Careful management of different elements of one company
Hayworth describes his forebears' efforts to ensure that their companies did not compete with one another. Hayworth Roll and Panel had acquired some specialized furniture-making companies, and their managers had to be careful to avoid competition. He remembers also his father's desire to maintain personal control over his business.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with David R. Hayworth, February 6, 1997. Interview I-0099. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- DOROTHY GAY DARR:
-
Do you remember those years?
- DAVID R. HAYWORTH:
-
Oh, no, no. See, he died before I was born.
- DOROTHY GAY DARR:
-
Right.
- DAVID R. HAYWORTH:
-
No, no. This would go back in the late 'teens and early
'20s. I think he bought Alma in 1914 and Myrtle in about
1920, something like that. He decided that he would make more of the
commercial grade furniture at Alma and Myrtle would make more of the
executive furniture, and so that was the way that was carried on for a
number of years until, as I mentioned in another context, a little while
ago. The point arrived in marketing where you had to give the customer a
complete line, not just commercial, if you wanted to get the job. The
customer wanted a single source; executive, middle management,
commercial. So Alma had to start expanding to make a complete line for
their customers; a single source. Myrtle had to do the same thing; they
had to go down. So the two firms—I think I touched on this
but digressed—became very competitive. My brother
Charles' idea was that you can go down—this is
just an analogy—but you can go down one side of the street with Alma and the other side of the street
with Myrtle, and therefore you don't miss anything. And that
concept worked for a long time and was very successful. But perhaps at
some point if the two companies had merged they would have been as a
single unit more able to compete in the market place, as other
johnny-come-lately's—like Kimball, for
example—were taking a bigger share of the market. But that
was never done and so that's the end of the story. But the
two companies were very successful for a long, long time. And very
competitive, which I think is interesting.
- DOROTHY GAY DARR:
-
Because you had to have two managements even though [unclear] .
- DAVID R. HAYWORTH:
-
Absolutely. And that's what I think I was in some context
going to say to you, it was always important—we said
something about who made the decision to make library
furniture—but because of the competitiveness it was very
important to keep the companies at sort of arms-length. There were other
people until maybe—let's see, there were other
people who had ownership in Myrtle Desk Company until it came to the
point where it was the decision to buy out those other shareholders; but
for awhile there were other shareholders. Charles felt it was extremely
important that some shareholder couldn't say,
'Well, you own the company, most of the company, and you can
read their mail. Therefore, you have an advantage.' So
Charles felt very strongly about that for a long time.
- DOROTHY GAY DARR:
-
That was probably a delicate road he had to hoe or to walk.
- DAVID R. HAYWORTH:
-
And he never, ever, to my knowledge—he was a very honorable
businessman and very successful businessman, and I don't
think he ever, ever took advantage of that situation.