|
?:abstract
|
-
It is regrettable that in recent years, the Korean Medical Association (KMA) has held special meetings of the house of delegates almost annually, purely for the removal of the president of the KMA from his/her office. There could be several reasons for this, but the failure of communication caused by the fragmentation of the KMA\'s governance structure may be a major contributing factor. It may therefore be helpful to benchmark the governance of other professional organizations like the British Medical Association (BMA) to identify differences in the practice of consensus building, which leads to policy making. Due to the unexpected COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak, this study was limited to internet resources. It was impossible for the author to conduct participant observation or direct face-to-face interviews to get essential information about the governance of the BMA. Nevertheless, the findings provide valuable lessons for the KMA. There seem to be chasms among the house of delegates, the regional association and the board of directors in the KMA; better integration among major bodies within the KMA is required. Furthemore, the time spent by these bodies on generating policies and strategies is not sufficient. The BMA is a union with its professional activities secured by labor laws, whereas major players of the KMA do not have a protected time for their professional trade association. The KMA needs to remodel the current governance which is characterized by inadequate communication and subsequent fragmentation among the acting bodies of the Association. Continuous professional development for the leaders and members of the KMA might enable this change in governance.
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://research.tib.eu/covid-19/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}