motivation 3.0 - does it work in china? andrew man joe ma ... · 1 running head: motivation 3.0 -...

1

Running head: MOTIVATION 3.0 - DOES IT WORK IN CHINA?

Motivation 3.0 - does it work in China?

Andrew Man Joe Ma

Regent University

MOTIVATION 3.0 - DOES IT WORK IN CHINA? 2

Abstract

Studies on motivations in the workplace lately have attracted much research focus lately,

particularly on intrinsic motivations (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000). In the globalized world that

we are living in now, an apparent question to ask is if intrinsic motivation, or Motivation 3.0 as

Pink (2009) has termed it, can work universally across different cultures, that are very different

from America and Western Europe where most of these studies have originated from. This

article attempts to address this question, and analyzes the applicability of intrinsic motivators in

the Chinese culture context. This paper posits that Motivation 3.0 should still work in China, but

leaders need to carefully consider the culture and age demographic as moderating factors for the

effectiveness of Motivation 3.0 among Chinese employees. Paternalistic leadership style that has

been widely used in Chinese leaders typically grants less autonomy to the followers and focuses

more on the correction of mistakes. Leaders in China also tend to rely mainly on extrinsic

incentives such as financial rewards, rather than trying to improve intrinsic drives among their

workers (Benz, 2005). Furthermore, China is currently going through rapid economic growth,

and the influence of a more materialistic culture that emphasizes financial success is influencing

the mindset of the workforce in China. This paper examines the subcultures in different

generations in China, and argues that Motivation 3.0 has higher tendency to work better in the

“Post 80” generations (those that were born after 1980) than the older generations in China.


Motivation 3.0 - does it work in China?

The holy grail of leadership in organizations is that all employees are self-motivated to do

their work, and the leaders are left with nothing to do but to hit the golf course. How can

organizations get there? The secret, as Pink in his latest book Drive depicted, is in “Motivation

3.0”. Despite the trendy term, Motivation 3.0 is mainly referring to “intrinsic motivation” that

has been a key topic in psychology research for the past three decades.

In the history of research on motivation, researchers in the first half of the 20th century

have been focusing on externally imposed instrumental contingencies (Lepper & Henderlong,

2000). These researchers illustrated that using the “carrot and stick” approach, or so called

extrinsic motivators, animals like rats and pigeons could be taught to perform different tricks in

order to obtain food, water, or relief from pain. Beginning in the second half of the 20th century,

however, the research focuses have shifted to focus on so called intrinsic motivators. Since then,

there has been an abundance of academic research on intrinsic motivation. In his latest book

called Drive, Pink summarized many academic studies on motivation, and he used the terms

Motivation 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 to delineate extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Motivation 1.0

concerns about basic survival. In the workplace context, it is simply related to keeping the job

and avoiding being fired. Motivation 2.0 was built around external rewards and punishments.

This works fine, but its effectiveness is confined to routine tasks such as blue-collar work and

short-term effectiveness. Organizations that emphasize creativity and autonomy in the 20th

century work are confronting new challenges that are not compatible with the Motivation 1.0 and

2.0 techniques. Motivation 3.0, which emphasizes autonomy, mastery, and purpose/meaning of

the work, is found to more effective instead. Yet these intrinsic motivators, as Pink pointed out,

have not been wildly practiced in real life management today.


In today’s globalized world, an apparent question is if Motivation 3.0 could work equally

well in different cultural contexts, especially in those that are considerably different than the

western culture in which most studies were done. For example, some authors such as Gallo

(2008) and Leung (2008) expressed doubts on the applicability of western-centric motivation

techniques in Chinese society.

This article analyzes the applicability of Motivation 3.0 in current Chinese culture. It

looks at the traditional Chinese culture and contemporary Chinese culture, highlighting the

different criteria for management to consider when applying Motivation 3.0 onto Chinese

employees.


Overview of an Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation model

The term “motivate” comes from the Latin word movere, movement or to move (Johnson,

2007; Steers et al., 2004). Motivation can be defined as the “energizing force that steers people

toward desired end states” (Borgida & Mobilio, 2000, p. 347). Lepper and Henderlong (2000)

summarized most academic literatures on motivation recently into four basic propositions:

1. Non-contingent extrinsic rewards are less likely to produce detrimental effects

and more likely to produce beneficial effects on later intrinsic motivation than

otherwise identical rewards that are contingent on task engagement or task

completion (and under some conditions, on task performance).

2. Unexpected extrinsic rewards are less likely to produce negative and more likely

to produce positive effects on intrinsic motivation than otherwise identical

rewards that are expected.

3. Extrinsic rewards that are intangible (e.g., diffuse, implicit, social, verbal) are less

likely to produce adverse effects and more likely to produce facilitative effects

than otherwise comparable rewards that are more tangible.

4. Rewards that provide salient evidence of one's competence or ability at an activity

will have more positive (or less negative) effects on intrinsic motivation than will

rewards that do not provide such information (p.262).

Based on these academic research findings, Pink (2009) illustrated why the traditional

“carrot and stick” motivators do not work well in today’s society. These "if then"

reward/punishment systems can work, but under very limited conditions such as when the work

is repetitive and the performance is measured primarily on efficiency alone. Further more,

research indicates that these contingency rewards, contrary to the common sense, can extinguish


intrinsic motivation, diminish performance, limit creativity, and discourage good behavior. Over-

emphasis on the use of extrinsic motivators can even encourage unethical behavior, create

addictions, and foster short-term thinking. Pink (2009) then introduced three key elements for

Motivation 3.0:

1) Autonomy - to have control over our lives and destiny.

2) Mastery - to learn to master the tasks we are good at.

3) Purpose - to "buy in" to the bigger meaning of the roles and tasks.

Pink then illustrated these concepts by citing a few examples in leading companies such

as Google's “20 percent time”, in which employees work on projects of their choosing one day

each week, and Best Buy's “Results Only Work Environment”, in which employees can work

whenever and however they choose. Emphasizing innovation and creativity in the company

culture, these companies are starting to demonstrate growing endorsement for the Motivation 3.0

approach in their practices.


Motivation in Chinese culture

According to Chen & Lee (2008), Chinese culture is one of the more complicated

cultures in the world, largely due to its long history and the intertwining of many schools of

thoughts over the past five thousand years. Furthermore, modern China in the past 60 years has

been going through rapid changes in terms of culture and personal value systems. Latest research

suggests that while these new generations of leaders are not totally forsaking their Confucian

roots, the new generations of corporate leaders are more individualistic and more likely to act

independently to pursue financial success(Chiu & Luk 2002). Thus, they may be viewed as

"cross-verging" their Eastern and Western influences.

In order to understand the dynamic of the culture in modern China, one has to separately

examine traditional Chinese culture as well as contemporary Chinese culture.

Traditional Chinese culture

Among the various philosophies and religions that have shaped beliefs and values in Chinese

people, Confucianism has probably exerted the greatest influence. The thoughts of the great Chinese

scholar Confucius (Kongzi 孔子, 551-479 B.C.) have been influential not only in China, but also in

other Asian societies like Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

Confucius emphasized virtue as the goal, benevolence, human-heartedness, and the role

model of the leader being one who walked the talk. He used the term “gentleman” (chün tzu 君

子) to refer to a virtuous person with a strong moral character. Virtues are far more important

than material possessions. As Confucius puts it, “The gentleman seeks neither a full belly nor a

comfortable home. He is quick in action but cautious in speech. He goes to men possessed of the

Way to have himself put right. Such a man can be described as eager to learn” (1:14)


(Confucius, 1992, p.7). The goal of the gentleman according to Chinese culture, therefore, should be

virtue (te 德) that is intrinsic, and not profit (li 利) that is extrinsic in nature..

The key characterizations of traditional Chinese culture are its high collectivism and

power distance as pinpointed by the research from Hofstede (2001). Appendix A illustrates the

Hofstede cultural dimensions for China and USA (Hofstede, 2009). Many Chinese indigenous

concepts, such as face, harmony, guanxi (interpersonal connections), renqin (compassion), and

paternalistic leadership, can be traced back to these two broad cultural dimensions that are

different in the American culture. Gallo (2008) described a story in his book “Business

Leadership in China” that illustrated the issue in using a Western management approach in

China. In one of his MBA classes, a Chinese student challenged the validity of Western

motivation techniques in Chinese context (p.ix). The student observed that it is typically not the

Chinese employee’s expectation for managers to motivate them in Chinese culture. Gallo pointed

out that many Chinese managers tend to give negative motivation to the employee because of the

state-owned enterprise mentality that was the predominant organizational structure in the early

part of the modern China (p.139). The Chinese managers are more interested in looking upward

at the Communist Party rather than downward at the employees. These Chinese managers

understand that the Party has a much greater influence on their future than the success of their

workforce. Thus, their focus on employees is more complicated than just getting them motivated.

Rather, managers are interested in getting them to have the right political attitude.

In older Chinese organizational culture, rather than rewarding employees with

motivational incentives, the focus was on not making mistakes, and when mistakes were made,

the leaders tended to punish people publicly. Praising people openly has not been a practice as

Confucius’s teaching emphasizes the virtue of humbleness and the importance of “staying in the


middle.” As a result of the influence of Confucianism, Chinese leaders also tend to practice a

more paternal style of leadership. For example, parents in traditional Chinese culture tend to be

focusing more on mistake corrections than praising their children. This tradition in the family has

been passing on across generations and to the business world.

The change in Chinese culture in modern China

The economic prosperity of China started in the 1980s due to the economic reform led by

Deng Xiaoping. Leung (2008) pinpointed that the current social norms and institutional

characteristics in China have been heavily driven by the notion of materialistic achievement.

The use of materialistic achievement to delineate contemporary China is consistent with

Abramson and Inglehart’s (1995) observation that industrializing nations tend to exhibit

materialism in their value profile. China’s hyper economic growth has propelled living standards

upward rapidly, and many people are well aware of and may have tasted the economic

progression. Many Chinese now crave for wealth and status, and are willing to “compromise” in

order to be rich and powerful, somehow overriding the traditional virtues setup by Confucius. It

seems ironic that during the Cultural Revolution that was merely less than twenty years ago,

being wealthy was seen as a sin. A drastic change in the social norm about money has taken

place in China, and materialism is now widely accepted as the culture norm (Abramson &

Inglehart, 1995; Fang, 2006).

Given the pervasiveness of materialism in contemporary China, Leung (2008) pointed out

that many management practices based on primarily intrinsic motivation may not work too well.

Management practices such as participative management, empowerment, job enrichment,

knowledge management, and total quality management require a high degree of intrinsic

motivation for them to be effective. If employees are mostly concerned with extrinsic rewards,


they are likely to be lukewarm about these intrinsic-motivation-centric practices. To make these

management practices work, managers need to think of some way to link them with incentives.

The Postmodern influence that affects the Gen Y/Z ( the “Post 80/90” in China)

Under such strong economic growth, a considerable portion of the population in China,

especially those in the coastal cities like Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou, have been moving

up Maslow's hierarchy of need (Maslow, 1953). According to Maslow’s model, the more

affluent members of society that need not to worry about basic needs anymore are in general

more motivated by higher level needs, such as esteem and self-actualization. The mass media in

China is referring to the Chinese generation that was born after 1980 as the “Post 80

generations” (roughly equivalent to Gen Y and Z in America). Their culture is very different than

the culture of the previous generations in China. Most of the Post 80 generations are raised in

relatively affluent environments without enduring too much hardship. Also, they have been

influenced by a similar postmodern culture that plagued the west. To some extent, the

postmodern culture emphasizes autonomy and meaning-seeking personal journey. The Post 80

generations in China are influenced by the postmodern culture. They are exposed to the same

online content/TV/Hollywood films that are available in the West. While some contents and

media tools like Youtube, Facebook and Twitter are restricted in China due to government

censorship, there are many copycats in China that Chinese youths can use locally. For examples,

China has Renren that is similar to Facebook, and t.sina.cn that is similar to Twitter.

Under the influence of postmodernism, the Post 80 generations want more than just

economic prosperity. They are seeking meaning in life in their own ways. The massive Sichuan

earthquake in 2008 started the volunteering movements among the Post 80 in China. Thousands

of young people volunteered their time to go to the ruined cities to rebuild and help the ones in


need. The volunteering movement continued with the Beijing Olympic in 2008 and Shanghai

World Expo in 2010. These young people, who served in these volunteering services, are

entering into the workforce and are trying to find meaning and purpose in their work. With the

influence of the media exposure from the West, they also enjoy more autonomy and prefer more

freedom in their lives.

Different Demographic Cohort in China

As depicted above, there are significant different cultural forces that have been shaping

China in the past decades. Different demographics in China are experiencing different cultural

forces that have shaped their belief and values during their upbringings. It is therefore necessary

to look at different demographic cohort separately. The following categorization is based on the

analysis from Egri and Ralston (2004) regarding the generation cohort in China.

Modern China begins in 1911 after the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. Starting off the

modern era, the Republican Era (1911-49) was a period characterized by poverty, natural

disasters, wars, invasions, political and economic instability. Chinese Communist Party, founded

by Mao Zedong, came to power after the Second World War and Civil War in 1945-49. Under

the Communist regime, Confucianism, which emphasizes the virtues of benevolence, propriety,

social hierarchy, and commitment, was deemed to be the key corrupting factors in Chinese

culture (Egri and Ralston, 2004).

During the Consolidation Era (1950-1965), the Chinese Communist Party sought to

replace Confucianism with Marxist-Leninist ideology to establish a new communal order that

placed the State and the Communist Party above traditional thinking. At the same time, China

cut most Western ties in China except USSR during that period. The centralized industrialization

and agrarian reform efforts were not effective, and many people were still living in poverty.


During the latter part of the Consolidation Era (1961-1965), the rising influence of the more

moderate leadership of Deng Xiaoping bought some economic reform that loosened up the tight

centralized control in the society (Vohra, 2000) .

Due to the political struggle in the Communist Party, Mao started the Great Cultural

Revolution (1966-1976). This further attacked Confucianism and Western cultural influence in

order to go back to Communist ideology. During this chaotic period, the Cultural Revolution

further depressed traditional education. Economic reformation was actively suppressed so as to

try to create a classless society that valued equality, conformity, and self-sacrifice. Because of

this radical and disruptive revolution that turned the society upside down, this period was a

period of extreme poverty. This chaotic period started to end by the reinstatement of Deng

Xiaoping as vice premier in 1972. Mao Zedong’s death in 1976 signaled the end of China’s

Cultural Revolution.

The second coming of Deng Xiaoping and his modern policies marked the beginning of

the Social Reform Era (1978 to present). Under his reformation, individual achievement,

materialism, economic efficiency, and entrepreneurship were encouraged again. Deng also

enacted the “Open Door” policy that allowed Western capitalistic ideologies to influence in

Chinese business and education. Although social reforms have brought Confucius back into

official favor, Chinese youth who have grown up during the Social Reform Era have been

described as individualistic, materialistic, hedonistic, and entrepreneurial (Egri and Ralston,

2004).

Lately, the term Post-80s (八零後) emerged in literature and media in China, referring to

the generations that were born between 1980 to 1989 in the urban cities of Mainland China

(Stanat, 2006). The Post-80s are experiencing the “Little Emperor Syndrome” due to Mainland


China’s one-child policy (Stanat, 2006). Growing up after the harsh period in early part of

modern China, this generation has been characterized by its optimism for the future, newfound

excitement for consumerism and entrepreneurship and acceptance of its historic role in

transforming modern China into an economic superpower. This next generation of Chinese is

also distinguished by their increased access to the Internet, MP3 players, computers, and mobile

phones that is on par with the same generation in the West (Stanat, 2006).

Table 1 compares the different generation cohort in China with the western generation

cohort system.

Table 1

Different Generation Cohort in China and the West

The Applicability of Motivation 3.0 in China

Gallo (2008) gave some advice to Western managers who are dealing with Chinese staff.

Chinese generation

cohort

Year of

birth

Western generation

cohort

Year of birth

Republican 1930-1950 Silent Generation <1945

Consolidation 1951-1960 Baby Boomer 1946-1964

Cultural Revolution 1961-1970 Generation X 1965-1981

Social Reform 1971-1975

Post 80 1980-1989 Generation Y 1982-2000

Post 90 1990-1999


• See each staff differently; what motivates is different in each case. Different

generations see motivations differently. It all depends on generation, personality,

gender, and background.

• Motivation 3.0 based on guanxi- centric culture needs to have patience to

cultivate the trust first before applying intrinsic motivators such as promoting

purpose/meaning in the job.

• Overcome initial suspicions from employees. Motivation 3.0 is new to China. It

requires time to be accepted. As more and more Post 80s enter into the workforce,

understanding Motivation 3.0 and localizing the practice in China is important.

• Because of Deng’s successful economic reform in the 80’s, the Chinese culture

has been shifting to more pragmatism and materialism. The Gen X in China,

therefore, was shaped to put financial reward as one of the most important

motivators.

What Gallo highlighted above is essentially a balanced treatment of Motivation 2.0 and

Motivation 3.0 in China. Along the same line, DeVoe & Iyengar (2004) found that Asian

managers are found to be exhibiting a balanced view of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. The

Asian managers are found to perceive their subordinates as equally motivated by intrinsic and

extrinsic factors (2004).

One way to view the above balanced approach is applying different dosage of Motivation

2.0 and 3.0 depending on the generations of leaders and followers. Table 2 illustrates different

scenarios for different generations of managers to consider when they try to apply Motivation 2.0

and 3.0 in their teams.


Table 2

The application of Motivation in different generations in China

Baby Boomer as

employee

Gen X (Post 70) as

employee

Gen Y (Post 80/90) as

employee

Baby Boomer as

manager

Traditional paternal style

leadership are expected

BB managers need to

apply a balance of

Motivation 2.0 +

Motivation 3.0

BB managers need to

adapt towards more

Motivation 3.0

Gen X (Post 70) as

manager

Rare in China, but Gen X

managers need to respect

their older staff who are

not used to Motivation 3.0

techniques

Gen X managers need

to apply a balance of

Motivation 2.0 +

Motivation 3.0

Need to adapt towards

more Motivation 3.0

Gen Y (Post 80/90) as

manager

Rare in China, but Gen Y

managers need to respect

their older staff who are

not used to Motivation 3.0

techniques

Rare in China, but Gen

Y managers need to

respect their older staff

that are more motivates

by Motivation 2.0

Motivation 3.0


Conclusion

The study of motivation has been attracting much research in the past decades. Yet

research in motivation in the cross-cultural context is only just starting to become the focus lately

(Lepper & Henderlong, 2000). Among the different cultures in the world, the Chinese culture is

an interesting one, as it is very different than that in the West. Indeed, they are very different

when the historic root of Chinese culture is examined. Leaders, therefore, need to be careful in

applying western management techniques onto Chinese employees, particularly onto the older

generations in China. However, the view of all western management techniques simply does not

work in China is too simplistic. As we are marching towards the globalized world, the new Post

80 generations in China who grew up affluently in the cities like Shanghai and Beijing are not

too different than the Gen Y and generations in the west. This paper outlines a framework for

leaders to consider when they are applying different motivation approaches to the followers.


References

Bassous, M.. Factors that affect worker motivation in faith-based nonprofit organizations: A

mixed methodology study. D.M. dissertation, University of Phoenix, United States --

Arizona. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text.(Publication

No. AAT 3405499).

Benz, M. (2005). Not for the profit, but for the satisfaction?– Evidence on worker well-being in

non-profit firms. Kyklos, 58(2), 155-176.

Borgida, E., & Mobilio, L. (2000). Social motivation. Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 7 (pp.

347-350). American Psychological Association.

Chen, C & Lee, Y (2008), Leadership and Management in China. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cheng, CK & Chan, A.C.F., (2008). Benefits of Hong Kong Chinese CEOs’ Confucian and

Daoist leadership styles, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol.29, no. 6,

pp. 474-503

Chiu, R. K. & Luk, W. M. (2002). Retaining and motivating employees- Compensation

preferences in Hong Kong and China, Personnel Review, 31(4), 402-431.

Deci, E. (1975) Intrinsic Motivation, New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E., Koestner, R. And Ryan, R. (1999), "A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments

Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation", Psychological

Bulletin, 125 (6), 627-668.

Deci, E. And Ryan, R. (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior

(New York: Plenum Press).


DeVoe, S.E. & Iyengar, S. S. (2004) Managers' theories of subordinates: A cross-cultural

examination of manager perceptions of motivation and appraisal of performance,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Volume 93, Issue 1, Pages 47-

61, (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WP2-4B8BMJJ-

2/2/90a2472e32eb54915c45fe0de9d12266)

C. P. Egri & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation Cohorts and Personal Values: A Comparison of

China and the United States, Organization Science, 15(2), 210-220

Friedman, T. L. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. New

York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux

Gallo, F (2008). Business Leadership in China. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and

Organizations across Nations, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (2009). Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions - Hofstede score for different

countries. Retrieved April 7, 2010, from Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Web site:

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/hofstede_south_africa.shtml

Lepper, M.R., & Henderlong, J., (2000). Turning 'play' into 'work' and 'work' into 'play': 25

Years of research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, In: Carol Sansone and Judith

M. Harackiewicz, Editor(s), Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, Academic Press, San

Diego, 2000, Pages 257-307, ISBN 978-0-12-619070-0, DOI: 10.1016/B978-012619070-

0/50032-5.

Leung, K. (2008). Chinese culture, modernization, and international business, International

Business Review, Volume 17, Issue 2, The changing Chinese culture and business

behaviour, April, Pages 184-187, ISSN 0969-5931, DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.009.


Jiachenga, W. L., Lua, L., and Francesco, C. A. (2009) A cognitive model of intra-

organizational knowledge-sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International

Journal of Information Management JJIM-918

Johnson, J. A. (2007). Getting and staying involved: What motivates volunteers in a non-profit

organization. Ph.D. dissertation, Capella University, United States -- Minnesota.

Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York : Harper and Row

Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Shapiro, D. (2004). The future of work motivation theory. Academy

of Management Review, 29(3), 379-387.

Pink, D., (2009) Drive, New York: Penguin Group

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R. H., & Yu Kaicheng, (1999). Doing Business

in the 21st Century with the New Generation of Chinese Managers: A Study of

Generational Shifts in Work Values in China, Journal of International Business Studies,

Palgrave Macmillan Journals, 30(2), 415-427

Posthuma, R & Campion M (2009). Age stereotypes in the workplace: Common stereotypes,

moderators, and future research directions, Journal of Management, 35(1), pp. 158-188.

Reynolds, L, Campbell Bush, E & Geist, R (2008).The Gen Y imperative, Communication

World, 19-23.

Stanat, M. (2006). China's Generation Y : understanding the future leaders of the World's next

Superpower, New York City: Paramus: Homa & Sekey


Appendix A : Hofstede Cultural Dimension for N. America and China (Hofstede, 2009).

motivation 3.0 - does it work in china? andrew man joe ma ... · 1 running head: motivation 3.0 -...

Documents