| Posted By |
Discussion Topic: NAACP CEO Bruce Gordon Quits |
1 tawhid |
03-09-2007 @ 1:33 PM |
|
|
Watching Bruce Gordon on the State of the Black Union forum - I found him to be quite intelligent with sound insight. So I was disappointed to find out he has left the NAACP after only 19 months. I saw him as being able to perhaps move the organization a little further - rather than continue in stagnation.
From what I gathered from his talk with Tavis Smiley - there was quite a difference in vision between him and several persons on the 64 member Board of Directors. There was also a point of contention in terms of what his role, as CEO, was to be.
He felt the organization needed to become technologically advanced and that there were several things they could do to once again become relevant in the community and in the civil rights movement.
1. Can an organization with a 64 member board be effective - outside of that entity?
2. What should be the role of the CEO of the NAACP?
3. There are 2000 branches in the U.S. What should be happening out of these branches?
|
| 2Oyesina |
03-09-2007 @ 7:31 PM |
|
|
|
Excellent Topic
1. Can an organization with a 64 member board be effective - outside of that entity?
Oyesina:I think that it can be effective, but everyone has to be on the same page, unified but not necessarily uniformed. The oppression that we suffer from is a very difficult thing to deal with. And an even more difficult thing to neglect. The NAACP need to move away from the old 1950's mandates. I also saw that State of the Black Union discussion and it is clear that people are still stuck, psychologically. The world have moved on far beyond marching, voting etc.. The NAACP has a pathology that will only produce failure and frustration amounst it's membership.
2. What should be the role of the CEO of the NAACP? I really don't know, but as long as the NAACP does not get with the times, failure will continue.
3. There are 2000 branches in the U.S. What should be happening out of these branches? All braches show continue operation, but I think they need to examine how many of these branches are really active. Each branch should tackle one issue, from start to end, based on what's happening in the communities surrounding each branch. I also feel that each branch should attend mandatory training on a power analysis, and post tramatic slave symdrome.
You can not dismantle master's house using master's tools.
This message was edited by Oyesina on 3-9-07 @ 7:48 PM
|
| 3mulberry |
03-09-2007 @ 7:41 PM |
|
|
|
Tawhid
An organization can be effective with a 64 member board if the board allows the CEO to operate the entity. If the board want to control every aspect of the entity then they need not hire a CEO. You must look at the board and determine who interest are they serving. Are they serving the interest of the community? Are they self serving? or Are they serving corporate interest or the latter two?
If they are going to hire a CEO then that means that the person they interviewed and hired met the qualifications of a person they saw fit to lead the entity. Now if the board is not technological savvy or is resistant to change then the role of the CEO will be very limited with micromanagement. A CEO is suppose to take a company/entity and adapt to the changes of socity,environment and how to best serve the interest of the entity and the community. A CEO has to have a vision that will put the entity in a positive yet active role in the community.
What we do not see in the branches is active participation in their communities. They not only need to be present when something negative happens but they must be there when positive things happen and also be leaders in making positive changes in the communities.
When I heard he was stepping down, I felt that there we too many people on the board in the first place. That board needs to have fewer people and people with at vision and who are willing to sit down with the CEO to ensure the entity will not be put in a negative spot, but should let the CEO make decisions.
Live Free or Die Trying
|
| 4feedeclo |
03-11-2007 @ 10:45 PM |
|
|
|
I wonder how many board members does the worlds larges successful corporations have ?
I think 64 is too many.
The CEO should be the man that runs the organization to meet the goals of the board, members. No micro-management by the board.
The local branches should be working on local problem and supporting the mission of the NAAcP.
|
| 5sl8 |
03-12-2007 @ 5:39 AM |
|
|
|
Watching Bruce Gordon on the State of the Black Union forum - I found him to be quite intelligent with sound insight.
i found so as well...unfortunately the 64 board members dont seem to think so.....hmmmmm
in truth, SL8
|
| 6tawhid |
03-12-2007 @ 7:49 AM |
|
|
|
64 board members. Which ones will voluntarily give up their position for the good of the organization? Aparently not one.
This is a great example of our unwillingness to have a longer term vision and do what's best for the whole.
I too would like to see a more visible presence with the 2000 units. Workshops, lecture series, internships, etc.
|
| 7sl8 |
03-12-2007 @ 8:12 AM |
|
|
|
i disagree
i think this is a good example of a business/organization that pretends to want what is best for black people, but has to show its true colours when a true activist gets seated at the helm.....they either have to remove the driver...or abandon ship....in this case it would be faaaar easier to have the driver leave, or create a situation that would lead to his resignation
in truth, SL8
|
| 8ronski31 |
03-13-2007 @ 10:28 PM |
|
|
|
One of the board members was quoted as saying..."he was bought in to do what the board told him to do". Mr. Gordon on a live interview I listened to yesterday said they had the wrong man then. He's well-so\poken, intelligent and loves his people. Gracious as well. Didn't mumble a nasty vindictive word.
by His grace,
ronski
|
| 9tawhid |
03-14-2007 @ 6:15 AM |
|
|
|
Not knowing of him before the State of the Black Union forum - I was really proud to see a black man, very accomplished, articulate, and expressing a desire to see his people progress. He was an executive at Verizon and was actually retired when he accepted the NAACP post. There was no reason for him to add a failed attempt to his legacy....We gotta do better in terms of getting behind those of us who are accomplished (not soundbiters or camera hogs) and actually want to lend our services to "the people". I'd be interested in anything else he has on the burner - if he doesn't go back into total retirement.
|
| 10mulberry |
03-14-2007 @ 1:47 PM |
|
|
|
As stated by Julian Bond
"We had some disagreements about whether the NAACP should focus all of its energies on social justice or whether we should focus on social service. The board believes that we have been a social justice organization for 98 years. Although we very much appreciate and value social service, that's not what we do. And that's not what we're going to do," Bond says. "I think it was a gradual realization on both parts that we were not attuned and that I don't know whether he came to us with the attitude, 'I'm going to show those 1960s Negroes where to go and where they need to be.'"
_____________________________________
So was Julian right in saying that the sole purpose is social justice? We understand his role in civil rights but sometimes there has to be change not away from the mission but how can you expand the mission if you are not open to change. Would social services be bad for the organization being that is serves to see equality in politics, education, social services?
Gordon my not have been the correct fit in this organization because they seek to control every and any aspect of it. He was not given the opportunity to be a CEO and in a sense I can see the frustration.
Live Free or Die Trying
|
| 11TallnTan |
03-14-2007 @ 2:02 PM |
|
|
|
The CEO of any board should be in a position to "lead" the board to a position of thinking with strength, and moving the organization forward.
It is good that Mr. Gordon and the board came to the conclusion that this apparently was not happening and or that what the majority wanted was not what he offered.
I feel the direction should include some "social Service" as well as "Social Justice", however I can also understand that they (NAACP) preferred to stay with "Social Justice". I am wondering if Mr. Gordon understood this position before he accepted the position?
TAWHID:
Be careful using the word "articulate" is describing a black man. Whenever someone else says that about a black man they are being racist.LOL!
My girl friends daughter is also a Jr. level executive at Verizon for many years, and she says that Mr. Gordon was an excellent Executive for the company.
PEACE in 2007
|
| 12feedeclo |
03-14-2007 @ 4:28 PM |
|
|
|
Mr. Gordon, did not go looking for the job, they asked him.
I well remember when he took the job, his stated goal was to expand the organization, and broaden the mission.
They knew his intentions when they hire him, and he was not that interested in the job when first approached by the NAACP.
I think it is unfortunate that he quit.
|
| 13mulberry |
03-14-2007 @ 8:22 PM |
|
|
|
Feed,ALL
So why do you think they felt that Gordon was a threat to them? Do you feel that if these changes would have happen they would have to be sitting at home instead of on the board?
What I feel about many of these "ol' kats" is that they do not want to let go of the reigns or mentor young people to step in and continue with the mission of civil rights. That is why you really do not have anyone taking the lead when it comes to black issues.
Live Free or Die Trying
|
| 14ronski31 |
03-14-2007 @ 8:29 PM |
|
|
|
I will echo what many on this board and elsewhere say and what I believe to be true..the youth, the young are the future. If you are not nuturing, cultivating and preparing them to lead..whatever is will be no more. It is way past time for some on that board to step-down and to the side. Yesterday's NAACP was a force to be reckoned with for that time. Today's NAACP is but, IMO, a figurehead. We can't continue on in the vein that got us here. We now need to build upon what has been established. Please know that I am not advocating throwing the baby out with the bath water but if we continue to do what we're doing...we'll keep getting what were getting.
The foundation has been set and we thank our foremothers and forefathers but the scope of the organization must expand, must grow.
I respect Mr. Bond but social justice(as defined by the board) cannot be our sole purpose.
If the business of educating our youth is a social service...so be it.
If the business of not only teaching black folk how to acquire but maintain wealth is a social service..so be it.
If teaching black folk that we ain't gots to ask for a dayum thing or apologize for a damn thing is a social service...so be it.
I'm going to stop there because I feel my dander getting up.
The board knew exactly what they were getting. They thought they could persuade Mr. Gordon into seeing it their way but...he would not bow. Now..now..there is a huge difference between compromising for the good and bending your back..just cause.."that's how we've always done it".
I wish Mr. Gordon well.
by His grace,
ronski
This message was edited by ronski31 on 3-14-07 @ 9:07 PM
|
| 15feedeclo |
03-14-2007 @ 10:17 PM |
|
|
|
Mulberry and Ronski, you guys are absolutely right in my opinion, it's time for us old guys to step back an give the reign to the young folk so they can carry on the struggle.
We can try to advise them, so they avoid the mistakes we made, but it's their time now.
The NAACP has to come to that realization.
|
| 16ronski31 |
03-15-2007 @ 6:00 AM |
|
|
|
feed..
You're a wise man. Again..because it may be time to do things differently does not take away the good that's been done. Just like old isn't always good...new isn't always bad.
It starts today..
ronski
|
| 17mulberry |
03-15-2007 @ 6:03 AM |
|
|
|
Feed,
Do we not have to allow for those mistakes? No system, organization, etc is perfect so mistakes will be made but what would be a disservice is if no one learns from those mistakes and not correct them.
We do not live forever and for progress to continue they must pass on the torch.
Live Free or Die Trying
|
| 18TallnTan |
03-15-2007 @ 11:58 AM |
|
|
|
FEED,
I agree that the older folks have to step down at some point, however we should not assume that all of the board members are "elderly", in fact I know this is not the case.
As for Mr. Gordon leading them, he has to be at least 60 himself! Not an old man, but certainly not what I would consider a "youth"
PEACE in 2007
Mulberry,
I agree that his direction had value, however that is not what this board wanted. My hope is that they will find someone, who in keeping with the boards/organizations intent, that person will also have enough "vision" to break out of the norm.
We shall see!
This message was edited by TallnTan on 3-15-07 @ 9:33 PM
|
| 19mulberry |
03-15-2007 @ 7:00 PM |
|
|
|
TallnTan,
I agree he has his youthfulness but he did have vision for changing this organization to embrace techology and to be more inclusive of the youth. Not losing the vision but incorporating new ways of getting people involved.
Live Free or Die Trying
|
| 20ronski31 |
03-16-2007 @ 4:09 PM |
|
|
|
Is the board content to remain stagnant? Or the direction of the organization to remain the same?
It just reminds me, to a certain extent, of some churches where the deacon board chooses the pastor. If the pastor isn't in agreement with the deacon board..then out he goes..even if the vision for the church is God's business and a good one.
I say again..'if we keep doin' what we doin', we gone keep gettin' what we've been gettin'.
The point is moot now because the board will be appointing someone else.
It starts today..
ronski
|
| 21tawhid |
03-19-2007 @ 8:36 AM |
|
|
|
They had better come to some consensus as to what the "vision" is. Without agreement on this , no one will be able to progressively lead the organization.
And they need to start with cutting down that board.
P.S. I don't think 60 in Gordon's case was particularly "old". He seemed to be "up" on the neccessary leadership and technology skills to embrace wider community concerns. He himself said he wouldn't mind if his name were never mentioned if the organization moved forward. So I don't think he would have had a problem mentoring a younger cadre to take over.
|
Web Categories
Organizations
Send this to a friend.
(Administrators/Moderators Only)