THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLES ON JOB STRESS AND

TURNOVER INTENTION – TAIWAN INSURANCE INDUSTRY

AS AN EXAMPLE

Hsien-Che Lee
Department of Business Management, Tatung University
40 ,Sec 3,Chung-Shan N. Rd, Taiwan City, Taiwan ROC
[email protected]

Tsai-Hua Chuang
Student of Graduate School of Management, Tatung University
40 ,Sec 3,Chung-Shan N. Rd, Taiwan City, Taiwan ROC
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
For recent years, Taiwan has stepped into an aging society. Life insurance and
retirement planning which have quite a lot to do with insurance industry are questions
of interest. The insurance industry focuses on close contact among clients, sales
people and managers. That is a human-oriented industry, for which the experienced
leaders inspire the sales people through continuous training and encouragement and
lead them by vision. Therefore, leader’s leadership type is the critical factor for the
success of the organization. This research explores the relationships among leader’s
leadership style, subordinate’s personality characteristic, and job stress and turnover
intention. We also identify the role of the variable of personality characteristic and job
stress respectively.
We use convenient sampling method to collect data. In pretest, 50 copies of
questionnaires are sent to employees of M insurance company, for which 46 valid
ones are returned, And then, a total of 220 copies of questionnaires are sent out, of
which 176 returned questionnaires are valid. The effective response rate is at 80%.
We adopt SPSS to do data analysis and draw conclusions as follows:(1) Leadership
style has significant influence on job stress; (2) Job stress has positive relationship
with turnover intention; (3) Leadership style has negative influence of turnover
intention; (4) Personality characteristic has no moderating effect on the relationship
between leadership style and job stress; (5) Personality characteristic brings no
moderating effect on the relationship between job stress and turnover intention; (6)
Job stress has mediation effect on the relationship between leadership style and
turnover intention.

Keywords ： Leadership Style, Job Stress, Personality Characteristic, Turnover

Intention.
 INTRODUCTION

For recent years, Taiwan has stepped into an aging society. Life insurance and
retirement planning that have quite a lot to do with insurance are questions of interest.
The insurance industry focuses on close contact and interaction among clients, sales
people and managers. That is a human-oriented industry, for which the experienced
leaders inspire the sales people through continuous training and encouragement and
lead them to work hard to achieve goals by vision. The leader’s leadership type plays
an important role in achievementing performance t of the organization. The leader’s
ability to adapt to internal and external environment changes and lead a group of
cordial subordinates to work together is the key to success. Thus, this research
explores the relationships among the leader’s leadership style and the subordinate’s
personality characteristic, job stress and turnover intention. This research also studies
the role of the variable of personality characteristic and job stress respectively and
gives advices to managers to lower the turnover rate in the life insurance industry. The
specific research objectives are listed as follows: (1). to explore the influence of
leadership style on the subordinate’s job stress; (2). to explore the influence of job
stress on turnover intention; (3). to explore the influence of different leadership style
on the turnover intention; (4). to explore the moderating role of personality
characteristic on leadership style and job stress respectively; (5). to explore the
mediating effect of personality characteristic and job stress respectively.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Leadership Style

The practice and academic circles agree that leadership is really an important subject
in the field of organizational behavior. Leadership is one with the most dynamic
effects during individual and organizational interaction. In other words, whether a
management is able to execute “collaborated effort” depends on leadership capability.
The excellent leader not only inspires subordinate’s potential to enhance efficiency
and also meets their requirements in the process of achieving organizational goals.
Stogdill(1957) defined leadership as the individual behavior to guide a group to
achieve the common target. In latter days, Richards & Engle (1986) defined
leadership as about establishment of vision, value and creation of environment so that
the objective can be accomplished. Definitions on leadership defined by selected
authors were summarized into table 1.

Table 1 Definition of Leadership

Year Author Definition of Leadership
1957 Hemphill & Coons Leadership is the individual behavior to guide a group
to achieve the common target.
1957 Stogdill Leadership is an influential activity to others or
organization to achieve the target set by the leader.
1969 Bowers Leadership is an activity process of interpersonal
relationship; other’s behavior is influenced through this
process to achieve the set target.
1977 Davis Leadership means persuasion on others to
enthusiastically chase for certain target.
1982 Morphet, Johns & Leadership means, in the social system, the individual
Reller action, behavior, faith and target are influenced by the
others under volunteer cooperation.
1986 Richards & Engle Leadership is about establishment of vision, value and
creation of environment so that the objective can be
accomplished.
1990 Sergiovanni Leadership means the leader satisfies the staff’s demand
by use of consultation, negotiation and compromise so
that the staff trades his work for rewards.
1990 Jacobs & Jaques Leadership helps others to strive and to enhance
aspiration to achieve the target.
1993 Robbins Leadership is the ability to influence the group to achieve
the target.
1994 Yukl Leadership is the process of influence on the
subordinate, in which the subordinate is inspired to
achieve the target, the group is maintained in
cooperation, and the established mission is
accomplished, and the support from external group is
obtained.
2001 Northouse Leadership is exchanged relationship between leader and
subordinate.
2003 Fry Leadership means use of leading strategy to offer
inspiring motive and to enhance the staff’s potential for
growth and development.

After reviewing studies on leadership theory conducted in the past, it is generally

divided into four periods:

(1). Traits theory in 1930s--- It focuses on the innate leadership qualities and
competence. These innate qualities are not found in others. The so-called quality can
be divided into physiological and mental aspects. The physiological aspect includes:
height, weight, looks, and vigor while the mental aspect includes intelligence,
confidence, and aggressiveness etc. Stogdill (1948) proposed twelve leadership
related studies and was considered as representative of this period.

(2). Behavioral theory from late 1940s to late 1960s--- It believes that a leader will be
able to achieve ideal organizational efficiency if he demonstrates effective leadership
behaviors. These leadership behaviors may be trained or learned through experience.
Actual behavior or leadership styles are emphasized. Representative research is
conducted in Ohio State University. Ohio State University proposed “consideration“
and “initiating structure” of leadership behaviors. Consideration is a behavior that
focuses on strengthening relationship with subordinates based on their needs and
perceptions, while “initiating structure” is a behavior that focuses on subordinate
performance in goal accomplishment.
(3). Contingency theory in late 1960s--- This theory states that there is no set of
optimum leadership model in this world and that it depends on the situation
encountered. Situational leadership theory began its development subsequently. It
states that leaders need to adopt the most optimum leadership style based on different
organizational situations. Among which, Fiedler’s contingency theory (1967) is most
well-known.

(4). Contemporary leadership theory since 1970s---The viewpoint of contemporary

leadership theory states that leadership is a type of interactive process with the
environment. Bass & Avolio (1990) proposed transactional leadership and
transformation leadership:(1)transactional leadership---encouraging subordinates
through incentive establishment. In other words, incentive elicits work performance.
Transactional leadership is the basis for most leadership theories. It focuses on the
exchange relationship between the leader and the subordinate (Fry, 2003；Northouse,
2001); (2) transformation leadership---to enhance staff’s trust and respect for leader
by altering intrinsic work value and faith of staff at the same time in order to elicit
work capabilities. Because “charisma” is viewed as an essential element,
transformation leader provides incentives for subordinates, enhance subordinate
potential and development. (Fry, 2003); and (3) Charismatic leadership theory refers
to the follower’s perception toward certain behaviors of the leader as being heroic or
extraordinary.

Job Stress

Job stress means improper occupational stress or burden that badly affects the
psychological and physical condition of the worker himself (Kroes, 1974). Peng
(1998) states that psychological stress is neither stimulus nor reaction but a handling
method or relationship; it is the interaction between the individual and the
environment, which gains or consumes resources of human behavior and endangers
the individual health. When the individual feels job stress, it usually comes along with
following symptoms:(1) psychological aspect--- passive, disconsolate, anxious and
anger; (2) physical aspect--- imbalance incretion, headache, sleepless and disturbed;
(3) behavioral aspect--- change of living behavior, decrease of job involvement,
absence from work, and turnover. The definitions of various authors were summarized
in table 2.

Table 2 Definition of Job Stress

Year Author Definition of Job Stress
1956 Seley Stress means uncertain reaction of the body to demand,
and also basic demand from internal or external
environment, or reaction result against threat of balance
condition.
1971 French Stress is the consequence that an individual’s ability or
skills fail to coordinate with the job or the job
environment cannot satisfy the individual demand.
1974 Kroes Stress is improper occupational pressure or burden which
badly affects the psychological and physical condition of
the worker himself.
1978 Beehr & Stress is the change that drives the worker from normal
Newman psychological and physical condition.
1980 Ivancevich & Stress is some adaptive reaction, a consequence of
Matteson special psychological or physical demand from the event,
and such reaction takes personal character as
intermediary.
1984 Fleming et al. Stress is a conceptualized process and contains one’s
recognition and reaction to danger or threat.
1985 Jamal Stress is one’s reaction against threat in the working
environment.
1998 Peng The psychology claims that job stress is neither stimulus
nor reaction but some handling method or relationship.

Personality Charateristics

Personality characteristic means one’s psychological and physical phenomenon. At

different time and condition, it adapts to different environment by unique behavioral
mode and thinking method. Friedman & Rosenman (1959) categorize personality
characteristics into type A and B. Type A shows exuberant ambition and aggression.
Type B has more patience and pays less attention to competition and sense of
achievement.
Definitions of personality characteristic were summarized as shown into table 3.
 Table 3 Definitions of Personality Characteristic
Year Author Definition of Personality Characteristic

1959 Guilford Personality characteristic is a combination of individual trait and

property, which generates a lasting and special characteristic
different from the others.
1961 Allport Personality means dynamic behavior from psychological and
physical aspect to adapt to the environment.
1970 Pervin Personality represents structure and dynamics from reaction to
the environment.

1972 Scott & Personality is formed from accumulation of psychological

Mitchell growth and development.
1998 Robbins Personality is one’s reaction to the others and consequence of
interaction with others.
1985 Lee Personality characteristic means psychological attributes of
affection and thought among people; it’s also a specific and
lasting behavioral pattern.
1997 Lu The formation of personality is affected by gene, culture,
environment, and social factor.

Turnover Intention

Turnover intention means the subjective perception of the organizational member to

quite the current job for other opportunity (Fan, 1978). Table 4 showed definitions of
turnover intention defined by various authors.

Table 4 Definition of Turnover Intention

Year Author Definition of Turnover Intention

1973 Porter & Steers Retreating behavior from job dissatisfaction.
1975 Kraut The best anticipation for turnover
1975 Fishbein & Ajzen The best measurement to presume the worker’s
turnover behavior
1978 Mobely Idea of leaving the current organization or post
1982 Bluedorn It is differ from actual turnover behavior which is
influenced by more external element .
1993 Tett & Meyer Perception of a series of retreating cognitions.
Empirical Studies

The verification researches made by the domestic and foreign scholars on leadership,
job stress, personality characteristic and turnover intention are described as follows:
(1)in research of leader behavior and job stress, Fleishman (1964) found that
consideration in the leader behavior has negative connection with the job stress, while
the initiating structure is positively connected with job stress; (2) in research of leader
behavior and turnover intention, Fleishman & Harris (1962) in the study of the
influence of various leadership types on turnover rate and complaint rate found that
consideration for the subordinates is negatively connected with the turnover, while the
initiating structure is positively connected with turnover; (3) in research of job stress
and turnover intention, Parasuraman & Alutto (1984) in the research on 217
employees at the food manufacturing company indicated that job stress had positive
connection with turnover intention;(4) in research of personality characteristics and
job stress, Chang (1998) chose employees of Taiwan Sugar Company as research
subject and indicated that those with type A personality characteristic had higher
perception of job stress and shew more physical and psychological discomfort
reactions;(5) in research of personality characteristics and turnover intention, Chang
(2003) released 260 questionnaires to 11 schools and revealed that personality
characteristics had no significant impact on turnover intention. The relevant empirical
researches were listed in table 5.

Table 5 Empirical Research

Author Year Sample Empirical Result

Hsu 1986 222 operators of China In leadership method, consideration has

Steel Company. significantly negative connection with
job stress, but the initiating structure has
apparently positive connection with job
stress. For overall , leadership is
negatively connected with job stress.
Huang 1984 207 engineers of a Consideration leadership has negative
R&D institute connection with turnover.
Ke 1989 217 employees of 105 In leader behavior, consideration has
companies negative connection with turnover
intention and the initiating structure is
negatively connected with turnover
 intention.
Parasuraman 1984 217 employees of food Job stress has significantly positive
& Alutto manufacturing connection with turnover intention.
company
Tzeng 1994 Employees of 12 five- Job stress is positively connected with
star hotels in Taipei turnover intention.
Tzeng 2001 180 high-tech industry People with A-type personality
and 255 traditional characteristics perceive job stress more
industry serious while, those who with B-type
perceive the least.
Chang 1998 All inland employees People with more A-type personality
of Taiwan Sugar characteristics perceive higher extent of
Company job stress and also higher improper
reaction physically and psychologically.
Wang 1990 Employees from 95 gas People with A-type personality
stations at 23 cities characteristics have significantly higher
job stress than those of people with B-
type.
Chiu 1994 2,400 employees of People with A-type personality
Taiwan Semiconductor characteristics perceive more anxiety,
Manufacturing Co. disconsolation, low self-respect than
those people with B-type, yet the overall
job stress does not reach significant
level.
Chang 2003 260 contractual The research result finds that personality
personnel at 11 schools characteristics has no evident influence
on turnover intention.

Fang 1999 194 staffs of Tainan The research result indicates no

Revenue Service significant variance between male and
Office female on job stress.
Fang 1999 194 staffs of Tainan Age is positively connected with job
Revenue Service stress.
Office
Cheng 1999 200 female operators Age has significantly positive
of wafer manufacturer connection with turnover intention.
in Hsinchu Industrial
Zone
Cheng 1994 333 bus drivers in Single people feel higher job stress than
Taipei the married ones.
Chen 1997 Employees of Married people perceive more
enterprises in mid of disconsolate job stress than single ones.
Taiwan
Cheng 1999 200 female operators Turnover intention of single people is
of wafer manufacturer higher than that of married ones.
in Hsinchu Industrial
Zone
Fang 1999 194 staffs of Tainan The research found turnover intention
Revenue Service difference between female and male is
Office not evident.

Chuang 2000 Research of job stress Worker’s seniority has positive

and job satisfaction on connection with job stress.
174 high-tech
employees
Cheng 1994 333 bus drivers in Worker’s seniority has negative
Taipei connection with job stress.

RESEARCH METHOD

Research Framwork

Insurance is human-oriented business. The service it offers is intangible and the

services of competitors are highly similar, for which the salespeople must face keen
competition and challenge from competitors. The turnover rate of life insurance
salesmen keeps high because of such job compensation without base pay and
suffering from heavy stress that is hard to be accepted by the people.

The experienced leader is well aware of this fact and keeps training, assisting and
inspiring the sales personnel. Therefore, the leader’s leadership style is very important
for the performance achievement of organization. Therefore, we have a great interest
in exploring the relationships among leadership style, personality characteristic, job
stress and turnover intention. This research also tries to identify the role of variable
for personality characteristic and job stress respectively. Framework of this research is
shown as Figure1.
 Personality Characteristic
A type
B type

H4 H5

Leadership style JobH6

Stress Turnover
H1 H2 Intention
Transformation
intention
Transaction

H3

Research Hypotheses

If the organization intends to keep outperforming in the violently competitive

environment, leadership is the most influential factor. The objective of this research is
to explore the relationships among leadership style and salespeople job stress and
turnover intention and the role of personality characteristic and job stress respectively.
We learn from the above literatures that the leader’s leadership style has significant
influence on the staff’s job stress and turnover intention. Thus, this research develops
following hypothesis based on the research framework:

Different leadership style has different impact on the subordinate’s work willingness.
The leader’s ability to adapt to internal and external environmental change and lead a
group of cordial subordinates fighting together is one of the keys to success. Hsu
(1986) conducts research on 222 operators of China Steel Company in Kaohsiung on
the relationship among leader’s personality characteristic, the leader behavior, the
staff’s job stress and job satisfaction. The research indicated that consideration
leadership had significantly negative connection with job stress, but the initiating
structure positively connected with job stress, the leadership style and job stress are
negatively connected. Hence, we develop hypotheses as below:

H1 Leadership style has significant influence on job stress

H1a Transformational leadership has negative influence on job stress

H1b Transactional leadership has positive influence on job stress

Job stress is usually generated along with change of productivity such as passive job
involvement, indifference to colleagues, envy and suspicion, efficiency drop, job
absence, turnover, etc. Parasuraman & Alutto (1984) studied 217 employees of food
manufacturing company and found that job stress had positive connection with
turnover intention. Therefore, we propose the hypothesis as follows.

H2 Job stress has positive influence on turnover intention.

Fleishman & Harris (1962) conducted research on relationships among leadership

style, turnover rate and complaint rate. The research result reveals that consideration
leadership style (transformational) has apparently negative connection with turnover,
while initiating structure (transactional) is positively connected with turnover.
Therefore, we develop hypotheses as below:

H3 Leadership style has significant influence on turnover intention.

H3a Transformational leadership has negative influence on turnover intention.

H3b Transactional leadership has positive influence on turnover intention.

Wang (1990) made his research on the subject of connection among employee with A-
type personality characteristic, leader’s leadership style, and employee’s job stress”
and found that people with A-type personality characteristic perceive more job stress
than those with B-type, while ones with B-type feel apparently more job stress at low
self-respect post than those of A-type. Thus, hypotheses are developed as follows.

H4 Personality characteristic has moderating effect on the relationship between

leadership style and job stress.

H5 Personality characteristic has moderating effect on the relationship between job

stress and turnover intention.

H6 Job stress has mediation effect on the relationship between leadership style and
turnover intention.
Research Design

According to the purpose of the paper, we develop structural questionnaire that

revised from other’s inventory. A 5-likert scale is used. The measurement of
constructs is shown in table 6.

Table 6 Measurement of Constructs

Construct item measure

Leadership style 25 Chu(2002), Cheng(2005)

Transformation 20

Transaction 5

Job stress 8 Chen(1981)

Personality characteristics 14 Lin(2002)

Turnover intention 5 Wei(2004)

This research chooses sales personnel of local insurance companies as the subject and
collects data by convenient sampling method. The survey instrument was initially pre-
tested by 50 employees of M insurance company for content, readability, and
ambiguity. Based on results of the pretest, minor changes were made to select
questionnaire items, and the instrument were sent to 220 employees of insurance
companies, for which 176 returned mailings are valid, effective response rate at 80%.

After collecting the valid questionnaires, SPSS is used to do data analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

Sample Profile

Table 7 Basic Statistics of Samples

 Item Contents No. of %
samples
Sex Male 71 40.3
Female 105 59.7
Age Under 20 1 0.5
21-30 74 42.0
31-40 65 40.0
41-50 29 16.5
Over 50 7 4.0
Education Junior High School 4 2.3
Senior High School 60 34.1
College, University 106 60.2
Graduate School or above 6 3.4
Marital Status Married 74 42.0
Single (including divorced, widowed) 102 58.0
Seniority Under 1 year 35 19.9
2-4 years 61 34.7
5-7 years 31 17.6
8-10 years 18 10.2
Over 11 years 31 17.6

After collecting the valid questionnaires, we provide demographic information first

and then SPSS is used to do data analysis. Descriptive statistics analysis (frequency
allocation and percentage analysis) is used to display the profile of samples. Basic
statistics of samples is showed as table 7.

Statistical Analysis

This research starts with factor analysis of leadership style and then moves to
reliability analysis and regression analysis.

Leadership style construct comprises of 33 measurement items. The main components

analysis with the variant of orthogonal notation is used to extract the factor. Two
factors are extracted and factor’s loading is over 0.7 and the accumulative explained
variation is at 67.19%. These two factors are named as transformational leadership
and transactional leadership. After factor analysis, 25 items are selected.

Reliability means accuracy of measurement tool. This research adopts Cronbach's α

to verify the internal consistency. Roberts & Wortzel (1979) state that Cronbach's α
lying in 0.79 to 0.96 means high reliability. For the reliability analysis done by this
research, Cronbach's α of leadership style ＝ 0.962, of which Cronbach's α for
transformational leadership ＝ 0.975, Cronbach’s α for transactional leadership ＝
0.833。Cronbach's α of job stress ＝0.891, Cronbach's α of personality characteristic
＝0.882, Cronbach's α of turnover intention ＝0.864. As shown in table 8, reliability
of each construct is over 0.8, which means this research is highly reliable and
trustworthy.

Table 8 Cronbach's α of Constructs

Construct No. of Items Cronbach's α

Leadership 25 .962
Style
Leadership - transformational 20 .975
Leadership - transactional 5 .833
Job stress 8 .891
Personality Characteristic 14 .882
Turnover Intention 5 .864

This paper uses regression analysis to study the relationships between predictive
variable and criterion variable.

Regression analysis result as shown in table 9 indicates that leadership style has
significant connection with job stress. Therefore, the hypothesis H1 is supported.
Furthermore leadership style is divided into transformational style and transactional
style to do separately analysis. The result reveals that transformational leadership is
negatively connected with job stress. H1a is therefore supported as shown in table 10.
The positive influence of transactional leadership on job stress is not significant, so
H1b is not supported as shown in table 11.

Table 9 Regression of Leadership Style on Job Stress

Model Unstandardized Standardized

Regression Coefficient Regression t value Significance R2
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 2.967 .288 10.317 .000
Leadership -.166 .076 -.163 -2.178 .031 .027
Style

Table 10 Regression of Transformational Leadership on Job Stress

 Model Unstandardized Standardized
Regression Coefficient Regression t value Significance R2
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 3.038 .263 11.560 .000
Transformational -.181 .068 -.198 -2.669 .008 .039
Leadership

Table 11 Regression of Transactional Leadership on Job Stress Analysis

Model Unstandardized Standardized
Regression Coefficient Regression t value Significance R2
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 2.069 .232 9.350 .000
Transactional .055 .067 .062 .816 .416 .004
Leadership

Regression analysis of job stress on turnover intention as shown in table 12 indicates

that job stress has positive relationship with turnover intention, H2 is supported. It
means that the more job stress, the more turnover intention.

Table 12 Regression of Job Stress on Turnover Intention

Model Unstandardized Standardized
Regression Coefficient Regression t value Significance R2
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
Constant .612 .144 4.247 .000
Job Stress .287 .058 .350 4.930 .000 .123

Regression of leadership style on turnover intention as shown in table 13 indicates

that job stress has negative relationship with turnover intention but not significant. H3
is not supported. It means that leadership style has no positive impact on turnover
intention. So, no further testing and discussion about H3a and H3b are needed.

Table 13 Regression of Leadership Style on Turnover Intention

Model Unstandardized Standardized
Regression Coefficient Regression t value Significance R2
Coefficient
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 1.719 .237 7.258 .000
Leadership -.117 .063 -.139 -1.858 .065 .019
Style

Analysis is done on personality characteristic, leadership style and job stress and finds
the interaction effect of personality characteristics *leadership style is not significant.
It means personality characteristic has no interfering effect on the relationship of
leadership style and job stress as shown in table 14. Therefore, the hypothesis H4 is
not supported.

Table 14 Regression Analysis with Interactive Effect on Job Stress

Source Type III Sum df Mean Square F value Significance
Of Squares
Constant
Personality 17.639 37 .477 1.606 .247
Characteristic
Leadership 42.581 59 .722 2.431 .090
Style
Personality
Characteristic*
Leadership style 33.064 70 .472 1.591 .249
a. R. Squared = .976 (Adjusted R. Squared = .481)

Analysis is done on personality characteristics, job stress and turnover intention and
finds the interaction effect of personality characteristics *job stress is not significant.
It means that personality characteristic has no moderating effect on relationship
between job stress and turnover intention shown as able 15. Therefore, H5 is not
supported.

Table 15 Regression Analysis with Interactive Effect on Turnover Intention

 Source Type III Sum df Mean Square F value Significance
Of Squares
Constant
Personality 9.350 38 .246 .853 .680
Characteristics
Job Stress 18.939 27 .701 2.431 .011
Personality
Characteristics*
Job Stress 26.408 82 .322 1.116 .382
a. R. Squared = .880 (Adjusted R. Squared = .481)

According to path diagram shown in figure 2, the result indicates (-0.163) x(0.35)
＞ -.0139. It means that the indirect effect of job stress on leadership style and
turnover intention is larger than direct effect, which means job stress has mediating
effect on the relationship of leadership style and turnover intention. So the hypothesis
H6 is supported.

-
Leadership Style Job Stress 0.35 Turnover
0.163
STYLEpattern * intention
*

-0.139

Fig. 2 Path diagram

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Conclusion

We choose the insurance industry as the object of study and explore the
interrelationship between leadership style and job stress and turnover intention. This
research also investigates the variable role of personality characteristic. According to
the result of empirical analysis, the conclusions are generated as followings.
(1).For the insurance operators, transformational leadership style has negative
influence on job stress, which has something to do with the characteristic of insurance
industry because the insurance employees have no base pay and the majority of their
income comes from sales bonus. Under such bonus system, if the transformational
leadership gives more consideration and encouragement, the employees will be
aroused instinct of compression resistance for gaining high income.

(2).Job stress has positive relationship with turnover intention. Job stress usually
results in psychological and physical discomfort, and then turnover intention
increases.

(3).The style indicates that leadership style has negative relationship with turnover
intention.

(4).The verification indicates no interfering effect on the relationship between

personality characteristics and leadership style and job stress. Such result differs from
those of previous researches and property of such industry may probably be the
reason. Different personality characteristic does not moderate the leadership style and
high compression resistance of the insurance operators.

(5).Personality characteristic brings no moderating effect on the relationship between

job stress and turnover intention. Generally speaking, personality characteristic of
insurance salespeople are more enthusiastic and compression resistant than that of
other business. The bonus system of insurance industry retains salespeople sticking to
the post in order to keep getting commission from the client’s policy premium.
Therefore, personality characteristic brings no interfering effect on job stress and
turnover intention.

(6)The verification indicates that job stress has bigger indirect effect on leadership
style and turnover intention than the direct effect. So, job stress has mediation effect
on relationship between leadership style and turnover intention.

Managerial Implications

This research chooses insurance industry as object and expects to explore, through
regression analysis, the relationship among the insurance leader’s leadership style and
the subordinate’s personality characteristic, job stress and turnover intention.
According to the conclusion of this research, following suggestions are provided for
management.

(1) Transformational leadership is used to help the subordinates aware that rewards
need making efforts. Proper encouragement and consideration are required to raise
the eager for future vision and accomplishment of mutual goal.

(2) Insurance job has no base pay and the salespeople are highly autonomous. The
leader should spend more time in assistance and communication so that the
subordinates understand real stress comes from economic income pressure but not
from the job itself.

Limitations

(1) Limitation of Research Scope

Because the research object is the insurance industry only, it’s not easy to generalize
the research result to other industry.

(2) Limitation of Research Variables

This research only considers the variables in question. Other variables such as
organizational citizen behavior, organizational climate, job involvement and job
efficiency are not taken into investigation.

(3) Limitation of Resources

Due to limit of research time, manpower and budget, this research only sent out 220
questionnaires and the sample size is small.

REEFERENCE

Allport, G.. 1947. The ego in contemporary psychology. Psychological Review, 50(9),
451- 476.

Bass, B. M. 1997. Personal selling and transactional /transformational leadership,

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 17(3), 19-28

Beer, T.A. & Newman, J.E. 1978. Job stress, employee health, and organizational
effectiveness：A facet analysis, model and literature review, Personnel
Psychology, 31, 665-699.

Bower, D. G.. 1969. Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four - factor

 theory of leadership, In Gibb C. A., Leadership: Selected Readings, Baltimore,
Maryland: Penguin.

Chen, Su-Zhang. 1981.An empirical case study on employees job stress. Department
of Management Science. National Chiao Tung University.

Cheng, Li-Fang. 2004. The effect of leadership style and job satisfaction on affective
commitment. Department of Information Management. National Central
University.

Chu, Hsuan-Wei. 2003. The impacts of leadership, member satisfaction, and

teamwork quality on team performance: an example on ERP project team.
Department of Information Management. National Central University.

Davis, K. 1977. Human behavior at work：organizational behavior, New York：

McGraw- Hill.

Fiedler, F. E. 1971. Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership

effectiveness： A review of empirical findings, Psychological Bulletin, 76, 128-
148.

Fiedler, F.E. 1972. The effects of leadership training and experience：A contingency
model interpretation, Administration Science Quarterly, 443-468.

Fiedler, F.E. 1978. The contingency model and the dynamics of the leadership
process, In Berkowitz, L., Advances in experimental social psychology, New
York：Academic Press.

Fisher, C.D.& Gitelson, R. 1983. A meta analysis of the correlates of role conflict and
ambiguity, Journal of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 320-333.

Fleishman, E.A.& Harris, E.F. 1962. Patterns of leadership behavior related to

employee grievances and turnover, Personnel Psychology, 15, 43-56.

French, J.R.P. 1974. Adjustment as a person - environment fit, New York：Basic

books.

Fry, L.W. 2003. Toward a theory of spiritual leadership, The Leadership Quarterly,
14, 693-727.

Hackley, J.A.1990. Role conflict, coping and stress in clergy wives school of
psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary, 328-351.

Hemphill, J.K. & Coons,A.E. 1957. Development of the leader behavior description
 and measurement, Columbus：Business Research, Ohio State University, 1-18.

Jacobs, T.Q.& Jaques, E. 1990. Military executive leadership”, In Clark, K.E. &
Clark, M.B., Measure of Leadership, West Orange, New Jersey：Leadership
Library of America, 281-295.

Jamal, M. 1990. Relationship of job stress and type- A behavior to employees’ job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, psychosomatic health problem and
turnover motivation, Human Relations, 43(8), 715-733.

Lin, Shu-Feng. 2002. The relationships of personality traits, organizational

commitment and flow experience: an exploratory study on the female health
care volunteers in Chang-hua County. Department of Leisure and Recreation.
Da-Yeh University.

Margolis, B.L., Krose, W.H. & Ownn, R.P. 1974. Job stress an unlisted occupational
hazard, Journal of Occupational Medicine, 16, 245-258.

Maslow, A.H. 1954. A theory of human motivation, Psychological Review, 50,

370~396.

Mobley, W.H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction
and employee turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 237-240.

Mobley, W.H. 1978. An evaluation of precursors of employee turnover, Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63(4), 405-421.

Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O.& Hollingsworth, A.T. 1978. An evaluation of precursors

of hospital employee turnover, Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408-414.

Mobley, W.H., Griffeth,R.W., Hand,H.H.& Meglino, B.M.1979. Review and

conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process, Psychological Bulletin,
86(4), 493-522.

Morphet, E.L., Johns, R.L. & Reller, T.L. 1982. Educational organization and
administration, New Jersey：Prentice- Hall.

Parasuraman, S.& Alutto, J.A 1984.. Sources of outcomes of stress in organization

settings：Toward the development of a structural model, Academy of
Management Journal, 27(2), 330-350.

Porter, L.W., Steers,R.M., Mowday, R.T.& Boulian,P.V. 1974. Organizational

commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(5), 603-609.
Price, J.L.& . Mueller C.W. 1977. Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees,
Greenwich, CT：JAI Press, 218-223.

Robbins, S.P. 1993. Organization behavior, New Jersey：Prentice- Hall.

Scott, W.G.. 1974. Management in the modern organization, Boston：Houghton

Mifflin.

Selye, H. 1956. The stress of llfe, New York：McGraw- Hill Book.

Stogdill, R.M. 1974. Handbook of leadership：A survey of the literature, New

York：Free Press.

Stogdill, R.M.& Coons, A.E. 1957. Leader behavior it’s description and
measurement, Ohio ：Bureau of Business Research ,The Ohio State University,
88, 1-27.

Wei, Chin-Yin. 2004. The study of the relationship among insurance salesperson’s
emotional labor, psychological contract and employee turnover. Department of
Labor Realtion and Institudeof Labor Studies. National Chung Cheng
University.

Yukl, G.A. 1994. Leadership in organizations, Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys：

Prentice- Hall.