Discussions on labor motivation in social history

Kondrateva Yuliya Gennad'evna ORCID: 0009-0004-1453-7682 Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University Chief specialist; Federal Institute for the Development of Vocational Education and Training 119991, Russia, Moscow, Leninskie Gory str., 1 Rock250599@gmail.com

Social history combines the achievements of the social sciences to gain a deeper understanding of historical processes. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, social history is characterized by various methodological approaches. Historians study and analyze documents in order to reconstruct the past; sociologists, on the contrary, prefer to work in the "field", that is, to conduct research and collect data in the present tense. This approach allows them to study social phenomena and processes in their current state. Thus, social history is a complex and multifaceted field of research that requires the use of various methodological approaches to better understand the past and present.

It is known that the motives of human activity differ in content, origin and place in the hierarchy of the whole system of motives that motivate and regulate the performance of activities. On this basis, motivation is usually divided into internal (intrusive) and external (extrinsive). Intrinsic motivation is defined as doing something for oneself, out of interest and pleasure - it is related to the process itself, or in other words, when we care about the process of an activity. External motivation, on the contrary, is based on external factors that are not directly related to the process of activity itself, and encourages a person to act even if he is not interested in the process itself.

The problem of motivation has been dealt with relatively recently. In the context of motivation research, the problem of the influence of material rewards on employee motivation occupies a special place. From numerous old studies on work motivation, it can be learned that identifying motives is a difficult task, they have blurred boundaries, and the effect of various stimuli can be contradictory and unobvious. Hence, research on work motivation stands at the intersection of many sciences, so interdisciplinarity in this context is not a fad or a fad. In this short article, we will try to examine the discussions about work motivation that took place during the twentieth century in social history, sociology, and how theories of motivation that originated in psychology then took root in the humanities and social studies.

Why is work motivation research so important for social research? We spend a lot of our lives at work, so understanding an employee's motivation can say a lot about a person's well-being in general. If people go to work without attaching any importance to this activity, if they do not show interest in it, realize the aimlessness and futility of work, this cannot but affect their attitude to life in general. This attitude is irreversibly transferred to other areas of life.

Motivation is a broad concept and includes various aspects. Back in the middle of the twentieth century, French labor sociologist Georges Friedman noted that explaining employee motivation solely by salary is not enough, psychological phenomena must be taken into account, and a person must be perceived holistically as a combination of social and psychological personal. Although this approach seems theoretically obvious, it turns out to be extremely difficult to implement. The study of motivation using only quantitative or only qualitative methods in the social sciences often does not answer the psychological questions posed.

It is interesting how labor motivation was viewed in the Soviet era. According to the Russian sociologist and psychologist V.S. Magun, the ideology of Soviet society was labor-centered ^{[27, pp. 47-62]}, and the dual nature of labor (as a means of existence and as a creative need) was one of the postulates of historical materialism. In the normative and ideological texts of the Soviet period, one can trace the juxtaposition of spiritual and material motives for work: spiritual motives were those aimed at realizing a person's creative abilities; material motives were those that are primarily related to monetary remuneration to provide for a person and his family. V.S. Magun also traces another contrast in the Soviet ideological apparatus — personal motives (including those related to providing for one's own family) were opposed to socially oriented ones.

And the Soviet ideological model of labor motivation inadequately assessed the role of the above-described motives: social motives were placed above personal ones, and spiritual ones rose above material ones. A communist attitude towards work was cultivated, which was to become the “primary need of life.” V.S. Magun and V.E. Gimpelson conclude that such a socialist labor morality imposed the following requirement on the employee: to carry out high labor costs with low material remuneration, and to work more enthusiastically. Even in the early periods of the development of Soviet industry (industrialization is an obvious example here), this mobilization function generally worked, although with a lot of stretching ^{[20, pp.4-20]}.

However, enthusiasm has its limits, and later large discrepancies became apparent between the labor ideals of the socialist state and the labor values of ordinary people. And one of the main goals of Soviet sociologists since the 1960s has been to determine which labor values the population expressed and which motives prevailed.

Motivation has only recently been studied as a unique psychological process not only in sociology, but also in history. And this topic causes great difficulties in historical research.

Historical research has established its own point of view on motivation. For example, in studies of labor history, the classification proposed by the American sociologist Ch. Tilly in the book “Labor under Capitalism" ^{[14, 346 p.]}, which was further refined by researchers from the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam. According to her, work motivation consists of two components: discipline and elements of creativity. These two components, in turn, consist of three motivating factors: reward, coercion, and motivation. In simple words, work motivation consists of these three components and the orientation of the incentive system depends on them: over time, the weight of each of these motivating factors changes, thus determining different work incentive systems. It is also worth distinguishing between the concepts of “motive” and “incentive”: motives are called the internal desire of an employee to do his job, while any external measure is called an incentive to cause or strengthen the motive for work. In the works of foreign and Russian historians of social historians, it has been repeatedly noted that "motivation" is associated with the employee's awareness of the importance and necessity of his good work, his pride in his qualifications or work results, the desire for universal recognition and respect, and other aspects of "intrinsic motivation." It is no coincidence that A.K.Sokolov noted in his program article that the famous Dutch historian J. Lucassen divided motives for work into two categories: work for oneself (autonomous) and for others (heteronomous). ^{[40, c. 7-52]}

Marcel van der Linden complements this scheme of motives ^{[19, pp. 208-211]}: his reward consists of 3 parts, 3 incentives:

● Direct earnings (time-based/piecework/hybrid)

● indirect earnings (payment for holidays and vacations/ the possibility of official earnings). When describing this point, Van der Linden quotes Stephen Robbins, a professor at the University of San Diego from his book Organizational Behavior, that these incentives do not affect employee motivation, except in some cases. Stephen Robbins himself, when describing this phenomenon in his book, refers to the modern theory of self-determination SDT (Self-determination theory). Robbins notes (and Van der Linden quotes) that "where indirect earnings are controlled by superiors and used for rewards, it is obviously necessary to consider them as motivating incentives."

● coercion — and here he defines 3 areas of application of coercion: 1) disciplinary liability (reprimands/demotion/dismissal); 2) criminal liability; 3) financial liability.

He also identifies motivation to work as a separate category — incentives for motivation, in turn, consist of 4 motives, which are largely related to the cultural and historical context.: 1) pride in skills; 2) "patriotism" towards the company; 3) desire for universal recognition; 4) desire to benefit society. As we can see, in Tilly and Van der Linden's classification, the boundaries between motives and stimuli are quite blurred: both motives and stimuli can have a material and non-material character. For example, a good incentive system at an enterprise can influence an employee's motivation to stay at that enterprise. The effectiveness of incentives also turns out to be closely related to the situation in society and cultural characteristics. However, this position on motivation seems to be somewhat inaccurate.

Motivation is a socio-psychological phenomenon, and this classification considers employee motivation from the perspective of the employer/company (more from the perspective of the social). According to modern research, the study of labor motivation by in-depth interview methods looks preferable ^{[29, pp. 51-54]}, if only because the focus here inevitably shifts to the personality of the employee, his purely personal attitude and motivation. In fact, this classification is Ch. Tilly's research on motivation from a historical perspective can cause difficulties. This is best demonstrated by the example of discipline — according to this classification, discipline refers more to coercion, but in the perception of employees, discipline can be different: it can be considered as an "order" that is necessary in complex technological production, and the presence of such discipline attracted workers and rather acted as an incentive. At the same time, discipline may look like a purely external influence from the authorities, which is seen as coercion, but it was often ineffective. In particular, in the British automotive industry, there was a situation where discipline was maintained within the team (ganga) through direct control of work, which was perceived by workers more positively than direct control by superiors — although, in fact, both were discipline carried out under direct supervision ^{[13, pp. 187-192]}.

It is this classification that is mainly taken as a basis in modern historical research on the history of labor.^[38] For example, in their studies on labor stimulation in pre-revolutionary factories of the Russian Empire, L.I. Borodkin and T.Ya. Valetov used the Tilly classification, supplemented by Van der Linden. They considered stimulating labor in the textile factories of the N.N. Konshin Manufactory Association and the Yaroslavl Large Manufactory Association. Here they note an important difference between the incentive system and the labor motivation system: the former is created by the enterprise administration, while the latter, although related to incentives, is largely determined by the internal attitudes and values of each individual employee.

But among other things, the authors have significantly supplemented the classification. Tilly and Marcel van der Linden's classification of work incentives is based on how the employee is affected. Borodkin and Valetov also proceed from the goals of stimulating the company. They pay attention to the formation of an incentive system at the enterprise. Of course, such a view, as mentioned above, cannot fully reveal the motivation of the employee and look into those very "internal attitudes" of the employee. However, this is dictated by the limitations of the source base, as the study used the records of two factories in the late XIX — early XX.

The authors note that it is problematic to conduct a full-fledged study of employee motivation: firstly, there were differences between enterprises of different sizes, industries and forms of ownership; secondly, there were few documents of small enterprises, and the forms of labor relations based on them were based on an archaic paternalistic model. Therefore, the authors used the case studies method for a detailed analysis of the incentive system. ^{[17, p. 6-10]}

But this applies to enterprises of the early twentieth century, when the claims of industrial workers, yesterday's peasants, were small. With an increase in living standards, according to the widespread theory of motivation (which will be discussed later), the demands of workers have changed.

In this context, the work of A.M. Markevich and A.K. Sokolov "Magnitogorsk near the Garden Ring" is interesting, in which they consider the history of the Hammer and Sickle factory from 1883 to 2001. They also used Tilly and Van der Linden's classification, and how previous authors combined the principles of macro- and microanalysis, and tried to look at the history of the plant "from below" through labor practices. Based on the array of documents collected during the large-scale "History of Factories and Plants" and the factory's records up to 2002, the authors come to a seemingly unexpected conclusion regarding the motivation of workers since the 1960s.

In Soviet society, the creation of an extensive social sphere and numerous social guarantees from the state and trade unions was perceived as a natural and natural development. Although this provided social support, according to the authors, it led to social dependency, a decrease in individual initiative in work. This process also caused social discontent and dissatisfaction with the compensation received for work. It turned out that personal factors, such as caring for one's family and one's own interests, which the state or an enterprise could not reach, had a much greater impact on stimulating work. ^{[28, p. 326]}

Both of the studies I described (as well as a number of others ^{[18, pp.23-39]}; ^{[30, pp.26-41]}; ^{[34, pp. 174-224]}) were conducted with the assistance of the International Institute of Social History in the Netherlands, which explains the popularity of this classification in Russian studies. As we can see, researchers apply this classification to different time periods (to pre-revolutionary Russia, and to Stalinist industrialization as in the works of S. Zhuravlev and M. Mukhin ^{[23, 239 p.]}, and to the period of stagnation), but in general they all agree that in practice, all methods of labor stimulation interact not abstractly or in isolation, but through the process of the team's daily production activities, which is closely related to the situation in the state and society. At the same time, depending on the state of the source base, individual "cases", biographies of people and labor collectives, survey materials, as well as various problems of production and life of workers can be studied — all this can reflect the complexity and dynamism of the processes involved in the formation of employee motivation.

However, the study of employee motivation in historical retrospect is still rare. There have been attempts to use historical methodology to classify professions, for example in the work of researchers from Altai University. The participants of the scientific project were able to identify valuable sources of information for data analysis and systematization, including census forms and metric books, which turned out to be indispensable for understanding professional culture. ^{[26, 256 p.]} Or the anthropologist David Graeber, who in his famous book "Delusional Work" examines labor motivation from the point of view of a critical analysis of modern capitalist systems. Graeber argues that many people are forced to work in meaningless and unsatisfying jobs that do not benefit society. ^{[22, 363 p.]}

However, the problem of labor motivation is most often raised by psychologists, and employee motivation has moved into the field of view of behavioral and experimental economics in many ways precisely from the problems and theories of management. Theories of labor motivation were developed by university sociologists and psychologists, as well as directly by managers of enterprises and business schools.

Today, in psychology, it is customary to distinguish between internal (intrusive, or intrinsic) and external (extrinsic, or extrinsic) motivation. There was no consensus on how intrensively motivated behavior differs from intensely motivated behavior in the 1980s, but all concepts converge in understanding intrensively motivated behavior as occurring for its own sake, out of interest or pleasure ^{[36, pp. 234-239]}.

Since the 1960s, more and more research has been conducted in the West on employee motivation in order to increase labor productivity. Standard economic theory assumes that the promise of higher pay always leads to higher productivity. And this is true of simple jobs.: This is confirmed by modern research. The most cited and well-known example in modern labor sociology here is the field experiment of economist Edward Lazier at Safelite Glass: after the transition from fixed hourly wages to piecework, productivity increased by 36%, while labor costs increased by only 9% ^{[9, pp. 1346-1361]}.

But does this apply to complex activities? One of the first theorists to draw attention to this was McGregor in his theory of Y and X employee motivation. He suggested that modern people are motivated primarily by achievements, so managers should focus on internal motivators of higher-order needs ^{[11, pp. 41-49]}. Since the basic needs of most people in Europe and North America were met, higher-level needs at work seemed more important.

It is worth noting that in the West, interest in the "affluent worker" has focused primarily on the perceived political consequences of raising the standard of living of the industrial workforce. Thus, the growing prosperity of British workers in the 1950s and 1960s was dubbed "embourgeoisement" in the press, and this was seen as the reason for the victory of the Conservative Party. This was seen as a possible reason for political radicalism and dangerous dissent ^{[6, pp. 157-196]}.

At the same time, the previous differences in consumption patterns have also decreased significantly, as the well-being of workers has increased. However, this is still an exaggeration: of course, the British workers have ceased to be that "classical" working class from Marxist writings and propaganda, but they have not fully adopted the values of the middle class, according to the famous Goldthorpe study. Based on interviews with 229 ordinary workers from three enterprises in the English city of Luton and several enterprises in Coventry ^{[5, pp. 11-31]}, Goldthorpe and his team found that their attitude to work remained purely instrumental. Although most workers have achieved a standard of living that can be considered "middle class," however, in order to achieve a high level of income, many of the workers have experienced greater hardships in their working lives than most white-collar workers. They also differ from the latter in that they had little chance of professional growth. They weren't particularly interested in the work—it didn't seem to bother them very much. They simply expected a high and stable income from work, and their focus was mainly on family.

The methodological part of this work was criticized by Thomas Lupton, a sociologist from the University of Manchester Business School, who in the 1950s went to work at a factory as a simple worker to study a person in industrial production, but he emphasized the strength of the work: most factory sociologists and managers greatly underestimate the impact on work and productivity of non-working factors and situations, and the main attention is paid to external factors, which in fact turned out to be not so significant ^{[10, pp. 167-169]}.

And here it is worth mentioning another theory of labor motivation, which has become very popular. The division of motivation into intrusive and intensive appeared a long time ago, but it was widely used (or, more correctly, popularly) by the American psychologist F. Hertzberg, who in the 1960s proposed his two-factor theory of employee motivation (another name for the theory is motivational hygiene) based on many years of research at American enterprises. In 1968, the Harvard Business Review published his article ”One More Time, How Do You Motivate Employees?”, which has become widespread in the business environment ^{[8, pp.6-16]}.

His research was conducted on the basis of 203 interviews with employees from different industries and different levels ^{[7, 203 p.]}. According to the theory, internal factors (or intrinsic to the work: the possibility of personal growth, recognition of merit, responsibility) are determining and increasing labor productivity, they lead to the best results — such factors he calls them “motivators.” In contrast, he identifies "hygienic" factors that are not related to the content of the work (extrinsic to the work itself: salary level, length of vacation, working conditions, methods of supervision of employees). Herzberg's theory indicates that work will increase motivation and job satisfaction only to the extent that motivating factors are built into the job itself. Hence, Herzberg leads to the conclusion that the level of wages does not affect the motivation of the employee as a whole. On the one hand, Herzberg's theory has provoked new research in the field of employee motivation. Although the division of factors into intrusive and extrinsive, thanks to Herzberg, has only strengthened in the mass consciousness, the idea that external factors do not affect motivated high productivity has been criticized a lot.

Moreover, this theory does not take into account the differences between people in how they react to difficult work. It has now been revealed that some people are much more likely to respond positively to an enriched and challenging job than others. Some people do not want to complicate their work even for the sake of making more money due to their own interests and abilities. They don't want to make it more interesting—they're fine with it anyway.

And here it is worth returning to the history of Soviet sociology.

By the mid-1970s, two branches of labor sociology had been identified in Soviet sociology: academic and factory sociology, which focused directly on enterprises ^{[35, pp. 211-238]}. For the first time, academic scientists at enterprises begin to work temporarily as consultants to the management of the enterprise, helping to develop social development plans. The sociologist's activity was of a research nature, and the directions of work were determined by the situational order of the administration. The most common research conducted by factory sociologists concerned problems of labor discipline, staff turnover, and labor motivation. The sociology of labor, despite being practice-oriented in general, was of a purely applied nature in the USSR, as noted in particular by the American sociologist T. Parsons, who came to the USSR in the 1960s and worked closely with Soviet sociologists ^{[31, p. 25]}.

According to the 1989 manual ^{[16, p. 9]}, a factory sociologist is not a "functionary" or a "social engineer", but primarily an ideological worker, and it is important that he remains a reliable assistant to the party committee, expressing public rather than narrowly departmental tasks. In general, it is often found in later documents and manuals that our sociologists are great fellows, since they are not only engaged in applied things. Nevertheless, the administration of enterprises demanded solutions and analysis of specific problems from them, so that sociology would bring social benefits to the enterprise's staff, and not to "big science".

In the Soviet sociology of labor, several regional schools with their own specifics and interests stood out. Thus, the Leningrad school (V.A. Yadov, O.I. Shkaratan) was more interested in the problems of labor motivation and the value orientation of workers, the Moscow school was characterized by attention to scientific and technological progress and its impact on workers, as well as labor motivation (represented by A.K. Nazimova and L.A. Gordon, etc.) and many other issues (in general, the Moscow school was very diverse). At the Ural School of Labor Sociology, they studied labor culture and social planning (L.N. Kogan), and in Odessa they were also interested in labor motivation (I.M. Popova).

A major event in Soviet sociology was the publication of a study by Leningrad school sociologists A.G. Zdravomyslov and V.A. Yadov "Man and his Work" in 1967, which for many decades became a methodological benchmark for labor sociologists ^{[25, 392 p.]}. Based on a survey of 2.5 thousand Leningrad workers of all ages and different skill levels, they considered labor problems. relationships are closely related to the inner world of employees, and the study of motivation occupied an important place in this study. They analyzed control interviews and employee surveys, took statistical materials, individual worker cards, where the masters/ bosses gave characteristics of their work and personality, then all this was calculated statistically.

In a general theoretical sense, the studies of Yadov and Zdravomyslov brought little new — they also divided motivation into internal and external. But Soviet sociologists were able to achieve interesting concrete results and partial conclusions and, in general, proposed a concept different from the usual general theoretical Isthmian works: work cannot act as a source of inner satisfaction in itself, but can only be provided with a sufficiently rich content. Extrinsic motivation prevails in simple work, while creative and ideological motives dominate in complex work.

Zdravomyslov and Yadov in this book attempted to test the very theory of Herzberg's motivation, and even linked the types of motivation to the types of work (they prepared a chapter where they directly compare the data of Leningrad enterprises with Herzberg's data, and Herzberg himself even used their methodology to compare motivation, but the chapter was not published at the time — I saw it was published only in 2003 ^{[37, 484 p.]}).

According to Yadov and Zdravomyslov, an employee engaged in heavy unskilled labor considers a high salary as compensation or indulgence, rather than as a worthy recognition of merit ^{[24, p. 121-124]}.

A discussion immediately began around this 1967 work, and many studies were conducted: some confirmed this point of view. For example, a team of Moscow sociologists led by G.V. Osipov, who conducted research at the Gorky enterprise, came to similar conclusions — modern workers are more focused on meaningful work due to better conditions for development ^{[33, 361 p.]}.

Other Soviet researchers refuted their positions, for example, in a study by Novosibirsk sociologists, where they studied the motives of builders, encouraging them to move to a new place, and the relationship between the structures of motives for potential and actual turnover in individual groups ^{[15, 305 p.]}. The reason for such discrepancies lies in the research methodology, incorrect indicators of labor values and methods of their implementation. fixation, according to V.S. Magun ^{[27, pp. 48-49]}. He believes that there was a statistical error in the study of Zdravomyslov and Yadov (or rather, the problem was too sophisticated statistical analysis), which led them to the wrong conclusion about the predominance of internal motivation over external motivation in highly skilled workers. Soviet sociologists of the early period used other more complex and confusing indicators.

It seems that the traditional survey method and the respondents' simple judgments have a disadvantage — they are subject to distortion due to human subjectivity. But here we need to take into account the historical context — as I wrote above, Soviet ideology postulated values not of earnings, but of the content and social orientation of work, which means that distortions should be in this direction.

But in 1976, V.A. Yadov conducted a second study of the same enterprises, this time with more attention to the subjective components of labor activity. The results were already different — as we moved towards socialism, the labor values of the workers became more materialistic. He found a shift towards a balanced interest in both the content of work and material remuneration, but also increased demands on working conditions ^{[39, p. 56]}. As a result, sociologists have come to the conclusion that workers develop a rational attitude to work instead of enthusiasm. In the same year, 1976, Leningrad sociologists conducted an additional study of Leningrad engineers and found out that labor activity is stimulated by the least satisfied needs, mainly materialistic ^{[39, pp. 50-62]}. Similar results were obtained by V.S. Magun and V.E. Gimpelson in the second half of the 1980s ^{[20, pp. 4-20]}

The study by Yadov and Zdravomyslov was criticized, on the one hand, for a deviation from Marxism and a strong bias towards positivism, however, later the authors admitted some methodological errors, but fortunately, criticism came only from academic circles, “at the very top" the work was received favorably. However, in the last edition of the book in 2004, they admitted many errors in their calculations and judgments about motivation. In 2003, Zdravomyslov and Yadov published the very unpublished chapter on comparing the data of American and Soviet workers with comments. The main conclusion that the Soviet workers were dominated by meaningful motives for work, they made on the basis of two arguments: 1) due to the absence of pressure from the factor of job loss; 2) due to the ideological motives of the work of Soviet workers.

“It must be admitted that not everything that was written at that time was dictated by self-censorship, it was in many ways sincere: this was how social reality was constructed in the author's mind. ... And this is a lesson for a sociologist, who, as bequeathed by Max Weber, is obliged to distinguish scientific and value-based approaches in his work. Alas, the lesson was not heeded then.”^{[37, c. 420-427]}

Also, under the leadership of O.I. Shkaratan, a group of sociologists conducted a study of Leningrad workers of machine-building enterprises during 1965-1977, and revealed a decrease in the prestige of shop managers and more requirements for meaningful work among engineering and technical workers ^{[32, 271 p.]}.

And in this light, it is necessary to mention one of the most popular theories of motivation today — the theory of self-determination (SDT). It seems to be suitable for assessing labor motivation in the period from the 1970s to the 1980s, when the problem of increasing labor productivity was difficult to solve using traditional incentives. Since the 1990s, the theory of self-determination has been widely used in research on labor organization and labor activity ^{[21, pp. 208-212]}.

The theory of self-determination was born out of an interest in the study of intrinsic motivation, put forward by psychologists from the University of Rochester, Edward Deci and Richard Ryan back in the 1970s. In 1985, they published a book outlining the main ideas of their theory ^{[3, 372 p.]}. The theory has received empirical support, as evidenced by numerous studies, and now she is the most influential.

Special importance in theory is attached to the need for autonomy. The need for autonomy means the need to have a choice and definition of one's own behavior, the opportunity to feel like an initiator. At the same time, feeling autonomous does not mean being independent of others — obviously, each person is dependent on his environment, his family, but this does not deprive him of autonomy ^{[4, pp. 1-11]}.

As we understand it, intrinsic motivation arises only when a person engages in an activity for their own pleasure, derived from the process itself. Professional activity cannot be stimulated solely by internal motivation. Often, a person starts an activity motivated solely by external motives. Internal and external motivations do not exist separately from each other and are not polar opposites; there are transitions between them, which are called internalization.

As a matter of fact, an extensive classification of Ch. Tilly and M. Van der Linden's work is also devoted to these relationships, with the difference that they rely on historical materials in their research. Deci and Ryan used experimental data that is not available to historians.

These studies have been conducted for 30 years since the early 1970s, but at an early stage they came up with an unexpected conclusion: material rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. The undermining of intrinsic motivation occurred due to the fact that dependence on rewards undermined people's sense of autonomy. The idea that money reduces intrinsic motivation resonated, given that money is commonly viewed as the main motivator of labor productivity. However, despite the disagreements in the academic community, a meta-analysis of 128 experiments confirmed that tangible (explicit and open, rather) external rewards significantly reduced internal motivation for rewarded activities on average ^{[2, pp. 627-668]}. Meta-analyses of studies conducted by other scientists have also confirmed this point of view ^{[12, pp. 365-404]}.

However, there were nuances here: the awards that were given to the participants just like that did not undermine the internal motivation for the activity. The rewards that were given as an unexpected bonus also did not undermine intrinsic motivation. In addition, the reward, which was not obvious, also did not harm internal motivation ^{[1, pp. 217-229]}.

Correcting the initial conclusion that remuneration does not affect intrinsic motivation, labor research has been updated with an important conclusion: rewards, as a rule, should not be used explicitly and intentionally to try to motivate employees to perform work tasks, because it is likely that, if this is the case, employees will perceive unforeseen circumstances of remuneration as controlling and undermining them. autonomy and thus, as a rule, lose their intrinsic motivation. In addition, allowances and bonuses are most effective when used to recognize a truly well-done job.

Thus, we can summarize: according to standard economic theory, the promise of a higher salary, which is clearly commensurate with labor efforts (whose expression is piecework — you earn as much as you have earned) inevitably leads to increased productivity. Although this raises the question of how to measure a person's efforts, because effort varies not only from job to job, but also from person to person, and is a subjective experience. Although it can be circumvented uncertainly by the fact that one employee can be replaced by about the same, but these are problems of a different kind.

But the impact of financial incentives on employee motivation is not as obvious as it seems at first glance. The fact is that extrinsic motivation is a heterogeneous phenomenon, and the impact of material incentives in practice turns out to be somewhat more complicated. The problem of labor motivation is much deeper and concerns not only the context of labor activity, but also how labor motivation is related to general motivational mechanisms. The weakness of many psychological theories of work motivation is that motivation is considered purely as a psychological phenomenon. Hence, it is viewed somewhat fragmentarily, only as a set of motives and professional values, the relationship of which to each other remains unclear.

By what criteria can one or another behavior be attributed to a certain type of motivation? As V.S. Magun and V.E. Gimpelson wrote, it is best to use the methods of direct judgments of employees here, using a survey. In social history, it is customary to pay more attention to statistical sources that report on the level of wages and fines or incentives and bonuses, which can tell more about external motivation than about internal motivation. Historians, however, try to approach from different sources: it is possible to cite many examples of historical research on the motivation of industrial labor, which examines not only monetary remuneration, but also housing, social infrastructure of the enterprise, etc. In this context, the third component of the Tilly-Van der Linden triad ("motivation") is generally based on ego documents, personal sources, press materials, etc.

Some well-known classifications of work motivation used in works on social history (for example, Charles Tilly or Marcel van der Linden) focus on the fact that they consider the problem of employee motivation from the outside, from the employer or some outside observer.

The methodological approach proposed by Tilly and Van der Linden, which is dominant among social historians, focuses on three main components of labor motivation (reward, coercion, and motivation). In the works of foreign and Russian historians of social historians, it has been repeatedly noted that "motivation" is associated with the employee's awareness of the importance and necessity of his good work, his pride in his qualifications or work results, the desire for universal recognition and respect, and other aspects of "intrinsic motivation."

On the part of the employer, the motivation of work looks somewhat simpler and is often replaced by problems of material incentives for work, and this formulation of the question unobtrusively tells us that external material incentives should influence the motivation of work. And when it turns out that financial incentives for labor in some cases do not have the proper effect, they begin to look for reasons and delve into the particular ones that interfere with their hypotheses.

However, of course, professional activity cannot be stimulated solely by internal motivation. Most often, it is motivated by purely external motives, some of which are internalized into internal motivation. The main external motive, of course, is salary, but it turns out to be much more difficult to verify. As a result, it turns out that both psychology and labor history elude certain aspects of human activity. There are different approaches to labor motivation: for example, in labor psychology, the personality of an employee is considered in isolation from the general historical and cultural context, paying attention to his internal motivation. In sociology and labor history, organizational aspects of a person's life are considered, mainly affecting external motivation, often in isolation from his personality and his perception of what is happening. According to the latest provisions of motivation research, internal and external motivations are not opposed to each other, and it is unacceptable to consider them separately.