Ask multinational firms to describe what motivates Chinese workers, and the responses are remarkably consistent: Money is the only thing that matters.
“Chinese have zero loyalty to their employer,” one executive at a manufacturing firm told us. Said the general manager of a Shanghai hotel: “The most important motivator is money.”
But those perceptions may be outdated and wrong.
That’s the picture that emerged when we interviewed, observed and surveyed employees at three Western-branded hotels in China last year and this year. Many of the workers we studied wanted more than just a paycheck from employers, took pride in being part of a team and often were willing to go beyond minimum requirements to solve problems on the job.
While some of the West’s impressions of Chinese workers may have been accurate when U.S. multinationals first started doing business in China in the early 1980s, our findings indicate that what Chinese workers want from a job and what they are willing to put into it has changed since then.
And if what we discovered in the hospitality industry runs true across other industries in China, then multinational companies may be using the wrong incentives to attract and retain Chinese workers. By focusing solely on salary as a motivational tool, they are giving short shrift to things such as training, time off and community building — incentives that could go a long way in a highly competitive job market.
The Wrong Models
Some of the disconnect between Western managers and Chinese workers stems from the fact that multinational companies formed their opinions of Chinese labor from their interactions with migrant laborers, whose main goal is to make enough money to give relatives back home a better life. Migrant workers account for a big chunk of the work force in China’s special economic zones — areas with more liberal economic laws where Western companies first set up shop in the early 1980s.
Although Western firms have since expanded into parts of China where workers have different goals and values than those of migrant laborers, many Western managers continue to cling to the belief that all Chinese workers value salary equally. Research conducted by academic Geert Hofstede decades ago and repeated in classrooms and by consultants ever since points in the same direction.
We believe, however, that major cultural shifts in China have changed workers’ attitudes dramatically since Dr. Hofstede collected data on China in the mid-1980s as part of a world-wide study into how workplace values are influenced by culture. Major societal shifts — the result of policies such as China’s one-child rule — have reduced the role of family, government, religion and neighbors in social networks. And with fewer opportunities to be part of a group or something larger than themselves, many Chinese workers are looking to their employers to fill that void.
We studied workers at three hotels in China — the Portman Ritz-Carlton and the Sofitel Hyland Hotel in Shanghai, and another hotel in Lhasa. In addition to interviews and observation, we surveyed 241 employees, most of them younger than 40, using the survey model created by Dr. Hofstede, who compared 53 cultures based on measures such as power distance, or the extent to which the less powerful people accept and expect that power is distributed unequally; individualism/collectivism, or the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups; masculinity/femininity, or the degree to which people are focused on material success as opposed to quality of life; and long-term orientation, or the extent to which a culture values savings and money.
We compared our survey results with those Dr. Hofstede collected on China in the 1980s and found striking differences, particularly in the area of masculinity/femininity. Dr. Hofstede says his culture scores shouldn’t be used as the point of comparison because his survey takers weren’t hotel workers. While we agree that differences among respondents may account for some of the differences in survey results, we don’t believe it accounts for all, considering the extent of the changes we recorded.
High masculinity scores are associated with people valuing things such as higher salaries and recognition in the workplace, while low masculinity scores are associated with people desiring things such as harmonious relationships with peers and bosses. The scores of the nations in Dr. Hofstede’s original study ranged from 95 to 5. China’s score went from 66 in the 1980s to negative 22 in ours, leading us to believe that in the China of today, taking a star employee out to dinner may be a more effective motivator than a bonus or a plaque on the wall.
Our data also veered sharply from Dr. Hofstede’s in terms of the degree to which individuals are integrated into groups. China scored 20, very collectivist, in the 1980s, compared with 71 today, very individualist. Chinese workers have become more individually focused for a number of reasons. Among them: Because of China’s one-child rule, families have gone from large numbers of children living in extended-family relationships to one-child nuclear families living in small apartments. In addition, as more companies are privatized, the government is playing less of a paternal role in the lives of its citizens.
Chinese workers also appear to care about leisure time more than previous generations, which, according to Dr. Hofstede’s data, valued money and savings rates more highly than their counterparts in other nations. China’s long-term orientation score in the 1980s was the highest in the world at 118. In our survey, it was 40, on par with France.
Taking the Initiative
China also is a much different place in terms of how workers view the distribution of power in the workplace, a finding that may affect the success of employee-empowerment programs. In high power-distance cultures, where subordinates feel it is the boss’s job to tell them what to do, it is difficult to encourage rank-and-file workers to take the initiative to solve problems on the job.
If the boss has a bad idea in a high power-distance country like Venezuela, the employee response likely would be, “Yes, sir.” In a moderate power-distance culture like the U.S., the employee response might be, “Interesting idea, but maybe there’s a better way.” In a low power-distance culture like Denmark, an employee might say, “Boss, that’s another stupid idea.”
The power distance of the old China was 80, almost the same as Venezuela. The power distance of the new China is 41, the same as the U.S.
The Chinese employees we interviewed said that while they were cautious with offering suggestions to their bosses, they had plenty to give. One banquet manager, for example, told us he tries to make it seem that his suggestions for improvement are his boss’s idea.
Management at the Portman Ritz-Carlton, which stakes its reputation on service, said that although its Chinese staff had been slower to embrace empowerment than staffs in other parts of the world, consistent messages that taking the initiative would be rewarded changed behavior.
Our observations were mixed in this regard. Our team observed several instances of rote, rule-based behavior, such as a hotel worker placing a morning newspaper at the proper place by the door, even though the occupant had opened the door and was extending his hand. But we also observed many staff members responding creatively to difficult customer requests, leading us to believe that Chinese workers are in transition when it comes to taking the initiative.
So if China truly is becoming a society in which both men and women care equally about quality of life, where leisure time is important and where taking the initiative is seen as a good thing, then Western firms would be well-served to re-examine the tools they use to hire and retain workers.