Management, personalities and multiculturalism

Some time ago, as an organization consultant, I attended a work session attended by 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 and the European Commission…. The language was measured, with the occasional skirmish, but nothing too serious.
But behind these smooth faces, I could see signs of tension in the body language, in the shifty glances. Beyond the words, I felt the reactions and postures more than I consciously analyzed them.
We were discussing salary increases for certain people (why some and not others?). The head of human resources handed out some papers with little information on the employee’s performance. The supervisor/manager gave his opinion based on three informal criteria: the employee’s friendliness, loyalty to the “boss” and obedience. A discussion ensued, and the manager unilaterally decided whether or not to give the expected raise. The decision was taken by 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 taken upstream.
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. 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 ask why only some employees were given raises and not others, and why raises differed from one employee to another. Fear is contagious. If Schwartz’s value theory is applied, we’re somewhere between self-affirmation on an individual level, based on the values of success and power, and continuity on a social and organizational level, grouping together the values of Security, Conformity and Tradition.
From a common 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 behavior. But the essential question, in my opinion, is linked to issues of conscience. By creating inequalities of treatment and using arbitrariness and a lack of transparency as management tools, these three managers were certainly showing their power in the present, but they were also inducing a deep demotivation in the medium term, which naturally happened. Were they unaware of this? If not, how could we make them realize that by playing the individual against the collective, according to the mechanical laws of any evolutionary system, organizational energy would be exhausted and a crisis would arise?
So how do you become aware of yourself, your behaviours and your goals, but also aware of how the environment works?
Paradoxically, it seems that this type of international organization involved in development aid is lagging far behind when it comes to thinking about people management. Awareness is only raised through internal crises explained by demonstrations of power, which leads to an astonishing situation where we are faced with people who are extremely well paid and …. unhappy. Conventional coaching techniques such as NLP are of little help in this multicultural environment, except to understand what’s going on, but not to help individuals and organizations move from assertiveness to openness to change, and from continuity to self-improvement.
To achieve this, fear and anxiety must be overcome, and confidence built.