Motivational systems in human resource management are commonly designed on the basis of implicit assumptions about human rationality that are rarely subjected to philosophical scrutiny. The predominance of instrumental approaches within these systems raises fundamental questions concerning the relationship between efficiency, autonomy, and human dignity. This article examines the rational foundations underlying motivational systems and explores their ethical and managerial implications.

The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis of instrumental rationality in the thought of Max Weber and the concept of autonomy in Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, and to clarify the relevance of these frameworks for human resource management. The research adopts a theoretical and foundational orientation and employs an analytical–interpretive comparative methodology. Data are drawn from a critical examination of classical philosophical texts and authoritative contemporary literature in philosophy and management.

The findings indicate that instrumental rationality primarily operates at the level of organizational systems and structures, where it serves to coordinate action and enhance efficiency. By contrast, Kantian autonomy is grounded at the level of the acting subject and is concerned with the normative justification of action. Extending instrumental rationality uncritically to the level of individual action reduces motivation to external incentives and risks undermining moral autonomy. The article argues that autonomy can function as a normative criterion for ethically constraining instrumental rationality in the design of motivational systems.

The study concludes that a philosophically informed rethinking of motivational systems is essential to avoid the instrumentalization of human beings within organizational contexts