My understanding from talking to some still attached to the organization is that talk of the approaching hundredth anniversary is generating considerable angst among many Jehovah's Witnesses. The Society itself is circumspect this time as opposed to its drum beating as 1975 approached. That doesn't mean the leadership is unaware of all the talk. Rather it appears that it hopes that by remaining silent, the buzz will die down and 2014 will come and go without any significant impact on growth and preaching.
I think that right now a siege mentality has taken hold in Brooklyn. The Governing Body is acting as if it is encircled by enemies. Its constant rantings and ravings against apostates and apostasy are like nothing I heard and read when I was an active and zealous publisher. Yes, the natives are growing restless and the response from the top has been classic as well as predictable. Haven't we seen this all before, especially in the political arena? A dictator faces calls for significant reforms, relaxation of controls, and a new direction for the country. His response is to crack down on dissent, jail opponents, drive other resisters into exile, and kill the more vocal and recalcitrant of his critics. The WTS and its Governing Body have done likewise, albeit in a metaphysical way.
Eventually, the dictator is overthrown despite his best efforts to remain in power. Sometimes he escapes with his life; but there are many instances in which he loses that violently. I don't know what will happen to the WTS leadership, but I believe that the organization is facing its greatest crisis since the death of Charles Taze Russell in 1916. Despite massive defections and the jailing of its Board of Directors that followed Russell's death, the organization not only survived, but thrived. It faced down the Nazi tyrants in Germany and outlasted the communist despots of the Soviet Union. It managed to overcome the bad publicity of its failed prophecies for the twentieth century to enter the twenty-first century intact.
What makes today's situation different, I believe, is that the current leadership is composed of men who do not have the qualities needed to navigate past the shoals and reefs the organization must negotiate to reach safer waters. Past leaders were charismatic, tough-minded, or great organizers. Nobody like that is in charge now. And there remains the simple fact that just as in the past, there is no divine backing for the Society's mission. Without the kind of leadership that served it so well in the past, the current Governing Body is ill-equipped to function in an environment that is as fluid, dynamic, and technilogically challenging as this one. Hence the falling back on the method of cracking down on dissent and the suppression of any kind of challenge.
Maybe the organization will manage to survive. But I think that what is more likely is that we will see some kind of collapse, particularly in the developed world. I won't speculate on what that will mean for the organization as a whole, but I don't think it can survive as it is presently constituted.