Well... “leadership” follows the bottom line.
Depends on the characteristics of the particular organization you are talking about.
If it is business, the bottom line dominates as it provides the resources for continued operations and is the measure used to gauge leaderships’ performance. The one caveat to this statement is that, because really large enterprises can borrow large amounts of money, they can be unprofitable for long periods before finally failing completely when further credit is finally cut off.
For nonprofits, charities, and government, leadership maybe less concerned/unconcerned with monetary profits and focus with conforming to expected behaviors. They are still subject to the same basic fiscal realities as business. Funds, in the form of donations or budget allocations are required to execute operations, pay staff, etc. Depending on the specifics, such organizations may be more or less vulnerable to outside pressures to change direction.
In the case under discussion, the nexus of woke/CRT advocacy is in the DEI subdivision of the Salvation Army’s HR department. HR operations are mandatory for any organization and must be funded even when donations drop off. Consequently, the DEI subdivision is relatively immune to discontinuation due to general funding losses.
In addition, there is probably a baseline flow of more or less permanent donations to the Salvation Army that ensures continuation of its core operations. This means that, with significant permanent endowments involved, withholding small individual donations (unless they total to a significant percentage) probably will have only a very minor impact on the organization financially.
That is why my first post ended with holding top leadership responsible and accountable for its decisions. The only thing that will impact DEI woke/CRT activities is top leadership deciding that they are no longer a net benefit to the organization. That will be done through negative public relations. A constant and unrelenting campaign of criticism over its woke/CRT advocacy may make top leadership uncomfortable enough to re-examine its commitment to it.
My personal assessment is that leadership will hunker down and weather the blip of criticism presently occurring and then carry on as before. At best, the training materials might be revised slightly to make them less offensive to the general reader. Doing more would be extraordinary. Not impossible, just extraordinary: