More On The NAACP

I've heard and read comments that some members of the board have stated it was a mistake to let Bruce Gordon lead the NAACP because he does not have a "civil rights" background

The NAACP has a declining membership count, so for how long can "get someone from a civil rights background" last? And, by their own admission, they need to get younger people in the organization.

Uhhhh... Am I the only person capable of seeing a contradiction?

The slide down continuing irrelevance increases in velocity.

[ Update ]

Bruce Gordon quoted from the Tavis Smiley show, has reported on the EUR:

"The NAACP has two fabulous assets:    a well recognized brand and 2000 operating units across the country.  These are assets that can be very powerful, but they are underperforming.  There has to be an acceptance, a willingness to change.  You can't do the same thing for 98 years and expect that you will succeed…. In business terminology we would argue that organizations that are no longer customer focused, who lose the heart of the customer, who lose the choice of the customer, will ultimately fail.  I'm afraid that at this very point that our organization is more internally focused than externally focused,.  That keeps us from being great and allows us to only be good.  I think that the NAACP has powerful potential, but that potential will never be realized if we go about our work using 20th century approaches.

What more is there to say?

Comments

[MIB]

I realize my position on Gordon is of the minority, but I don't think a NGO should be run like Verizon. Entities like the NAACP do not have the latitude (legally speaking) to modify their charters as does a conventional business. If indeed Gordon's plan was to evolve the NAACP into a Goodwill Industries-style retail services operation, then this marriage was doomed from the start.