The Conflict’s Background information
The reaction and guidelines of WHO (World Health Organization) in regard to the influenza pandemic, have not been impacted on improperly, as far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned. WHO was deeply concerned about the conflict of interest’ accusations. Moreover, the organization is contented with its independence in the pandemic’s decision- making.
WHO was accused of developing pandemics which were not genuine, with the intention of attracting economic gain. The conflict was institutionalized because the actors adhered to a particular pattern of rules, had a foreseeable behavior, and their relationship continued after solving the predicament.
These allegations resulted to conflicts within the organization. Consequently, the various departments had to get in action and assess the pandemic. Laboratory analyses were conducted, and clinical and epidemiological information obtained from Canada, US, and Mexico. Initially, the reports obtained did not indicate a pandemic.
The departments had to work hand- in- hand in the assessment of the pandemic. Later, infections with influenza were evident in one hundred and twenty nations. This proved that the pandemic was real. The accusation that WHO was faking pandemics to gain finances was declared irresponsible and wrong. Consequently, WHO publicized how it utilizes advisory bodies in response to the influenza pandemic.
The conflict at WHO did not have features of conflict of values. All the departments were focused on solving the predicament, for the sake of the organization. The various departments did not fight over ideologies and values. Considering that all the departments were dedicated for a common and preferred goal, they kept their focus and did not experience a goal conflict. In my opinion, the organizational conflict at WHO was not a nonrealistic versus realistic conflict.
Analysis of the Problem and Justification
Conflicts are classified depending on the factors that lead to their start. There are several causes of conflicts. Using this criterion to classify conflicts leads to a better comprehension of their implications and nature. The conflict at WHO is characteristic of a retributive conflict. The departments at WHO opted for a draw- out strategy, in order to prove the opponents wrong. The conflict is also characteristic of a misattributed conflict, where WHO was accused of faking the pandemic to gain financial benefits.
During the conflict, the conflicting parties were responsible, and did not direct their grievances to social entities. The departments within the organization took their roles keenly in establishing whether the pandemic was real. While solving the conflict, WHO never reached a point where the department’s emotions and feelings were incompatible.
Moreover, the features of substantive conflict were identified in the WHO case. The various departments worked together with a common goal, and did not argue over their role. The WHO organizational conflict had no features of conflict of interest. The available resources were all dedicated to establishing whether the allegations against the organization were genuine.
Four Levels Explaining the Conflict Best
There are various levels of conflict analysis. The four levels that explain the conflict at WHO better are retributive, misattributed , interpersonal, organization, and community conflict. The various departments had to work under pressure to establish whether there was influenza pandemic.
The community was at risk and, hence, its involvement was essential. Finally, the organization was at risk. Its image would be tarnished if it did not prove the accusers were wrong. In the light of this discussion, it is recommendable that organizations should unite when faced with challenges, which prevents division.
This expository essay on World Health Organization Conflict of Interest