What Does the NAACP Need Now?

Bruce Gordon was not the first corporate executive to serve on the board of a major civil rights group. And a survey among such executives, who have been listed in the Who’s Who in Black Corporate America Register, reveals that current public discussions have caused an “unfortunate situation” that may cause capable other business professionals “to not apply”.

Insiders say Gordon, a self-described change agent, had a brash style that rubbed the NAACP's 64-member board the wrong way, causing a rash of public comments that describe a “culture clash”. Rather than accept the “culture conflict” concept, corporate executives who have accumulated decades of service and experiences on the NAACP’s, and other civil and human rights boards, say it was Gordon personality that was the “bad fit”.

Less than a “clash of cultures”, the NAACP is experiencing a lack of public concern and contributions. Too many have bought into allegations that the NAACP board is “old school” and can’t adapt to modern management techniques and practices, but insiders say Gordon’s manner wasn’t a corporate demeanor they knew. They say Gordon “threw temper tantrums” and “never listened simply assuming his way was the right way on every issue”. They say many of Gordon’s allegations erroneously “dealt with simple rules of procedure or activities that we were involved in before he came”. Corporate executives say the problem at the NAACP was less a clash of cultures and more of “a problem of perception”. Many allege that Gordon perceived himself as “the NAACP's savior” and built a fund raising campaign “around himself as opposed to the organization”.

Insiders point out that Gordon was not supervised by the board, but the NAACP Executive Committee. And, that “What is wrong with the NAACP is not rancor, but lack of public participation”. Many blacks have used the situation to rationalize their lack contributions to the NAACP’s agenda. There's a feeling by many that the approach to civil rights has to change, because the issues facing the in the black community have changed.

Too few dues-paying members precipitated a NAACP cash crunch in the 1990s. In 1996, the organization was nearly $14 million in debt. This promoted the NAACP to court corporate donors and board members - by 2005 it had about $15 million in cash reserves. Over past decades, black corporate executives have been the bane of the NAACP’s financial existence.

Executives with corporate and civil rights volunteering experience say that the clash wasn’t with Gordon’s corporate background, but his competence. Many said Gordon “came in with a lot of talk and found out he could not produce”. Corporate America executives in the survey said: “It is interesting that the NAACP has had to take the blame for being old and not relevant enough for a CEO who just found out about ‘civil rights’ at the age of 60. It’s true organizations should do some service oriented programming, and many do. However, there are few black organizations who advocate for the civil rights and we still believe that should be a major task”.

More
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=ae35acdacaf35cce6dc0c3b25dcd097d