| La Lettre du GERPISA | no 117 (novembre 1997) |
Aimée Moutet
Paris, Editions de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales,
1997, 495 pages.
Aimée Moutet's principal hypothesis was the object of a memorable discussion at GERPISA in 1993. Now the book is out, and the ideas within have become a major reference. The title itself reveals the desire to demonstrate the existence of different economic, technical, and social logics which have contributed to progress in rationalization. Two main historical events punctuated this evolution: the prosperity of the 1920s, and the crisis of the 1930s.
The economic logic sought to reduce production costs and increase volumes, even during periods of crisis. The technical logic served to articulate progress in the organization, aiming to accelerate production flows using innovations and a degree of mechanization which, generally, remained relatively moderate. In the social realm, French traditions were quite successful in resisting new organizational methods, such as suggestion systems or psychotechnics. The main authority remained a central figure, that is to say the foreman, and combined with salaries, productivity/output, and workers'welfare.
Above all considering rationalization as a practical phenomenon, Aimée Moutet focuses on social groups, networks, organisms, institutions, and methods thanks to which the movement consolidated itself. She combines several levels of analysis; first of all, American organizational trends (Taylorism and Fordism), then French ones (arsenal tradition, Fayolism), and their encounter and new form facilitated and encouraged by the event of World War I. Then, Moutet takes into consideration different actors; direction, engineers, and workers. Though industrial actors were very interested in these new methods, they were more fascinated with certain aspects of Taylorism. However, they proceeded with reluctance in building up an organizational and work preparation office since they were not immediately impressed with the advantages of doing so. In fact, production engineers ended up being the major agents for rationalization, both within the firm and as part of consulting bureaus.
During the 1920s, rationalization had differentiated effects for workers depending on their categories. Some resistance was expressed, such as production and turnover slow-downs. During the Depression, rationalization made everybody's general situation worse. Unions nevertheless accepted the principle, and sought to encourage the favorable aspects of it for workers.A more radical protest trend, which attempted to impose worker control of the chronometer, failed towards the end of the 1930s.
In the final analysis, rather than witnessing the advent of a uniform rationalization, one observes the combination of diverse rationalization forms where in American referenceswere adapted to the "French example".