Theoretical aspects of the motivational system of managers in organizations

Doctor of economic sciences, professor

To date, quite extensive theoretical material has been accumulated on the problems of employee motivation. Let us turn to the classical theories of motivation from the point of view of using their fundamental provisions to build a motivational system for managers of an organization.

In the 19th century, the dominant concept in the West was that human aspirations were based on the desire to obtain pleasure or to relieve feelings of dissatisfaction. It was based on the ancient Greek philosophy of hedonism. Then, at the turn of the 20th century, a new theory emerged that considered people's instincts as motivating sources. In the twenties of the 20th century, in the wake of sharp criticism of instinctive concepts, the theories of behaviorists appeared, which explained human behavior by conscious reactions and reflexes [16, p. 173].

Modern classical theories of motivation can be divided into three large groups: initial, substantive and procedural.Let's take a closer look at some of the most common theories. motivational system of manager

The very first motivational influence on people's behavior was the «carrot and stick» method, which is still widely used today. The «stick» used to be most often the fear of the death penalty or expulsion from the country, and the «carrot» was wealth. The «carrot and stick» policy is captivating due to the simplicity of motives and incentives to achieve the set goal. It is preferable in extreme situations, when the goal is clearly defined, and is hardly suitable for complex projects with a long duration and a significant number of participants [18, p. 73].

This motivational technique of «carrot and stick» was based on the fact that a person by nature is lazy, cunning, selfish, wants to give less and take more; therefore, it is necessary to constantly force him to work, and in order for him not to be burdened by the constant compulsion to work, he must be systematically rewarded for good work [12, p. 62].

F. W. Taylor proposed the ideas of «scientific management». Through the rationalization of labor based on developed standards, he improved the «carrot and stick» type of motivation by introducing «daily output» and wages in proportion to the output produced, in proportion to the employee's contribution. This led to an increase in labor productivity [8, p. 64].

The school of human relations (the main focus is on favorable relationships in a team) arose after the Hawthorne experiment conducted by E. Mayo. He substantiated the influence of human factors, especially social interaction and group behavior, on individual productivity.

Content theories of motivation include: A. Maslow's hierarchy of needs (1954); Alderfer's theory (1972); McClelland's theory (1961); Herzberg's two-factor theory (1959, 1968). They are supposed to be based on the distinction between primary and secondary needs. Despite some limitations of the theory of human needs, it provides the basis for more developed motivational models.

The mechanism of interaction between a person's needs and the motives of his behavior was one of the first to be considered by the American psychologist A. Maslow, who developed the so-called hierarchy of needs. According to it, human needs vary in their urgency and arise in a certain sequence. As primary needs are sufficiently satisfied within a reasonable framework, the individual's attention shifts to secondary needs. According to this theory, all human needs can be divided into five main levels: physiological needs, needs for safety and security, needs for group membership and social needs, needs for respect and status, self-actualization and complete satisfaction of needs.

Satisfying the needs of the first level ensures the very existence of a person [11]. We are talking about the basic physiological needs of food, air, water and sleep. The needs of the second level correlate with physical (safe working conditions) and economic (job security, etc.) safety. Typically, these two levels of needs are considered together and are called lower-order needs.

In addition, the hierarchy distinguishes three levels of higher order needs. The third level is devoted to the needs for love, feelings of belonging and social involvement at work (friends and psychologically compatible colleagues). Level 4 needs include the desire for respect and status, as well as high self-esteem and competence. Feelings of competence and the opinions of others form the basis of status. The fifth level of the hierarchy is the need for self-actualization, the desire to become everything that an individual is capable of being, to fully use one's skills and develop talents.

The considered model assumes that each person has certain needs that he seeks to satisfy. The satisfaction of certain needs only means that they are replaced by qualitatively different needs. Unsatisfied needs are the most motivating. A person is motivated primarily by the goal he is striving for at a given time. A fully satisfied need is not a strong motivating factor. A person perceives the satisfaction of needs as a new challenge.

This interpretation of A. Maslow's concept allows us to better understand the motives of the organization's managers. When developing a system of motives, the following is important:

- regularly conduct research in the form of sociological surveys to determine the motives of managers, and then offer their satisfaction;

- identify and accept the needs of managers;

- recognize the differences in the aspirations of managers;

- offer the satisfaction of specific unsatisfied needs;

- understand that the constant use of the same type of incentives (especially those that satisfy lower-order needs) gradually leads to a decrease in the motivation of managers.

In addition to the considered advantages, L. Maslow's model has its disadvantages. In particular, the organization does not have the ability to provide conditions for self-actualization to all managers. The conducted research also does not allow us to assert that human needs can really be ranked in a strict hierarchy; the necessity of a sequential path from satisfying needs of a lower level to a higher one has not been proven [14].

With the development of economic relations and the improvement of management, a significant role in the theory of motivation is given to the needs of higher levels. The representative of this theory is David McClelland. According to him, the structure of higher-level needs comes down to three factors: the desire for success, for power and for recognition. With this statement, success is regarded not as praise or recognition from colleagues, but as personal achievements as a result of active work, as a willingness to participate in making difficult decisions and bear personal responsibility for them.

Organizational managers with a high need for success are willing to take on challenging work that allows them to set their own goals, but they find it difficult to engage in work that does not have a clear and tangible outcome that occurs quickly enough. People with this need work hard and willingly, but do not really like to share their work with others. They are much less satisfied with the joint result than the individual result.

The desire to achieve makes managers successful in solving the problems they face. A successful manager must have a high level of need for achievement. However, often people with a high need for achievement do not realize it in the management hierarchy, since at the upper management levels it is necessary to make more risky decisions and set higher goals than those for which they are ready [15, pp. 97-98].

Some observers suggest that the achievement motive is similar in meaning to the meaning that the concept of kaizen carries in Japanese culture. The Kaizen philosophy is an organizational culture aimed at continuous improvement. Japanese success is often associated with the fact that organizations constantly encourage staff to find ways improving everything around them. Kaizen is reminiscent of American individualism, the American desire for achievement, where the individual takes full responsibility for his actions and their results, seeks constant feedback and receives the satisfaction of knowing that he is contributing to conquering the top (personal or team) [19, p. 121].

The desire for power should not only speak of ambition, but also show a person's ability to work successfully at different levels of management in organizations, and the desire for recognition should indicate his ability to be an informal leader, have his own opinion and be able to convince others of its correctness.

Individuals motivated by power are excellent managers, but only if their aspirations are aimed at good organization, and not to achieve only personal success. Power for good organization is the need to influence the behavior of other people for the success of the company as a whole. Individuals with such a need achieve expansion of power using exclusively legitimate ways, achieving high performance in their work, which is why their efforts are positively perceived by subordinates and colleagues [19, p. 122].

Managers with a high need for recognition try to establish and maintain good relationships in the team, and receive approval and support from others. Such people prefer to occupy positions in the organization and perform such work that allow them to be in active interaction with people (colleagues and clients).

They need to regularly receive information about how others react to their actions and actively interact with a wide range of people. According to McClelland's theory, people seeking power must satisfy this need and can do this if occupying certain positions in the organization.

Manage such managers can, preparing them for the transition through the hierarchy to more high level through their certification, referral to advanced training courses, etc. Such people have a wide circle of contacts and strive to expand it. Their superiors should facilitate this. The needs in McClelland's concept are not mutually exclusive and are not arranged hierarchically. The influence of these needs on human behavior greatly depends on their mutual influence.

The theory of needs proposed by Clayton Alderfer proceeds from the fact that human needs can be combined into three groups: subsistence needs; communication needs; growth needs. These groups of needs correspond quite fully with the groups of needs of Maslow's theory.

Alderfer's growth needs correlate with the needs of self-expression, recognition and self-affirmation from Maslow's theory [14]. Connection needs are the needs of belonging, involvement and security, and the need for existence corresponds to the physiological needs from Maslow's hierarchy.

The three groups of needs are arranged hierarchically, but movement can go in two directions (unlike Maslow's theory):

- up if previous needs are satisfied;

- down if higher level needs are not met.

Alderfer called the upward movement through the levels of needs the process of satisfying needs, and the downward movement the process of frustration, i.e. defeat in the effort to satisfy a need. The presence of two directions of movement in satisfying needs opens up additional opportunities for motivating managers in the organization.

In the second half of the 50s of the 20th century, Frederick Herzberg and his colleagues developed another model of motivation based on needs. This theory arose in connection with the growing need to understand the influence of material and social factors on a person's future motivation. As a result of the study, F. Herzberg identified two groups of factors that show job satisfaction.

Hygienic factors associated with the environment in which work is carried out (wages, working conditions, status, work schedule, interpersonal relationships, degree of control over work) and motivation factors associated with the very nature and essence of the work (opportunity for growth, recognition, promotion service, work in itself). According to Herzberg, in the absence or insufficient degree of presence of hygiene factors, a person develops job dissatisfaction.

However, if they are sufficient, then in themselves they do not cause job satisfaction and cannot motivate a person to do anything. In contrast, the absence or inadequacy of motivation does not lead to job dissatisfaction.

But their presence fully causes satisfaction and motivates employees to improve their performance [20]. F. Herzberg made an original conclusion: eliminating factors that cause an increase in human dissatisfaction does not necessarily lead to an increase in satisfaction, and vice versa.

The growth of satisfaction is carried out under the influence of motivating factors, and the transition from dissatisfaction to its absence is under the influence of external factors. Therefore, priority attention should be paid to a person's dissatisfaction and only then, with the help of motivating factors, it is necessary to ensure satisfaction [12]. Thus, the two-factor model made it possible to expand the «arsenal» of management, demonstrating the potential of internal rewards arising from the labor process as such.

The theory of «X», «Y» and «Z» by D. McGregor, which is based on a person's attitude to work, is attractive due to the simplicity of using motives and incentives. The author analyzed the activities of the performer in the workplace and found that the manager can control the following parameters that determine the actions of the performer:

- tasks that a subordinate receives;

- quality of task performance;

- time of receiving the task;

- expected time to complete the task;

- means available to complete the task;

- the team in which the subordinate works;

- instructions received by a subordinate;

- convincing the subordinate that the task is feasible;

- convincing the subordinate of reward for successful work;

- the amount of remuneration for the work performed;

- the level of involvement of the subordinate in the range of work-related problems.

All these factors depend on the manager and, at the same time, to one degree or another influence the employee, determine the quality and intensity of his work. D. McGregor came to the conclusion that, based on these factors, it is possible to apply two different approaches to management, which he called «Theory X» and «Theory Y» [11].

«Theory X» (based on Taylor's theory) embodies a purely authoritarian management style, characterized by significant centralization of power and strict control over the factors listed above. «Theory Y» corresponds to a democratic management style and involves delegation of authority, improving relationships in the team, taking into account the appropriate motivation of performers and their psychological needs, and enriching the content of work.

Both theories have an equal right to exist, but due to their polarity, they are not found in their pure form in practice. As a rule, in real life there is a combination of different management styles. These theories had a strong influence on the development of management theory in general. References to them today can be found in many practical manuals on enterprise personnel management and motivating subordinates.

McGregor's theories were developed in relation to an individual person. Further improvement of approaches to management was associated with the development of the organization as an open system, and the work of a person in a team was also considered. This led to the concept of a holistic approach to management, i.e. the need to take into account the entire range of production and social problems.

Thus, W.G.Ouchi proposed his understanding of this issue, called «Theory Z» and «Theory L», which w as largely facilitated by differences in management, respectively, in the Japanese and American economies.

W.G.Ouchi notes the disproportionate attention to engineering and technology to the detriment of the human factor. «Theory Z» was based on the principles of trust, lifelong employment (as attention to the person) and the group method of decision-making, which also provides a strong connection between people and a more stable position. However, it could be seen that management was developing mostly towards the ideas contained in «Theory Y», the theory of the democratic style of management.

Thus, with certain assumptions, «Theory Z» can be called a developed and improved «Theory Y», adapted primarily to the conditions of Japan. «Theory L» is more typical for the United States, where individualism, shortterm hiring and a predominantly liberal management style are developed. However, some companies in Western countries successfully apply the principles of Theory Z.

The similarity of the considered models of human needs is quite obvious, but there are also significant differences between them (Table 1).

Table 1

Comparison of substantive theories of motivation

Source: compiled by the author based on [13, 14, 15].

In particular, Herzberg's theory of motivation has much in common with Maslow's theory. Herzberg's hygiene factors correspond to physiological needs, needs for safety and confidence in the future. His motivations are comparable to the needs of Maslow's higher levels. But there is one point where these two theories diverge sharply. Maslow viewed hygiene factors as something that causes a particular line of behavior [14].

If a manager is given the opportunity to satisfy one of these needs, he will perform better in response. Herzberg, on the contrary, believes that a manager begins to pay attention to hygiene factors only when he considers their implementation inadequate or unfair [14].

Content theories of motivation are based on needs and associated factors that determine human behavior. Process theories view motivation from a different perspective. In them analyzes how a person distributes efforts to achieve different goals and how to choose a particular type of behavior.

Process theories do not dispute the existence of needs, but believe that people's behavior is determined not only by them. According to procedural theories, a person's behavior is also a function of his perceptions and expectations associated with a given situation, and the possible consequences of his chosen type of behavior [11]. Thus, the basis of process theories is the proposition that an individual's motivation arises in the process of some action or work. The process initiates a person's future motivation.

There are four main process theories of motivation: expectancy theory (1980), equity theory (1965), Porter- Lawler model (1968) and E. Locke's goal setting theory.

Expectancy theory is one of the motivational theories widely used in practice. It is often associated with the works of V. H. Vroom and is based on the position that the presence of an active need is not the only necessary condition for motivating a person to achieve a certain goal. A person must also hope that the chosen type of behavior will actually lead to satisfaction or the acquisition of what he wants.

Expectations can be considered as an assessment by a given person of the probability of a certain event, i.e. the employee performs actions in anticipation of a reward and the person must believe that his efforts will increase the likelihood of receiving the reward.

When analyzing work motivation, expectancy theory emphasizes the importance of three relationships:

- labor costs - results;

- results - reward and valence (satisfaction with reward).

Expectations regarding labor inputs and results (3-P) are the ratio between the effort expended and the results obtained. So, for example, a manager can expect to receive high praise for his performance if he spends the extra effort and writes all the certificates and reports required by a superior manager. Of course, the manager may not expect that his efforts will lead to the desired results.

If he feels that there is no direct connection between the effort expended and the results achieved, then, according to expectancy theory, motivation will weaken. The lack of communication may occur because the manager has a poor self-image, because he is poorly trained or poorly trained, or because he has not been given enough authority or time to complete the task at hand.

Expectations regarding results - rewards (R-B) are expectations of a certain reward or incentive in response to the level of results achieved. A manager can expect that, as a result of his efforts, he will be recognized by management as a highly qualified specialist and will receive promotion and associated benefits and privileges. In this case, as in the previous one, if he does not feel a clear connection between the results achieved and the desired encouragement or reward, the motivation to work will weaken.

The third factor that determines motivation in expectancy theory is the valence or value of the incentive or reward. Valence is the perceived degree of relative satisfaction or dissatisfaction resulting from receiving a particular reward. Because different people have different needs and desires for rewards, the specific reward offered in response to performance may not be of any value to them.

The manager may end up getting a raise when he was expecting a promotion or more interesting and challenging work, or a greater degree of respect and recognition for his achievements. If the valency is low, i.e. the value of the reward received for a person is not too great, then the theory of expectations predicts that the motivation for work activity will weaken in this case [7, p. 85].

If the value of any of these three factors critical to determining motivation is small, then motivation will be weak and work results will be low. The relationship between these factors can be expressed by the following formula: Motivation = 3-P x P-B x valence, where 3 is labor costs; P - results of labor; B-remuneration for work.

To create a system of motivation for the work of managers, the theory of expectations presents various possibilities. Since different people have different needs, they value specific rewards differently. Therefore, the organization must match the remuneration offered to the needs of managers and align them. To effectively motivate managers, it is also necessary to establish a firm relationship between achieved results and rewards. In this regard, it is important to reward only effective work.

There are three possible options for the impact of a manager's efforts on the probability of receiving a reward:

- reward comes regardless of the effort put in, so it is not a stimulating factor;

- there is a direct connection between effort and reward, which stimulates work activity and is the motive for work, while the connection is probabilistic in nature and a person evaluates this probability. He may exert effort if it increases the likelihood of receiving a reward;

- the connection between effort and reward is insignificant, a person feels it, he can refuse an activity if he is convinced that his efforts slightly increase the likelihood of reward.

Consequently, the connection between effort and reward stimulates work, but they are rewarded not for effort, but for the results of work. Based on the theory of expectations, we can conclude that the manager must have such needs that can be largely satisfied as a result of the expected rewards. The organization should give such incentives that can satisfy the expected need of the manager.

Another explanation of how people distribute and direct their efforts to achieve their goals is provided by the theory of justice. According to S. Adams' theory of justice, the effectiveness of motivation is assessed by a manager not by a specific group of factors, but systematically, taking into account the assessment of rewards issued to other managers working in a similar systemic environment.

The manager compares the results of his participation in completing work tasks with the efforts made to achieve them, and also compares the resulting proportion with similar proportions of other managers.

The concept of labor contribution brings together a variety of elements that managers believe they have to sacrifice on the altar of the result - education, seniority, previous work experience, dedication and participation, time and effort, creativity and labor achievements [19, p. 121].

The result is a system of rewards that employees perceive as received for their work from employers: wages and bonuses, additional benefits, guarantees against unemployment, social and psychological rewards (Table 2).

Table 2

Key factors for assessing fairness

Source: compiled by the author based on [6, 18].

If a manager perceives compensation as too high, equity theory states that he will perceive an imbalance in the relationship with the employer and strive to restore balance. Perhaps the intensity of his work efforts will increase (Table 3), attempts will be made to devalue the rewards received (internal and psychological), encourage other managers to put forward demands for additional remuneration (external and physical), or simply employees will choose some other object for comparison (external and psychological).

Table 3

Possible reactions of managers to unfair actions

Source: compiled by the author based on [12].

The main provisions of the theory of justice are confirmed by numerous studies. In particular, they showed that insufficient reward does lead to motivational tension with predictably negative consequences. At the same time, data on the behavior of employees when receiving inflated remuneration is quite contradictory.

The differences in the study results revealed the emergence of the concept of fairness sensitivity, which argues that each of us has highly individual preferences regarding fairness. Some people strive for inflated rewards, others behave in accordance with the traditional model of justice, and still others show «generosity», leaning more towards underestimated rewards. Determining individual predispositions allows managers to fairly accurately predict employees' reactions to injustice and their subsequent behavior.

Comparing models of justice and expectations allows us to highlight the similar elements used in them - effort (labor input) and reward (result). The main role in both models belongs to perception, which once again confirms the position that the organization's task is to obtain information from the manager, and not to impose its assessments on him.

L. Porter and E. Lawler developed a complex process theory of motivation, including elements of expectancy theory and equity theory [6]. Their model includes five variables: effort expended, perception, results obtained, reward, and satisfaction. According to the authors of the model, the results achieved depend on the efforts made by the employee, his abilities and characteristics, as well as his awareness of his role.

The level of effort exerted will be determined by the value of the reward and the degree of confidence that a given level of effort will actually entail a very specific level of reward. Moreover, the Porter and Lawler's Expectancy Theoryestablishes a relationship between reward and results, i.e. a person satisfies his needs through rewards for achieved results.

If there is a connection between the amount of external reward and the employee's efforts (and he feels this connection), then the motivation system works fully; in the opposite case, the employee is partially motivated by the results of his work (second internal feedback) and receives only internal rewards for his work. The distribution of five variables among themselves according to importance can give one or another motivational result.

One of the most important conclusions of L. Porter and E. Lawler is that productive work leads to satisfaction. As a result, this model has made a major contribution to the understanding of motivation. She showed,

in particular, that motivation is not a simple element in the chain of cause-and-effect relationships. This model also shows how important it is to integrate concepts such as effort, ability, results, rewards, satisfaction and perception within a single interconnected system.

In E. Locke's theory of goal setting, a person's motivation is determined by the goals he sets for himself and satisfaction with the results of his work. At the same time, it is believed that goal setting is a conscious process that presupposes a person's future intentions. The results of work depend on: complexity, specificity (clarity and certainty), profitability (acceptability) of the goal for a person and the employee's willingness to expend effort to achieve it, and the motivation of individuals can increase as they approach the goal.

The quality of work performance depends on organizational factors and the employee's abilities, which, in turn, also influence the goals and, as a consequence, the employee's motivation.

An employee's satisfaction or dissatisfaction is determined by the «struggle» of two processes:

- internal (how a person evaluates the results of his work from the point of view of correlating them with the goal);

- external (how a person and his work are assessed by others).

If these two processes do not conflict, then the employee is quite satisfied with his work results and how he is moving towards the goal. If a contradiction arises, then dissatisfaction with regard to achieving the goal prevails.

In recent years, new approaches to motivating employees have emerged - the concept of participative management, P. Warr's «vitamin» theory, etc. According to the concept of participative management, employees can be motivated by an interest in how their work affects the activities of the entire organization, and a desire to participate in the processes taking place in organizations. If an employee feels that he is in demand, that there is a connection between his initiative and reward, then the return from such an employee will be greater.

An analysis of the most common theories of motivation shows:

- most often the motivation of any human activity is considered, but insufficient attention is paid to the motivation of work;

- motivation is considered mainly as a socio-psychological phenomenon of a person, the economic side is not studied enough;

- the focus of most researchers is on the motivation of the individual; the motivation of teams, social and professional groups of personnel is practically not studied;

- problems of stimulating workers on the part of organizations are poorly developed, i.e. only one of the interacting parties, the employee, is considered, and the position of the organization is not examined.

All this indicates that in the theory of labor motivation of workers and teams, the theory of labor stimulation on the part of organizations, there are many «blank spots» that have yet to be filled in by Ukrainian and foreign researchers.

Nevertheless, many provisions of well-known theories of motivation are relevant for modern conditions in Ukraine. However, when using them, it is necessary to take into account the characteristics of a specific situation, the individual differences of managers, their psyche, culture, religious, demographic aspects, etc.

Many of the provisions of the above theories of motivation are, to one degree or another, reflected in the market management system. In particular, the following are actively used in the system:

1. Frederick W. Taylor - «principle of remuneration» - managers are remunerated in accordance with their labor contribution to the overall results of the organization, its structural unit.

2. Abraham Maslow - when implementing the system, the needs, interests and motives of managers' work are studied. Sociological surveys of managers of different organizations showed that the first place in importance is occupied by material needs and motives, the second by moral, the third by status, and the fourth by labor as a need. The needs and motives of work differ among managers of different organizations, as well as within one organization according to the levels of management of managers.

3. David McClelland - research confirms that managers of organizations have higher-level needs: power, success and belonging. Sociological surveys have revealed a great need among managers for recognition and approval of work performed, independence in work, responsibility for work results, creative work, participation in management, etc. The needs of the lower order include material needs (remuneration for work and material corporate benefits), and the needs of the higher order: moral, status, work as a need.

4. Frederick Herzberg - in the system, both hygiene and motivation factors are motivating. Wages are directly related to the result of labor (the volume of sales and production of products, its cost, etc.). The enterprise is developing and implementing an Action Plan to create conditions for effective work. The policy of the company and administration is implemented through the development and adoption of the Mission and Declaration of Corporate Values, which are communicated to each manager and become a motivating factor.

5. Expectations theory - fully applied in the system. Considering that each manager has his own needs (motives) and they can change, surveys are conducted annually among them about the value of this or that remuneration for them.

Labor records are kept daily (by deviations), which shows their labor contribution to the overall results of the work of the structural unit and the organization as a whole. Remuneration is carried out in accordance with labor contribution to overall results. Remuneration is determined individually, taking into account the value of a particular remuneration for the specific manager being rewarded. Remuneration must match the manager's needs.

6. Adams' theory of justice - provides for transparency in the system of assessment and remuneration of managers within a specific structural unit and transparency and openness in the assessment of the work of teams of structural units.

7. Porter - Lawler model (expectancy theory and equity theory). From the Porter-Lawler model, 3 elements are used (out of 14 elements):

- expectation that rewards (incentives) will be fair;

- reward (incentive) perceived as fair;

- satisfaction with reward (stimulation).

We must not forget about the motivation of managers - this is one of the main factors in achieving the overall goals of the organization. The effectiveness of work, the socio-psychological climate, labor productivity and the level of organizational culture of the organization depend on how motivated managers are in practice. To organize labor motivation in practice, it is necessary to determine the motives of work of managers and organize the process of motivating managers.

The fundamental task of stimulating the work of managers in organizations, therefore, is to ensure that the system of incentives corresponds to the system of motives for the work of managers and promptly takes into account changes in the latter.For each type of labor motive, the organization should strive to provide an exhaustive list of labor incentives in order to attract and retain managers, and then strengthen their motivation.

Thus, an analysis of real economic processes shows that the relationship between the organization and managers arises regarding the list of incentives and their changes.Clarification of the subjects and objects of these relations allows us to define the incentives for managers as an economic category in the following way.

Incentives for the work of managers as an economic category expresses the relationship between an organization and its managerial corps regarding the set of benefits (labor incentives) that the organization offers to managers for their work.

As for the category «labor motivation», it shows the attitude of managers towards work. Their minds contain a system of motives. The more the organization's incentive system coincides with it, the higher the degree of implementation of motives in practice, the higher the motivation of managers. Its level can be high, medium and low.

In modern conditions, the level of labor motivation in most organizations is low, and this causes some anxiety among owners and their dissatisfaction with the attitude of managers towards work. This has become especially visible in recent years. More and more owners understand that low labor motivation has become the most acute problem of the organization. For many organizations, the only way out of a crisis is to increase the motivation of managers and other personnel [9, pp. 79-80].

That is why many organizations are developing their own labor incentive systems, modifying the traditional tariff system of remuneration, introducing tariff-free systems, changing the provisions on bonus systems for managers, paying for length of service, etc. Thus, the motivation of managers falls within the circle of economic interests and relations between them and the organization.

In most organizations, the level of labor motivation of managers does not satisfy the owners; they take various measures to improve it. Unfortunately, this does not always work out. There are often cases when new provisions on bonuses, instead of growth, give rise to a drop in the motivation of managers.

labor motives are on the side of the individual, labor incentives are on the organization's side, motives are in the employee's mind, incentives are in the list of benefits that the organization gives in exchange for labor [9, p. 81].

To satisfy needs and realize its interests, the organization is forced to provide managers with a system of material andsocial benefits. Otherwise, it will be left without professional management of the organization, which will doom it to bankruptcy. The needs and interests of the organization are divided into resource ones: in material resources (fixed and working capital), labor resources (personnel), financial resources, etc., and socio-economic ones: increasing the economic and social efficiency of the production of goods and services, increasing competitiveness and market shares, preservation and development of the organization and personnel, growth of the organization's image, etc.

People's attitudes towards work are multifaceted. In one respect, work is an economic necessity, in another it is a social need. In the first case, labor is a source of income, in the second, it is a source of enjoyment in the labor process itself. Work brings a lot of positive emotions: the joy of creativity, inspiration from success, generates a surge of strength and energy, provides physical, intellectual and emotional stress necessary for a normal life, maintaining health and prolonging the active period of life. For these reasons, labor itself becomes the motive of labor. This motive is labor as a need.

Errors in the formation of a system of labor incentives lead to a mismatch between the interests of the organization and managers. Thus, in the tariff-salary system, managers are paid depending on their working hours. At the same time, the organization expects that the manager it hires will work intensively and proactively.

However, the manager soon learns the obvious truth: the salary does not actually depend on the efficiency of his work, and any initiative is not encouraged. Under these conditions, the manager begins to save his labor, while for decreasing work he receives a constant salary, i.e. the organization begins to pay more and more for each unit of labor expended [9].

Differences in labor motivation in organizations depend on many circumstances. These are the level of salaries in the organization and in the local labor market, management style, relations between owners and employees, level of personnel development, etc. Managers' work motivation is influenced by tension in relations between staff and owners, low wages and loss of hope for its growth, detachment of staff from making important decisions, confidentiality of information about financial indicators of production, etc. All this does not in any way encourage most managers to be creative, take initiative, or overcome difficulties.

Work motivation can be considered in statics and dynamics. IN In the first case, the existing level comes to the fore labor motivation (high, medium, low) and fixed set of labor motives.In the second case we are talking about changing the set motives and about the dynamics of the level of labor motivation, for example, from low to medium and high, that is, motivation is considered as process. Analysis of the existing level of motivation allows us to outline measures to change it. The analysis reveals the level of motivation of managers in general and by «levels» of management.On its basis, differentiated measures are developed to enhance labor motivation, that is, labor incentives are improved. The dynamics of the level of motivation acts as a response from managers to the organization's efforts to improve labor incentives. Thus, labor motivation is a process of changing the composition of labor motives and the level of motivation of managers.Labor motivation appears as a complex process, as a developing economic relationship.

The process of labor motivation proceeds cyclically.Each cycle can strengthen or weaken the motives for work.If remuneration increases, work evaluation is fair and the manager is morally rewarded, then his motivation increases, and vice versa [7].

In practice, in organizations, owners offer managers a set of various benefits in the hope of a positive reaction from the latter, for intensive and proactive work.However, they often find that managers do not behave as expected.

In turn, managers, having received a system of incentives from the organization, often see that rewards can be obtained without bothering themselves with intense work, without showing creativity, and see a weak connection between incentives and labor.In this regard, labor motivation remains low, the labor potential of managers is only partially used, the organization's material resources are used ineffectively, etc.

Sociological surveys of managers in organizations in various industries show that most of them do not work at full capacity; they can work better.It all comes down to the disadvantage of working hard and well in the existing system of labor incentives.Time and time again, owners enter into relationships with managers regarding low work motivation.

Thus, regarding the motivation of work, two subjects enter into a relationship - the organization and managers.By changing the composition of labor incentives (by introducing new ones and removing ineffective ones), the organization thereby influences the composition of managers' labor motives.

In this regard, managers have a new motive for work - to become a leader in their position, to receive material and moral rewards. Being dissatisfied with the attitude of managers towards work, the organization takes measures to increase labor motivation, as a rule, by changing the conditions and amounts of bonuses.Thus, the objects of relations in this process are the structure of managers' labor motives and the level of their motivation.

Clarification of the subjects and objects of these relationships allows us to determine the category «motivation of managers' work».Labor motivation of managers as an economic category expresses the relationship between the managerial corps and the organization regarding the achievement and maintenance of motivation at a level that ensures the effective use of the labor potential of managers and the organization's means of production.

Currently, the practical task of organizations is to learn to systematically study the motives of work of managers, their satisfaction with the composition of incentives and each of them.It is very important to stimulate the work of managers as much as possible, because.

The efficiency of production and the competitiveness of the organization primarily depend on the level of their motivation.In the vast majority of organizations, there is no study of managers' opinions about the sufficiency and value of available labor incentives, or about the degree to which the motives of their work are realized.Almost everywhere, labor incentives are organized blindly, out of habit, out of intuition, sometimes borrowing the experience of other countries without adapting it to local conditions, etc.It is quite clear that such labor incentives cannot be effective.

Conclusions

An analysis of the most common theories of motivation showed:

- most often the motivation of any human activity is considered, but insufficient attention is paid to the motivation of work;

- motivation is considered mainly as a socio-psychological phenomenon of a person, the economic side is not studied enough;

- the focus of most researchers is on the motivation of the individual, while the motivation of teams, social and professional groups of personnel is practically not studied;

- problems of stimulating workers on the part of organizations are poorly developed, i.e. only one of the interacting parties, the employee, is considered, and the position of the organization is not examined.

All this indicates that in the theory of labor motivation of workers and teams, the theory of labor stimulation on the part of organizations, there are many «blank spots» that have yet to be filled in by Ukrainian and foreign researchers.

Sources

1. Zbrytska T. P., Savchenko G. O. The role of work motivation in personnel management in modern conditions. Bulletin of the Khmelnytskyi National University. 2011. №. 2. Vol. 3. P. 220-224.

2. A. M. Kolot, S. O. Tsymbalyuk Personnel motivation: textbook. K.: KNEU, 2011. 397 p.

3. Lukyanchenko N. D., Buntovska L. L. Personnel motivation: Training manual. Donetsk, DonNU, 2004. 302 p.

4. Maslova S. O., Kononyuk K. E. Motivation as a factor of work efficiency. Herald of ZHTU. 2018. №2. P. 85-89.

5. Management: conceptual and terminological dictionary. G. V. Shtokin, M. F. Golovatyy, O. V. Antonyuk, V. P. Sladkevich. K.: MAUP, 2007. 744 p.

6. G. V. Nazarova, I. O. MartynenkoConceptual model of motivated personnel training. Herald of social and economic research. 2013. № 4. P. 106-111.

7. Sokolenko V. A., Klyzhenko A. S. The mechanism of influence of personnel motivation on increasing the level of labor productivity. Bulletin of NTU «KhPI». 2013. №. 69 (1042). P. 83-87.

8. Taylor F. Principles of scientific management / trans. with English A. I. Order. Controlling, 1991. 104 p.

9. Shpektorenko I. V. The theory of motivation of F. Herzberg in the context of the structure of professional mobility of personnel. Aspects of public administration. 2013. №. 1. P. 78-83.

10. Auty Richard M. Sustaining Developmet in Mineral Economies: The Resource Curse Thesis. London: Routledge, 1993.

11. Barnett, T. and Scott B. Droege. «Theory Z.» Encyclopedia of Management. Ed. Marilyn M. Helms. 5th ed. Detroit: Gale, 2006. 914-916. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.

12. Gylfason, T. Natural resources, education and economic development. CEPR Discussion Paper 2594, 2000.

13. Haney, C., Banks, W. C., & Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). Study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. Naval Research Reviews, 9, 1-17. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research.

14. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.