579 5 5 Etre cohérent -Favoriser les idées sur la hiérarchie 0,500 0,500 0,402 5 5 Ne pas avoir de vision globale -Tester des hypothèses 0,500 0,500 0,501 5 5 Ne pas avoir de vision globale -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,536 5 5 Savoir synthétiser -Avoir une vision globale 0,500 0,500 0,650 5 5 Savoir synthétiser -Assimiler les informations 0,500 0,500 0,564 5 5 Savoir synthétiser -Ne pas être objectif 0,500 0,500 0,553 5 5 Savoir synthétiser -Etre objectif 0,500 0,500 0,536 5 5 Ne pas comprendre -Savoir modéliser 0,500 0,500 0,448 5 5 Ne pas comprendre -Savoir chercher les informations 0,500 0,500 0,413 5 5 Ne pas comprendre -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,442 5 5 Avoir une vision globale -Ne pas prioriser 0,500 0,500 0,254 5 5 Tester des hypothèses -Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort 0,500 0,500 0,636 5 5 Tester des hypothèses -Savoir se remettre en question 0,500 0,500 0,636 5 5 Tester des hypothèses -Ne pas se remettre en question 0,500 0,500 0,636 5 5 Tester des hypothèses -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,388 5 5 Tester des hypothèses -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,386 5 5 Rejeter les idées non conventionnelles -Ne pas être curieux 0,500 0,500 0,495 5 5 Rejeter les idées non conventionnelles -Poser des questions 0,500 0,500 0,348 5 5 Ne pas prioriser -Réfléchir lentement 0,500 0,500 0,510 5 5 Ne pas prioriser -Ne pas découper les problèmes 0,500 0,500 0,461 5 5 Assimiler les informations -Comprendre les subtilités 0,500 0,500 0,541 5 5 Assimiler les informations -Ne pas être objectif 0,500 0,500 0,389 5 5 Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort -Poser des questions 0,500 0,500 0,519 5 5 Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,398 5 5 Savoir se remettre en question -Poser des questions 0,500 0,500 0,519 5 5 Savoir se remettre en question -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,398 5 5 Ne pas se remettre en question -Poser des questions 0,500 0,500 0,519 5 5 Ne pas se remettre en question -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,398 5 5 Ne pas être curieux -Savoir chercher les informations 0,500 0,500 0,519 5 5 Ne pas être curieux -Poser des questions 0,500 0,500 0,608 5 5 Comprendre les subtilités -Savoir chercher les informations 0,500 0,500 0,387 5 5 Savoir modéliser -Réfléchir lentement 0,500 0,500 0,397 5 5 Savoir modéliser -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,494 5 5 Savoir chercher les informations -Réfléchir lentement 0,500 0,500 0,490 5 5 Savoir chercher les informations -Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles 0,500 0,500 0,519 5 5 Etre logique -Ne pas comprendre 0,625 0,625 0,695

Communication -Experts

Tableau de comparaison : Paire Dissimilarité Disparité Distance Rang (Dissimilarité) Rang (Disparité) Rang (Distance) Etre bienveillant -Etre empathique 0,000 0,000 0,009 1 1 Etre bienveillant -Ne pas être empathique 0,000 0,000 0,012 1 1 Etre bienveillant -Ne pas être bienveillant 0,000 0,000 0,012 1 1 Etre à l'écoute -Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,000 0,000 0,031 1 1 Etre à l'aise -Ne pas être à l'aise 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Ne pas être clair -Avoir des propos structurés 0,000 0,000 0,028 1 1 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur -Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur -Mettre à l'aise 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Etre sympathique -Ne pas être sympathique 0,000 0,000 0,117 1 1 Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Mettre à l'aise 0,000 0,000 0,000 1 1 Etre empathique -Ne pas être empathique 0,000 0,000 0,017 1 1 Etre empathique -Ne pas être bienveillant 0,000 0,000 0,017 1 1 Ne pas être concis -Etre concis 0,000 0,000 0,008 1 1 Ne pas être empathique -Ne pas être bienveillant 0,000 0,000 0,000 Etre humble -Manquer de tact 0,375 0,375 0,430 4 4 Etre bienveillant -Etre sincère 0,500 0,500 0,516 5 5 Etre bienveillant -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,465 5 5 Etre à l'écoute -Critiquer les autres 0,500 0,500 0,480 5 5 Etre à l'écoute -Etre humble 0,500 0,500 0,508 5 5 Etre à l'écoute -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,500 0,500 0,645 5 5 Etre à l'aise -Etre sincère 0,500 0,500 0,446 5 5 Etre à l'aise -Etre inspirant 0,500 0,500 0,462 5 5 Etre à l'aise -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,570 5 5 Ne pas être à l'aise -Etre sincère 0,500 0,500 0,446 5 5 Ne pas être à l'aise -Etre inspirant 0,500 0,500 0,462 5 5 Ne pas être à l'aise -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,570 5 5 Ne pas être clair -Communiquer avec un objectif 0,500 0,500 0,526 5 5 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur -Comprendre les attentes implicites 0,500 0,500 0,539 5 5 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur -Ne pas être sociable 0,500 0,500 0,521 5 5 S'adapter à l'interlocuteur -Etre humble 0,500 0,500 0,472 5 5 Etre pédagogue -Etre inspirant 0,500 0,500 0,347 5 5 Communiquer avec un objectif -Ne pas être concis 0,500 0,500 0,540 5 5 Communiquer avec un objectif -Etre concis 0,500 0,500 0,536 5 5 Communiquer avec un objectif -Etre inspirant 0,500 0,500 0,570 5 5 Communiquer avec un objectif -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,500 0,500 0,583 5 5 Mentir -Savoir convaincre 0,500 0,500 0,527 5 5 Mentir -Etre sincère 0,500 0,500 0,516 5 5 Etre sympathique -Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,500 0,500 0,555 5 5 Etre sympathique -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,505 5 5 Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Comprendre les attentes implicites 0,500 0,500 0,539 5 5 Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Ne pas être sociable 0,500 0,500 0,521 5 5 Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Etre humble 0,500 0,500 0,472 5 5 Mettre à l'aise -Comprendre les attentes implicites 0,500 0,500 0,539 5 5 Mettre à l'aise -Ne pas être sociable 0,500 0,500 0,521 5 5 Mettre à l'aise -Etre humble 0,500 0,500 0,472 5 5 Etre empathique -Etre sincère 0,500 0,500 0,517 5 5 Etre empathique -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,467 5 5 Ne pas être sympathique -Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,500 0,500 0,552 5 5 Ne pas être sympathique -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,467 5 5 Ne pas être sociable -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,392 5 5 Ne pas être sociable -Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,500 0,500 0,460 5 5 Ne pas être sociable -Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,500 0,500 0,446 5 5 Savoir reformuler -Maitriser ses propos 0,500 0,500 0,434 5 5 Etre sincère -Etre respectueux 0,500 0,500 0,423 5 5 Etre sincère -Ne pas être empathique 0,500 0,500 0,518 5 5 Etre sincère -Ne pas être bienveillant 0,500 0,500 0,518 5 5 Ne pas être empathique -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,461 5 5 Ne pas être empathique -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,358 5 5 Ne pas être bienveillant -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,461 5 5 Ne pas être bienveillant -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,358 5 5 Critiquer les autres -Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,500 0,500 0,486 5 5 Critiquer les autres -Perdre son sang froid 0,500 0,500 0,374 5 5 Critiquer les autres -Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,500 0,500 0,471 5 5 Critiquer les autres -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,308 5 5 Laisser les autres s'exprimer -Etre humble 0,500 0,500 0,574 5 5 Laisser les autres s'exprimer -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,284 5 5 Etre humble -Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,500 0,500 0,439 5 5 Etre humble -Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,500 0,500 0,490 5 5 Perdre son sang froid -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,663 5 5 Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres -Manquer de tact 0,500 0,500 0,403 5 5

Ne pas être à l'écoute -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,500 0,500 0,656 Etre respectueux -Laisser les autres s'exprimer 0,625 0,625 0,461 6 6 Etre concis -Ne pas répondre aux questions 0,625 0,625 0,672 6 6 Etre concis -Etre inspirant 0,625 0,625 0,681 6 6 Etre concis -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,625 0,625 0,575 6 6 Ne pas répondre aux questions -Critiquer les autres 0,625 0,625 0,676 6 6 Ne pas répondre aux questions -Maitriser ses propos 0,625 0,625 0,674 6 6 Ne pas répondre aux questions -Etre humble 0,625 0,625 0,699 6 6 Ne pas répondre aux questions -Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,625 0,625 0,594 6 6 Ne pas répondre aux questions -Manquer de tact 0,625 0,625 0,580 6 6 Maitriser ses propos -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0,625 0,625 0,617 6 6 Perdre son sang froid -Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres 0,625 0,625 0,569 6 6 Perdre son sang froid -Ne pas être à l'écoute 0,625 0,625 0,721 6 6 Avoir des propos clairs -Ne pas répondre aux questions 0,750 0,750 0,703 7 7 Etre bienveillant -Ne pas répondre aux questions 0,750 0,750 0,678 7 7 Etre à l'écoute -Etre sincère 0,750 0,750 0,726 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Ne pas être clair 0,750 0,750 0,742 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Etre sympathique 0,750 0,750 0,740 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Avoir des propos structurés 0,750 0,750 0,757 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Ne pas être concis 0,750 0,750 0,692 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Ne pas être sympathique 0,750 0,750 0,724 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Ne pas être sociable 0,750 0,750 0,786 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Savoir reformuler 0,750 0,750 0,858 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Etre concis 0,750 0,750 0,694 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Critiquer les autres 0,750 0,750 0,662 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Maitriser ses propos 0,750 0,750 0,787 7 7 Etre à l'aise -Etre humble 0,750 0,750 0,681 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Ne pas être clair 0,750 0,750 0,742 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Etre sympathique 0,750 0,750 0,740 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Avoir des propos structurés 0,750 0,750 0,757 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Ne pas être concis 0,750 0,750 0,692 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Ne pas être sympathique 0,750 0,750 0,724 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Ne pas être sociable 0,750 0,750 0,786 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Savoir reformuler 0,750 0,750 0,858 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Etre concis 0,750 0,750 0,694 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Critiquer les autres 0,750 0,750 0,662 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Maitriser ses propos 0,750 0,750 0,787 7 7 Ne pas être à l'aise -Etre humble 0,750 0,750

Table of illustrations

Table of Tables

Table of Figures

GRAPH 1 -

 1 ECONOMY-WIDE MEASURES OF ROUTINE AND NON-ROUTINE TASK INPUT IN THEUSABETWEEN 1960 AND 2002[START_REF] Levy | The new division of labor: how computers are creating the next job market[END_REF]

Figure 1 -(

 1 Figure 1 -P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning (P21, 2019)

  complex jobs: software design or new product research and development. The responses were collected from 367 employees and their direct supervisors (48% from software design, 52% from strategic and marketing division). The measurement consisted of several questionnaires: one scale for creative process engagement (self-report regarding problem identification, information search, idea generation), overall job performance (scale completed by supervisors), work experience (years of working of in the field) and creative performance (scale completed by supervisors). Variables such as gender, occupation, level of intrinsic motivation and level of the openness to experience were used as control variables.

  investigated the relations between the caring behavior and critical thinking dispositions of practicing student nurses. 777 students in nursing completed a Chinese version of the critical thinking disposition inventory (conceptually equivalent to CCTDI,[START_REF] Facione | The California critical thinking disposition inventory, CCTDI scoring supplement[END_REF], an index of learning styles and a caring behavior scale (3 subscales regarding professional care practice: helping the patient through illness trajectories, knowing the patient, and patient advocacy). The authors found that critical thinking dispositions in their sample were lower than those observed in other cultures. They explained this result by the fact that Asian culture is more oriented toward control than others. In addition, a significant and positive relationship between overall thinking dispositions and caring behavior (r = .23) was observed. The students who reported more caring behavior are also the ones presenting more dispositions to critical thinking.In other work, Kuncel, Rose, Ejiogu and Yang (2014) examined workers from several domains using the Watson-Glaser scale with 5 subscales (inference, recognition of assumptions, deduction, interpretation and evaluation of arguments), as well as a numerical reasoning measure (Advanced Numerical Reasoning Appraisal;[START_REF] Rust | Advanced Numerical Reasoning Appraisal manual[END_REF], a self-report measure of the socio-economic status, and a job performance questionnaire (26 items on a Likert scale). The aim of this study was to examine the relation between socio-economic status and work performance over career development. The results regarding critical thinking (as an indicator of cognitive ability) show a positive correlation with average performance (r= .38) and with a measure of overall performance (r= .26).

GRAPH 9 -

 9 NCA PLOT: COLLABORATION -PERFORMANCE.According to NCA graphical representation, using the step function in red to visualize the ceiling line, a score of 3 out of 7 in Collaboration (Cooperation) is a necessary but not sufficient condition in order to highly perform as an executive. The scatter plots show that according to the expectation the empty space for Collaboration (H5) is in the upper left corner. With a deterministic view on necessity, the necessary condition hypothesis H5 is supported.

  GRAPH 10 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CREATIVITY -EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by experts for Creativity, as shown in the Shepard Diagram. GRAPH 11 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CREATIVITY -EXPERTS

Dimension 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o

 1234 S'adapter au contexte -Adapt to context (-0.447) o Résoudre les problèmes -Solve problems (-0.447) o Trouver des solutions -Find solutions (-0.438) o Etre ouvert aux changements -Be open to changes (0.383) o Avoir envie d'innover -Be motivated to innovate (0.451) o Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles -Not accept new ideas (0.498) • Dimension Contourner les difficultés -Avoid difficulties (-0.509) o Renoncer facilement (-0.422) à Ne pas renoncer facilement -Not resign easily (0.422) o Ne pas être spontané (-0.372) à Etre spontané -Be spontaneous (0.372) o Sortir des normes admises -Stand out of conventions (0.415) o Etre original mais pertinent -Be original and still relevant (0.509) o Avoir des idées nouvelles -Have new ideas (0.549) • Dimension Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat -Not be interested by results (-0.462) o Etre sensible au changement -Be sensitive to changes (-0.349) o Ne pas être spontané -Not be spontaneous (-0.249) o Prendre des initiatives -Take initiatives (0.306) o Ne pas renouveler ses idées -Not renew ideas (0.314) o Copier les autres -Copy others (0.443) • Dimension Ne pas résoudre les problèmes -Not solve problems (-0.459) o Ne pas proposer de solutions -Not propose solutions (-0.427) o Avoir des idées non pertinentes -Have irrelevant ideas (-0.399) o Etre ouvert aux changements -Be open to changes (0.364) o Mentir -Lie (0.370) o Etre sensible aux changements -Be sensitive to changes (0.419)

Dimension 1 oo 4 o

 14 Ne pas proposer de solutions -Not propose solutions (-0.514) o Mentir -Lie (-0.347) o Copier les autres -Copy others (-0.336) o Etre ouvert aux changements -Be open to changes (0.323) o Avoir envie d'innover -Be motivated to innovate (0.384) o Sortir des normes admises -Stand out of conventions (0.436) • Dimension 2 o S'adapter au contexte -Adapt to context (-0.448) o Etre original mais pertinent -Be original and still relevant (-0.297) o Avoir des idées constructives -Have constructive ideas (-0.292) o Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles -Not accept new ideas (0.377) o Ne pas avoir d'idées -Not have new ideas (0.459) o Ne pas renouveler ses idées -Not renew ideas (0.493) • Dimension 3 Etre sensible aux changements -Be sensitive to changes (-0.461) o Mentir -Lie (-0.448) o Ne pas être spontané -Not be spontaneous (-0.400) o Résoudre les problèmes -Solve problems (0.282) o Ne pas résoudre les problèmes -Not solve problems (0.331) o Avoir des idées nouvelles -Have new ideas (0.412) • Dimension Prendre des initiatives -Take initiatives (-0.413) o Contourner les difficultés -Avoid difficulties (-0.383) o Ne pas être spontané -Not be spontaneous (-0.323) o Explorer de nouvelles pistes -Explore new leads (0.307) o Avoir des idées non pertinentes -Have irrelevant ideas (0.431) o Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat -Not be interested by results (0stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.108).GRAPH 14 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING -EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by experts for Critical Thinking, as shown in the Shepard Diagram.

  GRAPH 15 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL THINKING -EXPERTS

Dimension 1 ooo• 4 -o

 14 Ne pas prioriser -Not prioritize (-0.459) o Ne pas avoir de vision globale -Not have global vision (-0.417) o Avoir une vision globale -Have a global vision (-0.400) o Assimiler les informations-Assimilate information (0.414) o Ne pas être objectif -Not be objective (0.507) o Etre objectif -Be objective (0.521) Favoriser les idées sur la hiérarchie -Prefer ideas over hierarchy (-0.500) o Faire des erreurs de raisonnement -Make reasoning mistakes (-0.471) o Etre cohérent -Be coherent (-0.437) o Anticiper -Anticipate (0.417) o Ne pas anticiper -Not anticipate (0.417) o Ne pas adapter son analyse au contexte -Not adapt analysis to context Ne pas être réaliste -Not be realistic (-0.446) o Poser des questions -Ask questions (-0.413) o Porter des jugements -Make judgments (-0.408) o Ne pas comprendre -Not understand (0.420) o Comprendre rapidement -Understand rapidly (0.436) o Comprendre les subtilités -Understand subtilities (0.441) Dimension Savoir synthétiser -Be able to synthetize (-0.467) o Etablir des liens -Establish links (-0.370) o Etre pragmatique -Be pragmatic (-0.434) o Ne pas être curieux -Not be curious (0.502) o Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles -Not use available resources (0.518) o Rejeter les idées non conventionnelles -Reject non conventional ideas (0.536) 3.2.1.4. MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Critical Thinking -Non Experts A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.134). GRAPH 16 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING -NON EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by non-experts for Critical Thinking, as shown in the Shepard Diagram. GRAPH 17 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL THINKING -NON-EXPERTS

Dimension 1 o 2 o 3 oo 4 o

 1234 Réfléchir vite -Think fast (0.499) o Etre cohérent -Be coherent (-0.492) o Ne pas être objectif -Not be objective (-0.444) o Tester des hypothèses -Test hyptohesis (-0.418) o Réfléchir lentement -Think slowly (0.423) o Ne pas comprendre -Not understand (0.455) • Dimension Ne pas prioriser -Not prioritize (-0.555) o Ne pas être réaliste -Not be realistic (-0.469) o Ne pas anticiper -Not anticipate (-0.459) o Assimiler les informations -Assimilate information (0.380) o Poser des questions -Ask questions (0.409) o Savoir chercher les informations -Be able to search information (0.486) • Dimension Ne pas se remettre en question -Do not self-reflect (-0.551) o Porter des jugements -Make judgments (-0.510) o Ne pas adapter son analyse au contexte -Not adapt analysis to context (Etablir des liens -Establish links (0.420) o Savoir structurer les idées -Be able to structure ideas (0.435) o Savoir synthétiser -Be able to synthetize (0.463) • Dimension Avoir une vision globale -Have a global vision (-0.545) o Etre objectif -Be objective(-0.450) o Rejeter les idées non conventionnelles -Reject not conventional ideas (-0.399) o Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles -Not use available resources (0.388) o Ne pas découper les problèmes -Not segment problems (0.458) o Ne pas faire de liens -Not make links (0.484) 3.2.1.5. MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Communication -Experts A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.080). A three-dimensional solution could have been accepted, but considering the strong decrease of stress level from two to three dimensions, and the relatively low number of iterations, a four-dimensional solution was considered as more realistic. Also, the Shepard Diagram for a three-dimensional solution showed less homogeneity as the four-dimensional solution. GRAPH 18 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION -EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by experts for Communication, as shown in the Shepard Diagram. GRAPH 19 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR COMMUNICATION -EXPERTS

Dimension 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o

 1234 Etre sympathique -Be sympathetic(-0.415) o Ne pas être symathique -Not be symathetic(-0.393) o Mettre à l'aise -Put at ease (-0.359) o Avoir des propos structurés -Have structured meaning (0.569) o Etre concis -Be concise (0.567) o Ne pas être concis -Not be concise (0.570) • Dimension Etre pédagogue -Have a pedagogic approach(-0.340) o Manquer de tact -Lack some delicacy (-0.293) o Ne pas être à l'écoute -Not listen (-0.270) o Ne pas être clair -Not be clear (0.286) o Avoir des propos structurés -Have structured meaning (0.295) o Avoir des propos clairs -Make clear sentences (0.379) • Dimension Etre à l'aise -Put at ease (-0.520) o Ne pas être à l'aise -Not put at ease (-0.520) o Mentir -Lie (-0.493) o Ne pas répondre aux questions -Not answer questions (0.293) o Laisser les autres s'exprimer -Let other express themselves (0.343) o Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres -Not understand others (0.417) • Dimension Savoir convaincre -Be able to convince (-0.600) o Communiquer avec un objectif -Communicate with a goal (-0.501) o Etre inspirant -Be inspiring (-0.480) o Ne pas être sociable -Not be sociable (0.321) o Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres -Not be interested in others (0.282) o Etre respectueux -Be respectful (0.281) 3.2.1.6.MDS analysis of similarity matrix forCommunication -Non ExpertsA plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.114).

  GRAPH 20 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION -NON-EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by non-experts for Communication, as shown in the Shepard Diagram.GRAPH 21 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CREATIVITY -NON-EXPERTS

o 2 o 3 o 4 o

 234 364) Communiquer avec un objectif -Communicate with a goal (0.314) o Etre concis -Be concise (0.338) o Ne pas comprendre les propos de l'autre -Not understand others (0.512) • Dimension Ne pas être concis -Not be concise (-0.509) o Ne pas être clair -Not be clear (-0.454) o Etre à l'aise -Be at ease (-0.421) o Etre à l'écoute -Listen (0.439) o Etre sincère -Be sincere (0.453) o Etre humble -Be humble (0.523) • Dimension Etre inspirant -Be inspiring (-0.475) o Maitriser ses propos -Master your meaning (-0.414) o Etre pédagogue -Have a pedagogic approach (-0.395) o Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres -Not be interested in others (0.436) o Ne pas être à l'écoute -Not listen (0.454) o Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Not adapt to others (0.558) • Dimension Mentir -Lie (-0.504) o Critiquer les autres -Understand others (-0.490) o Ne pas être sympathique -Not be sympathetic (-0.489) o Avoir des propos clairs -Make clear sentences (0.380) o Savoir convaincre -Be able to convince (0.397) o Savoir reformuler -Be able to reformulate (0.424) 3.2.1.7. MDS analysis of similarity matrix for Collaboration -Experts A plot of stress x dimensionality showed an elbow at four dimensions, and the fourdimensional solution provided a reasonable and interpretable fit to the data (stress = 0.132). GRAPH 22 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATION -EXPERTS The MDS analysis for a four-dimensional solution reveals a strong homogeneity in the clusters proposed by experts for Collaboration, as shown in the Shepard Diagram.

FOR

ooo• 4 -o

 4 Reconnaitre ses erreurs et limites -Acknowledge your limits and mistakes (-0.487) o Savoir déléguer -Be able to delegate (-0.480) o Ne pas se remettre en question -Not self-reflect (-0.395) o Ne pas être exemplaire -Not be exemplary (0.314) o Ne pas être empathique -Not be empathetic (0.361) o Ne pas être bienveillant -Not care (0.379) Aider les autres à réussir -Help others to succeed (-0.429) o Faciliter les discussions -Facilitate discussions (-0.418) o Etre directif -Be directive (-0.398) o Ne pas s'impliquer dans les réunions -Not get involved in meetings (0.447) o Manquer de courage -Lack courage (0.466) o Ne pas prendre d'initiatives -Not take initiatives (0.487) Ne pas s'adapter -Not adapt (-0.377) o Ne pas accepter les idées des autres -Not accept ideas of others (-0.363) o Etre à l'écoute -Listen (-0.328) o Savoir animer -Be able to animate (0.272) o Savoir coordonner -Be able to coordinate (0.319) o Etre individualiste -Be individualist (0.377) Dimension Ne pas faciliter le travail des autres -Not facilitate the work of others (-0.435) o Ne pas accepter les idées des autres -Not accept ideas of others (-0.329) o Mentir -Lie (-0.323) o Montrer l'exemple -Show the example (0.422) o S'intéresser au résultat -Be interested by results (0.438) o Etre moteur -Lead (0.459) 3.2.1.8.

GRAPH 25 -

 25 SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR COLLABORATION -NON-EXPERTS

Dimension 1 ooo

 1 Accepter les erreurs -Accept mistakes (-0.467) o Reconnaitre ses erreurs et limites -Acknowledge your limits and mistakes (-0.453) o Faire confiance -Trust (-0.449) o Ne pas déléguer -Not be able to delegate (0.402) o Ne pas s'impliquer dans les réunions -Not get involved in meetings (0.422) o Ne pas faciliter le travail des autres -Not facilitate the work of others Chercher à se protéger -Try to protect yourself (-0.554) o Etre individualiste -Be individualist (-0.474) o Ne pas déléguer -Not be able to delegate (-0.389) o Montrer l'exemple -Show the example (458) o Etre moteur -Lead (0.481) o Ne pas prendre d'initiatives -Not take initiatives (0.553) Ne pas être bienveillant -Not care (-0.454)o Ne pas être patient -Not be patient(-0.436)

Dimension 1 oo 4 oooo 4 oooo 4 oo 4 o

 14444 Être sensible aux changements -Be sensitive to changes (0.300) o Être ouvert aux changements -Be open to changes (0.383) o Avoir envie d'innover -Be motivated to innovate (0.451) • Dimension 2 Avoir des idées nouvelles -Have new ideas (0.549) o Sortir des normes admises -Stand out of conventions (0.415) o Être original mais pertinent -Be original and still relevant (0.509) o Avoir des idées constructives -Have constructive ideas (0.428) o Explorer de nouvelles pistes -Explore new leads (0.333) o Ne pas renoncer facilement -Do not give up easily (0.422) • Dimension 3 o S'intéresser aux résultats -Be interested by results (0.462) o Prendre des initiatives -Take initiatives (0.306) • Dimension Proposer des solutions -Propose solutions (0.427) o Résoudre les problèmes -Solve problems (0.459) o Avoir des idées pertinentes -Have relevant ideas (0.399) Être pragmatique -Be pragmatic (0.381) o Prioriser -Prioritize (0.459) o Assimiler les informations -Assimilate information (0.414) • Dimension 2 Être logique -Be logical (0.421) o Anticiper -Anticipate (0.417) o Etre cohérent -Be coherent (0.437) o Adapter son analyse au contexte -Adapt analysis to context (0.506) o Favoriser les idées sur la hiérarchie -Prefer ideas over hierarchy (0.500) Note: when taking the highest values on this dimension, the items did not show any coherence between them. The mathematical polarity was inverted, which showed more coherence in the strongest items selected to represent this dimension. • Dimension 3 Comprendre rapidement -Undersrtand quickly (0.436) o Réfléchir vite -Think fast (0.351) o Comprendre les subtilités -Undesrtand subtilities (0.441) o Ne pas porter de jugements -Do not judge (0.408) o Savoir modéliser -Be able to conceptualize (0.361) • Dimension Tester des hypothèses -Test hypothesis (0.344) o Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort -Be able to get out of comfort zone (0.345) o Savoir se remettre en question -Be able to self reflect (0.345) COMMUNICATION (from experts MDS solution spaces): • Dimension 1 Avoir des propos clairs -Have clear words (0.463) o Avoir des propos structurés -Have structured words (0.569) o Savoir reformuler -Be able to reformulate (0.521) o Etre concis -Be concise (0.567) o Maîtriser ses propos -Master his words (0.547) • Dimension 2 Répondre aux questions -Answer questions (0.251) o Être à l'écoute -Listen to others (0.270) o Avoir du tact -Have some tact (0.293) • Dimension 3 Ne pas mentir -Not lie (0.493) o Laisser les autres s'exprimer -Let others express themselves (0.343) o Ne pas perdre son sang froid -Not lose his temper (0.320) • Dimension Être bienveillant -Be kind to others (0.188) o Être empathique -Be empathetic (0.191) o Être respectueux -Be respectful (0.281) o Être humble -Be humble (0.234) Etre bienveillant -Be kind to others (0.282) o Déléguer -Delegate (0.347) o Etre empathique -Be empathetic (0.298) o Se remettre en question -Be able to self-reflect (-0.395) • Dimension 2 o S'impliquer dans les reunions -Get involved in meetings (0.447) o Prendre des initiatives -Take initiatives (0.487) o Savoir s'affirmer -Be able to affirm one self (0.436) o Avoir du courage -Have courage (0.466) Note: only 1 value was significantly positive on this dimension. The mathematical polarity was inverted, which showed more coherence in the strongest items selected to represent this dimension. • Dimension 3 o S'adapter -Adapt (0.363) o Accepter les idées des autres -Accept ideas of others (0.377) • Dimension Être optimiste -Be optimistic (0.397) o S'intéresser au résultat -Be interested by results (0.438) o Partager ses idées -Share ideas (0.375) o Être moteur -Drive (0.459)

4 4

 4 Avoir des propos clairs -Etre à l'aise 0s'adapter à son interlocuteur -Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres 0clairs -Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur 0

  le travail des autres -Ne pas s'impliquer dans les réunions 0

  s'impliquer dans les réunions -Ne pas prendre d'initiatives 0s'impliquer dans les réunions -Ne pas se remettre en question 0

  p ci ion don o aime ie fai e pa ? Si o i, c'e le momen !

  CREATIVITY -NON EXPERTS ................................................................... GRAPH 13 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CREATIVITY -NON EXPERTS ........................................................................................... GRAPH 14 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING -EXPERTS ............................................................... GRAPH 15 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL THINKING -EXPERTS ....................................................................................... GRAPH 16 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CRITICAL THINKING -NON EXPERTS ....................................................... GRAPH 17 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CRITICAL THINKING -NON-EXPERTS .............................................................................. GRAPH 18 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION -EXPERTS ................................................................... GRAPH 19 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR COMMUNICATION -EXPERTS ........................................................................................... GRAPH 20 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COMMUNICATION -NON-EXPERTS .......................................................... GRAPH 21 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CREATIVITY -NON-EXPERTS .......................................................................................... GRAPH 22 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATION -EXPERTS .................................................................... GRAPH 23 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR COLLABORATION -EXPERTS ........................................................................................... GRAPH 24 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATION -NON-EXPERTS ........................................................... GRAPH 25 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR COLLABORATION -NON-EXPERTS ...................................................................................

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1 -P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning (P21, 2019) ......................................... Figure 2 -Graphical representation of the final model ..........................................................

Table 4 -

 4 Means, minimum and maximum scores, standard deviations of 4Cs for high performing subjects (49 observations).

	When comparing homogeneity of variances for each of 4Cs based on high performance or
	low performance, we used a Levene's test for equality of variances, and we found no
	significative difference between high performance and low performance for creativity
	(F=0.173; p=0.679), critical thinking (F=1.469; p=0.229) and collaboration (F=3.151;
	p=0.079). We found a significant difference for communication (F=9.587; p=0.003),

Table 9 -

 9 Table showing the saturation for the 2 factors for each of 4Cs for the complete sample

Table 10 -

 10 Table showing the saturation for the main factor for each of 4Cs for

	the sample of low performers

Table 11 -

 11 Table showing the saturation for the 2 factors for each of 4Cs for the sample of high performers

Table 12 -

 12 Comparison of ratings on the 4 Cs for high and low performance groups

Table 13 -

 13 Table of parameters used for NCA

Table 14 -

 14 Description of experts solicited for manual items clustering

	Gender	Expertise	Years of experience	h index
	Female	PhD Linguistics	>10	NC
	Female	PhD Psychology	>10	14.65
	Female	PhD Psychology	>20	18.39
	Male	PhD Psychology	>20	35.09
	Female	PhD Psychology	<10	1.94
	Male	PhD Psychology	>10	9.34

Seven experts are researchers affiliated with public research laboratories in psychology, with a tracked h index from Research Gate.

  The average answer is 4.06. The standard deviation of these means is 0.29. The answers are quite homogeneous between items. The lowest rankings were gaven for these items (respondents quite disagreed):

	•	'Je suis concis lorsque je m'exprime' -I am concise when I express myself (3.55) ;
	•	'Je sais m'affirmer' -I can affirm myself (3.70) ;
	•	'J'ai du tact avec les autres' -I have tact with others (3.62) ;
	•	'Je suis original mais pertinent' -I am original and still relevant (3.48) ;
	•	'Je suis patient' -I am patient (3.15).
	The highest rankings were gaven for these items (respondents quite agreed):

• 'Je suis bienveillant envers les autres' -I am kind to others (4.34) ; • 'Je suis à l'écoute des autres' -I am listening to others (4.21) ; • 'Je m'intéresse au résultat à atteindre' -I am interested in the result (4.41) ; • 'Je peux assimiler les informations' -I can assimilate the information (4.34) ; • 'Je suis respectueux des autres' -I am respectful of others (4.45).

Table 17 -

 17 Descriptive statistics for answers to the 32 items of the questionnaire

	Variable	Observations	Min	Max	Mean	Standard Deviation
	Je suis ouvert.e aux changements	340	2,00	5,00	4,26	0,72
	Je suis pragmatique dans mes raisonnements	340	1,00	5,00	4,18	0,74
	Je suis concis.e lorsque je m'exprime	340	1,00	5,00	3,55	0,98
	Je suis bienveillant.e avec les autres	340	2,00	5,00	4,34	0,72
	Je suis logique dans mes raisonnements	340	1,00	5,00	4,15	0,72
	Je suis à l'écoute des autres	340	2,00	5,00	4,31	0,70
	Je sais m'affirmer	340	1,00	5,00	3,70	0,92
	J'ai des idées nouvelles	340	1,00	5,00	3,93	0,87
	Je laisse les autres s'exprimer	340	2,00	5,00	4,08	0,74
	Je peux accepter les idées des autres	340	2,00	5,00	4,17	0,71
	Je m'intéresse au résultat à atteindre	340	1,00	5,00	4,41	0,69
	Je comprends rapidement les situations et les problèmes	340	2,00	5,00	4,27	0,72
	Je suis optimiste	340	1,00	5,00	4,05	0,94
	Je propose des solutions	340	2,00	5,00	4,27	0,63
	Je teste des hypothèses	340	1,00	5,00	3,89	0,85
	Je suis humble	340	1,00	5,00	3,95	0,85
	J'ai envie d'innover	340	1,00	5,00	4,20	0,84
	Je peux assimiler les informations	340	3,00	5,00	4,34	0,64
	Je sais reformuler	340	2,00	5,00	4,22	0,72
	Je suis empathique	340	1,00	5,00	4,28	0,83
	Je suis cohérent.e lorsque je raisonne	340	2,00	5,00	4,09	0,71
	J'ai du tact avec les autres	340	1,00	5,00	3,62	0,95
	J'ai du courage face aux problèmes	340	1,00	5,00	3,99	0,85
	Je suis original.e mais pertinent.e	340	1,00	5,00	3,48	0,99
	Je ne mens pas	340	1,00	5,00	4,10	0,88
	Je suis patient.e	340	1,00	5,00	3,15	1,13
	Je prends des initiatives	340	2,00	5,00	4,11	0,73
	Je comprends les subtilités	340	1,00	5,00	4,02	0,79
	Je suis moteur lors de travaux en groupe	340	1,00	5,00	3,99	0,86
	Je peux résoudre les problèmes	340	2,00	5,00	4,19	0,65
	Je sais me remettre en question	340	2,00	5,00	4,11	0,76
	Je suis respectueux .se des autres	340	2,00	5,00	4,45	0,62

  by randomly dividing the sample into two distinct groups to successively conduct exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory analysis (CFA). Thus, each group consisted of 170 persons with a similar

	distribution in terms of age [χ² (4) = 1.98, p = .74] and sex [χ² (1) = .20, p = .65].
	The score distribution for each item was examined from mean, standard deviation,
	kurtosis, skewness, and normality test (see Kolmogorov-Smirnov test with Lilliefors
	correction). All these indices converged towards a strong asymmetric left which means

•

  Q30 due to high saturation on two factors(between .36 and .40). of the variance. The variance of the items varied from .40 to 81 with a median value of .67.

	The structure chosen for the EFA thus consists of 30 items.
	F1 As can be seen in the table, 1, factor 1 consisted of 12 items with factorial saturations F2 F3 Valeur propre
	Q12 between .40 and .64 (mdn = .46), factor 2 consisted of 11 items with factorial saturations .64 -.11 .09 .57
	Q21 included between .40 and .74 (mdn = .54) and factor 3 consisted of 7 items with factorial .63 -.03 .12 .55
	Q2 Q3 saturations between .41 and .81 (mdn = .60). The first factor referred more to critical .61 -.02 -.15 .67 .53 -.04 -.08 .74
	Q11 thinking by including different aspects of information processing. The second factor .51 .14 -.08 .72
	Q18 Q25 referred more to the benevolent communication mobilizing notions of empathy, of taking .46 -.03 .17 .72 .46 .14 -.12 .77
	Q5	.44	-.07	.14	.76
	Q23	.42	.13	.27	.63
	Q19	.41	.02	.06	.81
	Q28	.41	.11	.16	.72
	Q15	.40	.21	.19	.67
	Q6	-.15	.74	.03	.46
	Q9	.09	.70	-.17	.50
	Q4	-.17	.6	.11	.62
	Q32	.03	.58	.13	.61
	Q31	.03	.54	.17	.63
	Q22	.02	.54	.12	.67
	Q20	.01	.53	.01	.71
	Q10	.16	.51	-.10	.71
	Q16	.07	.50	-.06	.74
	Q26	.12	.44	-.21	.78
	Q13	.05	.40	.10	.80
	Q8	-.07	-.01	.80	.40
	Q29	-.07	-.02	.64	.62
	Q27	.17	-.01	.62	.53
	Q24	.14	-.03	.60	.57
	Q17	-.01	.04	.59	.65
	Q14	.13	.16	.54	.57
	Q7	.25	.12	.41	.67
		Table 18 -Factorial saturations of items (n = 170)

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) index was .79 and the Bartlett sphericity test was significant at the minimum threshold p <.05 [χ² (435) = 1878.08, p <.01]. These results suggested good item factoriability

[START_REF] Pett | Making sense of factor analysis[END_REF]

. This three-factor solution explained 35% into account of one's interlocutor and posture facilitating the expression of others. Finally, the third factor referred more to innovative and proactive behaviors through an active commitment to developing solutions to different identified problems.

The homogeneity of each factor was quite satisfactory with Cronbach α internal consistency coefficients of .82, .83 and .82, and McDonalds' consistency coefficients Ω of .85, .86 and .89 respectively for factors 1, 2 and 3

Table 20 -

 20 Correlations between factors and descriptive data (n = 170)

1b Votre âge 1c Votre langue natale 1d Votre principal pays de résidence : 1e Votre principale ville de résidence : 1f Etes-vous une femme ou un homme : 2 SOUVENIR COLLABORATEUR PERFORMANT Appendix III -Items from critical incidents used for clustering by experts and non-experts

	Avoir des propos clairs		14	9%	Etre bienveillant	18 11%
	Etre bienveillant		12	8%	Etre individualiste	14	9%
	Etre à l'écoute		11	7%	Aider les autres à réussir	12	8%
	Etre à l'aise		8	5%	Savoir déléguer	10	6%
	Ne pas être à l'aise		8	5%	Accepter les idées des autres		4%
	CREATIVITE S'adapter à l'interlocuteur Ne pas être clair	8 7	5% 5%	Ne pas faciliter le travail des autres ESPRIT CRITIQUE Ne pas être bienveillant	4% 4%
	Ces questions permettent d'effectuer des statistiques sur l'échantillon interrogé, qui sera constitué d'environ 20 personnes. 1a Votre profession Trouver des solutions 13 16% Etre logique Etre pédagogue 7 5% Ne pas s'impliquer dans les réunions Ne pas proposer de solutions 8 10% Comprendre rapidement Communiquer avec un objectif 7 5% Chercher à se protéger Avoir des idées nouvelles 8 10% Etablir des liens Mentir 7 5% Etre optimiste S'adapter au contexte 7 8% Réfléchir vite Etre sympathique 6 4% Etre à l'écoute Ne pas avoir d'idées 6 7% Anticiper Avoir des propos structurés 5 3% S'intéresser au résultat Sortir des normes admises 5 6% Ne pas anticiper Ne pas s'adapter à son interlocuteur 5 3% Savoir coordonner Etre original mais pertinent 5 6% Ne pas être réaliste Mettre à l'aise 4 3% Mentir Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles 4 5% Faire des erreurs de raisonnement Etre empathique 4 3% Ne pas déléguer Résoudre des problèmes 3 4% Etre pragmatique Ne pas être concis 4 3% Etre directif Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat 2 2% Etre cohérent Ne pas être sympathique 4 3% Inspirer confiance Ne pas résoudre les problèmes 2 2% Ne pas avoir de vision globale Savoir convaincre 3 2% Etre disponible Mentir 2 2% Savoir synthétiser Comprendre les attentes implicites 3 2% Reconnaître ses erreurs et limites Explorer de nouvelles pistes 2 2% Savoir structurer les idées Ne pas être sociable 3 2% Faire confiance Etre sensible aux changements 2 2% Ne pas comprendre Savoir reformuler 2 1% Savoir animer Etre ouvert aux changements 2 2% Ne pas adapter son analyse au contexte Etre sincère 2 1% Partager ses idées Avoir envie d'innover 2 2% Avoir une vision globale Etre respectueux 2 1% Etre empathique Avoir des idées non pertinentes 2 2% Tester des hypothèses Etre concis 2 1% Accepter les erreurs Avoir des idées constructives 2 2% Rejeter les idées non conventionnelles Ne pas être empathique 2 1% Etre moteur Renoncer facilement 1 1% Ne pas prioriser Ne pas être bienveillant 2 1% Ne pas prendre d'initiatives Prendre des initiatives 1 1% Ne pas faire de liens Ne pas répondre aux questions 2 1% Etre autoritaire Ne pas renouveler ses idées 1 1% Assimiler les informations Critiquer les autres 2 1% Ne pas savoir s'affirmer Ne pas être spontané 1 1% Savoir sortir de sa zone de confort Laisser les autres s'exprimer 1 1% Ne pas accepter les idées des autres Maitriser ses propos 1 1% S'adapter aux changements	4% 19 12% 4% 16 10% 3% 14 9% 3% 12 7% 3% 10 6% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1%
	Copier les autres Etre humble		1 1	1% 1%	Savoir se remettre en question Rendre heureux		1% 1%
	Contourner les difficultés Etre inspirant Perdre son sang froid Ne pas s'intéresser aux autres Ne pas être à l'écoute Ne pas comprendre les propos des autres Manquer de tact	1 TOTAL 83 100% 1% 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1% 1 1 1%	Ne pas se remettre en question Ne pas être curieux Faciliter les discussions Comprendre les subtilités Montrer l'exemple Savoir modéliser Manquer de courage Savoir chercher les informations Ne pas être empathique Réfléchir lentement Ne pas être exemplaire Ne pas être patient		1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
		TOTAL 155 100%	Poser des questions Ne pas s'adapter		1% 1%
					Porter des jugements Ne pas se remettre en question		1% 1%
					Ne pas utiliser les ressources disponibles	1% TOTAL 157 100%
					Ne pas être objectif		1%
					Ne pas découper les problèmes		1%
					Favoriser les idées sur la hiérarchie		1%
					Etre objectif		1%
						TOTAL 163 100%

COMMUNICATION COOPERATION Appendix IV -Similarity matrixes from clustering by experts and non-experts CREATIVITY EXPERTS

	Contourner les difficultés
	Copier les autres
	Ne pas être spontané
	Ne pas renouveler ses idées
	Prendre des initiatives
	Renoncer facilement
	Avoir des idées constructives
	Avoir des idées non pertinentes
	Avoir envie d'innover
	Etre ouvert aux changements
	Etre sensible aux changements
	Explorer de nouvelles pistes
	Mentir
	Ne pas résoudre les problèmes
	Ne pas s'intéresser au résultat
	Résoudre des problèmes
	Ne pas accepter les idées nouvelles
	Etre original mais pertinent
	Sortir des normes admises
	Ne pas avoir d'idées
	S'adapter au contexte
	Avoir des idées nouvelles
	Ne pas proposer de solutions
	Trouver des solutions
	Trouver des solutions

Table of Graphs

 of GRAPH 1 -ECONOMY-WIDE MEASURES OF ROUTINE AND NON-ROUTINE TASK INPUT IN THE USA BETWEEN 1960 AND 2002 (LEVY & MURNAME, 2004) ............................................................. GRAPH 2 -SCREE PLOT OF THE FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR THE COMPLETE SAMPLE ....................... GRAPH 3 -SCREE PLOT OF THE FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR THE SAMPLE OF LOW PERFORMERS ...... GRAPH 4 -SCREE PLOT OF THE FACTOR ANALYSIS FOR THE SAMPLE OF HIGH PERFORMERS ..... GRAPH 5 -NCA PLOT: SUM OF 4CS -PERFORMANCE (H1) ...................................................... GRAPH 6 -NCA PLOT: CREATIVITY -PERFORMANCE. .............................................................. GRAPH 7 -NCA PLOT: CRITICAL THINKING -PERFORMANCE. ................................................. GRAPH 8 -NCA PLOT: COMMUNICATION -PERFORMANCE. ..................................................... GRAPH 9 -NCA PLOT: COLLABORATION -PERFORMANCE. ...................................................... GRAPH 10 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF CREATIVITY -EXPERTS ............................................................................ GRAPH 11 -SHEPARD DIAGRAM OF THE FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SOLUTION FOR MDS ANALYSIS FOR CREATIVITY -EXPERTS ................................................................................................... GRAPH 12 -STRESS LEVEL ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE MDS ANALYSIS OF

Table 1 -

 1 Table of comparison of main 21st Century Skills frameworks (Hanover Research, 2012) ........................................................................................................................................ Table 2 -Means,minimum and maximum scores, standard deviations of 4Cs for all 94 observations. ............................................................................................................................ Table 3 -Means, minimum and maximum scores, standard deviations of 4Cs for low performing subjects (45 observations). ....................................................................................

Table 4 -

 4 Means, minimum and maximum scores, standard deviations of 4Cs for high performing subjects (49 observations). .................................................................................... Table 5 -Table summarizing supposed relative predictability between pairs of 4Cs for the complete sample .......................................................................................................................

Table 6 -

 6 Table summarizing supposed relative predictability between pairs of 4Cs for high performance ............................................................................................................................. Table 7 -Table summarizing supposed relative predictability between pairs of 4Cs for low performance .............................................................................................................................

Table 8 -

 8 Table summarizing statistical difference between correlations of 4cs pairs in high performance and low performance ..........................................................................................

Table 9 -

 9 Table showing the saturation for the 2 factors for each of 4Cs for the complete sample ...................................................................................................................................... Table 10 -Table showing the saturation for the 2 factors for each of 4Cs for the sample of low performers ......................................................................................................................... Table 11 -Table showing the saturation for the 2 factors for each of 4Cs for the sample of high performers ........................................................................................................................Table 12 -Comparison of ratings on the 4 Cs for high and low performance groups ............. Table 13 -Table of parameters used for NCA ......................................................................... Table 14 -Description of experts solicited for manual items clustering ............................... Table 15 -Stress level and number of dimensions accepted for each similarity matrix ....... Table 16 -Dimensions of the 4Cs according to MDS analysis of experts' answers. ........... Table 17 -Descriptive statistics for answers to the 32 items of the questionnaire ............... Table 18 -Factorial saturations of items (n = 170) ............................................................... Table 19 -Indexes of fitting data to models (n = 170) .......................................................... Table 20 -Correlations between factors and descriptive data (n = 170) ...............................

Penser à une personne particulièrement performante dans votre entreprise (ou dans une entreprise passée, mais si c'est le cas, le noter). Ne pas citer la personne, cela n'a aucune importance pour l'étude. 2a Comment expliquez-vous le fait que cette personne ait été particulièrement performante ? Que fait-elle différemment des autres ? 2b Diriez-vous de cette personne qu'elle est particulièrement créative ? 2c En quoi cette personne s'est-elle montrée particulièrement créative ? Comment cela s'est-il caractérisé ? 2d Diriez-vous que cette personne était douée d'un sens de l'analyse particulièrement développé ? 2e En quoi cette personne s'est-elle montrée particulièrement analytique ? Comment cela s'est-il caractérisé ? 2f Diriez-vous que cette personne était particulièrement douée pour communiquer ? 2g En quoi cette personne était-elle particulièrement douée pour communiquer ? Comment cela se caractérisait-il ? 2h Diriez-vous que cette personne était particulièrement douée pour coopérer ? 2i En quoi cette personne était-elle particulièrement douée pour coopérer ? Comment cela se caractérisait-il ?

Communication -Experts

Communication -Non-Experts

Acknowledgements

I feel a strong need to thank the following people:

• Todd Lubart, research professor at LAPEA, who has accepted to supervise my thesis work in the greatest benevolence, and always knew how to make himself available. And for so many other professional and human qualities.

Appendix VI -MDS ranked items tables

Creativity -Experts

Collaboration -Experts

Collaboration -Non-Experts