A seemingly banal scene... on the surface
Some time ago, as an organizational consultant, I attended a working session bringing together managers from a multilateral organization. As is often the case in this type of structure—the United Nations, specialized agencies, the European Commission—the nationalities were varied, the language measured, and the exchanges subdued.
But beneath this civilized facade, the bodies spoke differently : tense postures, avoided glances, heavy silences. Behind the words, I perceived invisible tensions, perceptible only through careful, sensitive listening.
A falsely collective decision-making process
The topic of the day: salary increases for certain employees. It quickly became apparent that the decisions were based on informal criteria:
kindness,
loyalty to the superior,
obedience.
The human resources director presented a few empty, insubstantial documents. Then, after a purely formal exchange, the Director made the decision. Three people decided: the Director, HR, and a manager. The others were there only to... validate a decision already taken.
When development aid masks authoritarian power
This type of operation is common in large international institutions. Although they work for human development, their management style remains strongly hierarchical. A form of institutionalized paradox.
Those present seemed motivated by basic needs — security and power needs, in the sense of Maslow's pyramid. No one dared to ask a question. Fear acts like an invisible virus, but devastating.
Dominant values: self-assertion and conformity
In light of the Schwartz's theory of values, the dynamics at play become clearer:
At individual level : values ofself-assertion, of power and of success.
At organizational level : values of compliance, security, And tradition (continuity values).
Cultural differences (North American, African, European) undoubtedly influenced the postures, but basically, what was sorely lacking was awarenessLack of awareness, loss of collective energy
In the short term, these managers were able to strengthen their personal power. But in the medium term, the collective cost was high : demotivation, disengagement, loss of momentum. By undermining the link between the individual and the collective, they have weakened the entire system.
A system deprived of meaning, fairness and balance always ends up in crisis.
Towards more conscious management
The real question is this:
How can we develop awareness of ourselves and the systems in which we operate?
How can we move beyond the automatic mechanisms of power to open ourselves up to a dynamic of transformation?
These organizations, despite their humanist mandate, are seriously behind schedule in managerial thinking. Change often only comes about under duress, never through conviction.
Conventional tools poorly suited to institutional challenges
Coaching, NLP, emotional intelligence… These approaches sometimes provide useful insight, but often remain insufficient in a multicultural, political and institutionalized context.
Because it's not just about techniques. What's needed is a true path of consciousnessA transformation of looks, postures, intentions.
Overcoming fear, building confidence
To move from control-based management to open and transformative leadership, it is necessary to:
Taming Fear,
Pacify anxiety,
Give time to time.
Explain. Show. Embody.
Trust cannot be decreed. It is cultivated, slowly but surely.
In conclusion
What this "banal" scene reveals is the gap between the humanist discourse of certain institutions and their deeply conservative practicesTo get out of it, a technical change will not be enough: it is a cultural and internal shift that is required. And it begins with a simple and formidable question:
As a manager, am I able to look beyond appearances?
EN 
FR