Management, personalities and multiculturalism

Some time ago, I attended a working session as an organizational consultant that brought together managers from an international organization. multilateral. Several nationalities were represented around the table, as is always the case with this type of organization, which includes the United Nations, its agencies, the European Commission, etc. The language was measured, with occasional skirmishes, but nothing too serious.
But behind these smooth faces, I perceived signs of tension through their body language and shifty glances. Beyond the words, I felt the reactions and positions more than I consciously analyzed them.
We were discussing salary increases for certain people (why some and not others?). A few papers with little information about the employee's performance were distributed by the head of human resources. The supervisor/manager gave his opinion based on three informal criteria: the employee's friendliness, his loyalty to the "boss," and his obedience. A discussion ensued, and the Director unilaterally decided whether or not to give the expected raise. The decision was made between three people: the Director, the head of human resources, and the manager of the employees concerned. The other people present were only there to give a democratic appearance to a decision made upfront.
This decision-making system is classic in this type of organization, which, although working in the field of human development, adopts a hierarchical management style. But personalities are also to be taken into account because, depending on the managers, the system is more or less coercive: if Maslow's pyramid is used as a reference, the need for power and therefore security were needs shared by our three protagonists to such an extent that no one dared to ask why only some employees received raises and not others, and why the raises differed depending on the employees. Fear is contagious. If Schwartz's theory of values is applied, we are between self-affirmation on the individual level, based on the values of success and power, and continuity on the social and organizational level, bringing together the values of Security, Conformity, and Tradition.
Based on a shared need for personal affirmation, the culture from which these three men came—North American, African, and European—certainly played a role in their attitudes and behaviors. But the essential question, in my opinion, is linked to issues of conscience. By creating unequal treatment and using arbitrariness and a lack of transparency as management methods, these three managers certainly demonstrated their power in the present moment, but they also induced a profound demotivation in the medium term, which naturally occurred. Were they not aware of this? If not, how could they be made to realize that by playing the individual against the collective, according to the mechanical laws of any evolving system, organizational energy would be exhausted and a crisis would arise?
So how can we become aware of ourselves, our behavior and our goals, but also aware of how the environment works?
It seems that this type of international organization dealing with development aid is paradoxically very late in terms of thinking about people management; awareness only comes through internal crises explained by demonstrations of power, which leads to a surprising situation where we are in the presence of extremely well-paid and... unhappy people. Classic coaching techniques, NLP... are not of much help in this multicultural environment except to understand what is happening but not to move individuals and the organization from self-affirmation to openness to change and from continuity to self-improvement.
For this fear and anxiety must be overcome and trust built and therefore giving time to time is essential to explain and show.