(2 of 2)
In Boston, many businessmen privately quoted figures to show how Lever had slipped. From a $14 million profit in 1947, profits had supposedly dropped to $4,000,000 in 1948 and the deficit for 1949 was estimated as high as $7 million. But since Lever Bros, never publicly reports its earnings, all such figures were guesswork and open to misinterpretation. The figures did not take into account such things as inventory losses which were paid out of U.S. earnings last year, although they will be balanced off later against a reserve set up in London. In any case, the company's financial position had been well-known to Luckman's bosses and was not the reason for the sudden disagreement—in fact, Luckman insisted that the company was in the black.
Showdown. The nub of the row seemed to be that Luckman's British and Dutch bosses wanted to move in some "advisers" to look over his shoulder, either because they were dissatisfied with U.S. operations or intended to make a significant change in the company's global policy. One London report was that Unilever wanted to send permanent representatives to the U.S. to keep a closer check on the U.S. company and thus cut its autonomy.
But, if this was true, Unilever had misjudged Luckman's own driving ambition to be whole boss or no boss at all. At week's end, while the company was being run by three directors who had hastily flown to the U.S. from London, Sir Geoffrey and Rykens were still shopping for Luckman's successor. One rumored possibility: Robert Smallwood, 56, an American who had built Lever's Lipton Tea Co. into a highly profitable operation. As for Chuck Luckman, he had no immediate plans. Settled in Manhattan after moving from Boston, he had already had one bid. "My first offer," he grinned, "was a chairmanship of a Boston company."