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But those perceptions may be outdated and wrong.

Thats 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 Wests 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.

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 Chinas 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 Chinas 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 shouldnt be used as the point of comparison because his survey takers werent hotel workers. While we agree that differences among respondents may account for some of the differences in survey results, we dont 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. Hofstedes original study ranged from 95 to 5. Chinas score went from 66 in the mid-1980s to negative 22 in our survey, 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. Hofstedes 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 Chinas 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. Hofstedes data, valued money and savings rates more highly than their counterparts in other nations. Chinas 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.

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 bosss 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 theres a better way. In a low power-distance culture like Denmark, an employee might say, Boss, thats 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 bosss 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 might want to re-examine the tools they use to hire and retain workers.

如果我们问跨国公司，他们认为什么能激励中国员工，回答显然是一致的：金钱是唯一管用的因素。

一家制造业公司的管理人士对我们表示，中国人对他们的雇主毫无忠诚可言。上海一家酒店的总经理也说，金钱是最为重要的动力。

然而，这种看法可能已经过时，不再符合实际。

去年和今年，我们对中国的三家西方品牌酒店的员工进行了系列采访、观察和调查。我们得出的研究结果的是，许多中国员工想要的并不只是金钱，他们以自己是团队一员为荣，总是愿意超标准地解决工作问题。

当美国跨国公司上世纪80年代初率先来华发展时，西方人对中国员工的一些看法或许是准确的。但我们的研究揭示，与当时相比，现在的中国员工对工作的追求与投入程度已经发生了改变。

如果我们对酒店业的研究发现同样适用于中国其他行业的话，那么跨国公司可能仍在用错误的激励手段去吸引与留住中国员工。这些公司将薪酬作为唯一的激励手段，忽视了培训、假期以及团队建设等方面；而这些激励因素可能在竞争激烈的人才市场具有重要的意义。

西方管理者与中国员工之间的理解错位在某种程度上可能是因为，跨国公司对中国员工的印象来自于他们与民工打交道的过程。80年代初，中国设立了经济特区，提供更为宽松的经济法律环境吸引西方公司进驻。民工是经济特区劳动力的重要组成部分，他们打工的主要目的就是挣到足够多的钱，能让家乡的亲人过上好日子。

尽管此后西方公司逐步扩展到中国其他地区，这里的员工与民工拥有不同的目标与价值；但许多西方管理者仍然抱着原来的观念，认为所有的中国员工都只在乎薪酬。学术与咨询机构仍然频频引述吉尔特•霍夫斯塔德(Geert Hofstede)几十年前的研究结果，死守着对中国员工的成见。为了从事文化如何影响工作价值观这一全球性研究课题，霍夫斯塔德80年代中期曾搜集了中国的相关数据。

但我们认为，自霍夫斯塔德的研究之后，中国的社会文化已经发生了巨大变化，进而导致中国员工的工作态度也出现了明显改变。计划生育等政策带来的影响已经降低了家庭、政府、宗教与邻里在中国社会关系网中的作用。由于成为团队一员或加入集体的机会减少，许多中国员工寄希望他们的雇主能弥补这一缺失。

我们在中国对三家酒店的员工进行了研究，分别是上海的波特曼丽嘉大酒店(Portman Ritz-Carlton)与索菲特海伦宾馆(Sofitel Hyland Hotel)以及拉萨的一家酒店。除了采访与观察，我们还借助霍夫斯塔德创建的研究模式，对241位员工进行了调查，他们大部分都不到40岁。在霍夫斯塔德的研究中，他通过几大指标比较了53个文化，比如权力距离（社会承认和接受的权力在组织中不平等分配的程度）、个人主义与集体主义（个人对所属集体的认同与重视程度）、男性化与女性化（社会价值对金钱、物质、生活品质的重视程度）以及长期导向（社会文化对储蓄与金钱的重视程度）。

我们将研究结果与霍夫斯塔德80年代对中国的研究进行了比较，发现两者存在显著不同，尤其是在男性化与女性化方面。霍夫斯塔德表示，他的文化评分不应作此比较，因为他的研究对象并不是酒店员工。尽管我们承认，受访者的差异对研究结果造成了一定影响；但考虑到研究揭示的变化程度，我们不认为这是唯一原因。

男性化分数高意味着社会在工作领域更重视高收入与工作环境的认可等因素，而分数低则更为重视与同事及老板关系和谐等因素。在霍夫斯塔德原先研究中，各个国家在这方面得分从95分到5分不等。中国当时得到了66分，而在我们的研究中评分为负22分；我们因此认为，在今日中国，挑选出色员工参加宴会可能比发奖金或者张榜表扬更能有效地激励员工。

在个人主义与集体主义方面，我们的研究结果也与霍夫斯塔德截然不同。在这项评分中，中国在80年代得到20分（非常倾向集体主义），而最新研究得分为71分（非常倾向个人主义）。由于诸多原因，中国员工已变得更为关注自我。计划生育政策是其中原因之一，中国家庭已经从大家庭多子女转变为小家庭独生子女的核心家庭模式。此外，随着越来越多的公司进行股份制改革，政府在民众生活中的家长地位也越来越弱。

此外，中国员工似乎比上一代人更为关注闲暇时间；在霍夫斯塔德上世纪80年代的研究中，中国人比其他国家都要看重金钱与储蓄，当时中国在长期导向方面得到世界最高的118分，但在我们的研究中只得到了40分，与法国相当。

研究还发现，在员工对工作权力分配的观点方面，中国也发生了明显变化；这可能会影响到员工授权项目的成功。在高权力距离的文化中，下属认为老板会告诉他们该做什么，因此很难鼓励普通员工主动去解决工作问题。

假设一个老板想出了个笨点子，那么在委内瑞拉这样的高权力距离国家，员工的回答也许是“好的，老板”。在美国这样的中等权力距离文化中，员工可能会说“有趣的想法，不过也许有个更好的办法”。在丹麦等低权力距离文化中，他们的员工可能就会直言不讳地说“老板，这是又一个蠢主意”。

在霍夫斯塔德的研究中，中国在权力距离方面得到80分，和委内瑞拉差不多；但在此次研究中得到41分，与美国相同。

接受我们采访的中国员工表示，尽管他们对向老板提建议持谨慎态度，但也会充分考虑提出建议。例如，一个宴会经理告诉我们，他尽力让自己的改进建议看上去是老板的主意。

在以服务著称的波特曼丽嘉大酒店，这里的管理层表示，尽管中国员工以前在接受授权方面比其他国家迟缓一些，但持续鼓励积极主动的管理层态度也使得中国员工的行为发生了变化。

在这方面，我们的观察结果有所不同。我们的研究小组观察到几个墨守成规的例子。比如，酒店员工会把早报放在门口的适当位置，哪怕客人已经开门要报纸也不懂得变通；但我们也发现，许多酒店员工懂得灵活处理客人的棘手要求。因此，我们认为，中国员工在主动性方面正处于过渡阶段。

综上所述，如果中国社会真的变得男女都同样在乎生活质量，重视闲暇时间，鼓励员工积极主动，那么西方公司可能就需要重新审视他们聘用与留住员工的机制了。