Introduction

Indonesia possesses huge potentials to progress into a developed country. A total population of approximately 270.2 million (rank 4th in the world) with 70.72% are in productive age (Indonesian Statistic Bureau, 2021) is considered a massive market segment and tremendous workforce. Additionally, Indonesia has vast natural resources and diverse cultures of approximately 1.331 tribes and 652 dialects spreading in all 34 provinces. One of the main contributors to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Indonesia comes from general insurance industry, as it generates a substantial effect on the economy by activating national savings. It facilitates to mitigate losses, increase financial stability and stimulates commercial and trade activities which yields in economic growth and development. Therefore, the insurance industry performs a significant role in the economy’s viable growth and it continues to cultivate. It is displayed through the escalating insurance industry performance each year, which is aligned with Indonesia's economic growth.

While Indonesia is considered as one of the countries with highest and fastest economy growth, Indonesia is also faced with a financial gap and low insurance literacy as most of Indonesians still have not realized the importance of insurance (OJK, 2019). It requires amalgamating efforts from the insurance owners, leaders and employees, regulators, consumers, association and other stakeholders to increase the insurance literacy which eventually will enhance the insurance performance. Due to the pandemic, the progress may move more slowly. However, it is time to accelerate it by having a synergistic interaction to build a digital insurance mindset in society, prepare the necessary regulations, have a value added within the insurance company and culture is the key to harness it.

This research aims to fulfill the gap from previous researches regarding the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance. A research in Jordan by Alrowwad, Alaaldin & Obeidat (2017) found a negative connection between the transformational leadership and organizational performance. Meanwhile, a research of 368 project managers in Taiwan proved that only the inspirational motivation dimension of transformational leadership which positively correlated with the organizational performance (Huang, Hsu & Chiau, 2011). In addition, Obiwuru, Okwu, Akpa & Nwankwere (2011) stated that the transformational leadership of Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in Nigeria did not influence the organizational performance and the inspirational motivation dimension showed inconsistent results. Further, Jensen, Poto?nik & Chaudhry (2020) showed that the idealized influence and individualized consideration dimensions of transformational leadership did not support the performance of 42 publicly listed companies in Europe.

On the other hand, a research by Ocak & Öztürk (2018) claimed that the transformational leadership positively influenced the organizational financial performance. Similarly, Khan, et al., (2018) studying 396 companies in France proved that the higher the transformational leadership influence, then the higher the organizational performance would be.

More inconclusive results also appear on a study which found that the transformational leadership had a negative correlation with the adhocracy culture in an organization (Durga devi, 2017). On the contrary, a research from Zuraik & Kelly (2018) examining several companies in USA showed that transformational leadership had a substantial relationship with organizational culture. Therefore, this research attempts to fill in the gap with a new variable - named goal-oriented synergistic interaction to analyze the impact towards transformational leadership, organizational culture and organizational performance.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership (TL)

According to Burns (1978), the transformational leadership theory consists of four dimensions:

a) Idealized Influence – the leader possesses high moral conduct principles which made them respected and act as role replicas for their subordinates.

b) Inspirational Motivation – the leader has the ability to inspire subordinates to succeed above standards, empowering them in all substances and keeping them loyal to the organization.

c) Intellectual Stimulation –the leader has a role in encouraging the subordinates to continually innovate and get creative in solving problems, stimulating fresh ideas for the subordinates to rethink old ways and influence them to see problem from a new perspective.

d) Individualized Consideration – the leader practices to consider the needs of their subordinates in achieving their targets and development.

The transformational leadership can be considered as a true leadership because it focuses towards the goals which steer the organization to the ones that have never been accomplished before (Locke, 1997). Based on the above descriptions, the transformational leadership is the most suitable leadership style to drive the general insurance industry in Indonesia to achieve higher financial performance and better operational performance.

Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI)

Few concepts and theories were summarized into an idea called goal-oriented synergistic interaction (GOSI). The goal setting theory is one of the parent theories (Locke & Latham, 1990), explaining that a particular and challenging objective will result in a better performance compared to an abstract objective, such as an encouragement to do the best, or to have no objective at all. Further, Dweck & Leggett (1998); Schunk (2012) supported the goal-oriented theory, describing the ways and reasons an individual pursuing goals or objectives. Then, this concept is streamlined in the concept of goal-oriented interaction (Park & Pierce, 2019) where the decision-making process is focused on a goal and it adopts an understanding of “the destination is more important than the journey”.

Another theory was also established as the basis of synergy mechanism concept called the system theory (Someh et al., 2017), arguing that individual parts standing alone is less powerful than a system unification. A Biologist named Von Bertalanffy (1968) in his book of General System Theory (GST) in 1968 proposed this theory. The theory helped establishing the Synergistic Relationship concept (Werkhoven, 2019) – a constructive working relationship which enables each member’s strength to achieve the objectives. As a parent of organizational interaction theory, the social exchange theory was passed down into the service-dominant logic concept (Vargo &Lusch, 2004) which compared to others, it obtained an element of relational interaction capability (Karpen et al., 2012, 2015). This capability is understood as the capacity to interact to achieve common value creation.

The synthesis from those several theories and concepts finally creates a concept of Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI). It refers to an interaction within the organization that comprises the ability to initiate company's activities to focus on achieving goals (goal-oriented interaction), builds members’ collaboration to work proactively (cooperative interaction), persevere, and able to adapt towards change and participate in knowledge and experiences sharing (value-added interaction) to accomplish organizational goals.

Previous researches such as Jin, et al., (2015) explained that the organizational activities focusing on achieving goals in which the leaders inspired the members to have shared visions and objectives would bring positive effects to the organizational performance. The collaboration in team members to cover the needs of the team member’s capacity with others’ strength would result in a sustainable cooperation (Lacerenza et al., 2018). The team performance could be strengthened by the team members’ interaction done through knowledge-and-experience sharing. It is expected that the team members will benefit from learning each other’s experience (both from the ups and downs). The adaptation and preservation ability in facing changes is vital and it is possible that it would add value (Do et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2017). Therefore, the GOSI variable will play an important role on its relationship with transformational leadership, organizational culture and organizational performance.

Organizational Culture (OC)

Every individual possesses certain characteristics and behaviors different from other individual. Each organization also inherits cultures which bring impacts on the organization’s operation. Organizational culture can be defined as a set of norms and values widely shared and strongly held throughout the organization (Guiso et al., 2015). This definition specifies that culture is not only verbally shared, but also practically held with actions in an organization. Denison (1990) categorizes the organizational culture into:

Internal Integration

1. Involvement/ Clan Culture All employees in every level must be involved in their work which is interconnected to overall organizational goals.

2. Consistency/ Hierarchy Culture Organizational culture has characteristics of stable, sturdy, well-coordinated and fully integrated, and helps emphasize on trust, values and hopes of all members.

External Orientation

1. Adaptability/ Adhocracy Culture It refers to sustainability in the changing environment. The organization must be oriented in values, readiness for change and focus on customer.

2. Mission/ Market Culture It refers to the organizational strategic goal with a defined direction, thus it will motivate the employees.

The relationship of all organizational culture concepts above will have an influence on the organizational performance.

Organizational Performance (OP)

From the economic point of view, organizational performance definition can be describedas a relationship between effective costs, realized output and achieved outcomes (Masa’deh et al., 2016). It can also be specified as the extent to which an organization is able to meet the needs of its stakeholders and its own needs for survival (Griffin, 2003).

The organizational performance is impacted by both internal and external elements. The internal elements are leadership style, organizational culture, job design, innovation process and human resource policies. Meanwhile, the external elements are country rules and regulations, the economy, social and politics of the country, market preference and perceptions (Mirza &Javed, 2013). In this study, the financial and operational performance dimensions are used to measure the organizational performance (Hernaus et al., 2012).

For the Firm Financial Performance (FFP), the indicator used for general insurance industry is Risk Based Capital (RBC) ratio or known as Solvency Ratio and Investment Adequacy Ratio (IAR) aside from Gross Premium Written (GWP) growth, Return on Asset (ROA) and Return on Equity (ROE) ratios. In addition, for the Firm Operational Performance (FOP), the indicator used is market segment’s growth and customer satisfaction rate.

The main objective of this study is to systematically understand the effect of goal-oriented synergistic interaction on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture and organizational performance. This research adopts the organizational performance model that correlates with a general insurance company, which are the firm financial performance and firm operational performance (Figure 1).

Research Hypothesesand Methods

Relationship between Transformational Leadership (TL) and Organizational Performance(OP)

Several studies indicated that the transformational leadership played a vital role in the organizational performance by driving the subordinates to contribute towards common goals and encourage them to proactively strive to achieve the organizational performance (Chen et al., 2019). In a study of 133 public organizations in Greece, it was proven that the transformational leaders significantly influenced the organizational performance (Katou, 2015). A research of 155 employees on service industry in Pakistan found that the transformational leadership was more suitable and had a better impact on the organizational performance rather than the servant leadership (Choudhary et al., 2013). Therefore, based on the above literature review on a relationship between transformational leadership and organizational performance, the first hypothesis that can be proposed is as follow:

H₁: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on organizational performance

Relationship between Transformational Leadership (TL) and Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI)

A few researchers agreed that there was a relationship between the transformational leadership and GOSI dimensions. A study by Runhaar, et al., (2010) examining 456 teachers in Dutch College found that the learning goal orientation had a positive relationship with the transformational leadership. Further, Jensen, et al., (2018) whose study involved 3,470 civil servants in USA also found that the higher the transformational leadership, the higher the goal- oriented motivation would be. Besides, Shadraconis (2013) argued that the transformational leadership had a significant relationship with the group synergy. It consolidated diversity through a collaborative interaction (one of the GOSI dimensions) (Agote et al., 2015). Similarly, it also brings impacts to the sharing knowledge attitude which is able to create educated employees and eventually bring advantages to the organization.

Furthermore, there is also a relationship between the organizational knowledge development which can be done through increasing the knowledge sharing and creating trust in the transformational leadership (Mooradian et al., 2016; Politis, 2001; Srivastava et al., 2006). Hence, based on the explanation above on the transformational leadership and GOSI dimensions, the second hypothesis that can be proposed is as follows:

H₂: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on the goal-oriented synergistic interaction

Relationship between Transformational Leadership (TL) and Organizational Culture (OC)

In research by Kao (2017) on immigration agents in Taiwan, it was found that there was a significant relationship between the transformational leadership and organizational culture. It is in line with a study of Zuraik & Kelly (2018) of several companies in USA which showed that the CEO’s transformational leadership had a significant relationship with organizational culture.

Several studies also proved that a leader who could adapt with changes, focus on people (people-centric), and possess authentic leadership would support innovative and diverse organizational culture (Chen, Zheng, Yang & Bai, 2016; Khalili, 2016). Based on the researches explained above on the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture, the third hypothesis that can be proposed is as follows:

H₃: Transformational leadership has a positive influence on organizational culture

Relationship between Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI) and Organizational Culture (OC)

Based on a research of Vigolo & Bonfanti (2017), it was stated that there was a relationship between the service-oriented cultures of several hotels in Spain with the organizational culture; hence, the employees’ behavior could be organized to increase the service quality. Meanwhile, a study from Tarba, et al., (2005) stated that the organizational culture had a positive relationship with the synergy potentials. Furthermore, a study of Rowold (2011) confirmed that the organizational culture had a positive effect on knowledge-sharing interaction (one of the goal-oriented synergistic interaction dimensions). Thus, based on the studies explained above on the relationship between the goal-oriented synergistic interaction dimensions and organizational culture, the fourth hypothesis that can be proposed is as follows:

H₄: Goal-oriented synergistic interaction has a positive influence on organizational culture

Relationship between Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI) and Organizational Performance (OP)

Bolchini & Mylopolous (2003) examined Computer Science Department in Toronto and found that there was a relationship between the goal-oriented approach and organizational performance. Mean while,VandeWalle (2003) proved a positive relationship between the goal orientation and organizational performance. Furthermore, Chahal & Raina (2016) who studied SME companies in India showed that there was a synergistic influence from the marketing orientation that would significantly increase the business performance. Similarly, Hsiao, Chen & Chang (2011) also found that the synergistic interaction had a significant relationship with organizational performance. Therefore, based on the researches explained above on the relationship between goal-oriented synergistic interaction dimensions and organizational performance, the fifth hypothesis that can be proposed is as follows:

H₅: Goal-oriented synergistic interaction has a positive influence on organizational performance

Relationship between Organizational Culture (OC) and Organizational Performance (OP)

The relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance is portrayed as the higher the ability of an organization to create togetherness and treat employees as part of a big family, establish a working procedures, possess a clear and directed commitment, invoke the innovative spirit and willing to accept changes, then the higher the organizational performance would be.

Abbasi & Naser (2013) showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between the transformational leadership and organizational performance mediated by the organizational culture. According to a study of Rajapathirana & Hui (2018), the organizational culture supporting the innovation climate from all employees would result in an optimum organizational performance. Furthermore, Durgadevi (2017) examining the IT team in Chennai, India proved that several dimensions of organizational culture such as clan culture and hierarchy culture had a positive and significant relationship towards the organizational performance. Hence, based on the researches explained above on the relationship between organizational culture and organizational performance, the sixth hypothesis that can be proposed is as follows:

H₆: Organizational culture has a positive influence on organizational performance

Research Methods

The population of this study consisted 73 general insurance companies in Indonesia listed in Indonesian General Insurance Association in December 2020 (AAUI, 2020). This study’s sample was the total population (census). Thus, it may represent the general insurance industry in Indonesia. The data was collected from a survey where each general insurance company was represented by both a leader (director) and a subordinate. The survey was executed in the form of questionnaires measured using a 6-Likert Scale where 6 for significantly agree, 5 for agree, 4 for somewhat agree, 3 for somewhat disagree, 2 for disagree, and 1 for significantly disagree. The methodology used included the pilot study and quantitative method. The survey responses were then analyzed using Smart PLS. to attain the statistical data.

Results and Discussion

A total of 144 respondents contributed in this research, comprises of 72 general insurance companies. The response rate from this research is 98.63% from 146 questionnaires distributed and returned. Two respondents from one insurance company explained that the reason for not responding the questionnaire was because the company has returned the insurance license to the regulators in 2021 and currently is not actively operating. Therefore, it can be concluded that the response rate from the questionnaires is 100% of the insurance companies' population that are actively operating in 2021.

The general insurance companies where the majority respondents worked primarily employ 101-250 individuals (31%). They are between 46-55 years old (57 individuals (40%)). Furthermore, most of them are male (99 individuals (69%)). Most respondents have worked in the organizations for more than five years (84 individuals (58%)). Thus, we can conclude that the majority of respondents are member of organizations that are in a productive age and have a well understanding of the organization that they are working for.

Based on Table 1 and Figure 2, the transformational leadership, goal-oriented synergistic interaction, organizational culture and performance constructs have a composite reliability value of 0.803, 0.807, 0.887 and 0,866 respectively. All constructs are considered reliable since all their scores are above 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). Additionally, all constructs are also considered valid since the Average Variance Constructed (AVE) value of each construct ranging from 0.506 to 0.797 has met the required AVE score of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2017). Furthermore, the analysis also reveals that each dimension's outer loading value ranges from 0.683 to 0.933. The requisite to be fulfilled for the outer loading is higher than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). However, there are several outer loading values lower than 0.7, which are 0.682 (idealized influence), 0.686 (inspirational motivation) and 0.568 (goal-oriented interaction). Previously, Hair, et al., (2017) explained that the outer loading value ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 could be eliminated as long as the elimination would increase the AVE score to be higher than 0.5. In this study, the AVE value of transformational leadership and goal-oriented synergistic interaction are higher than 0.5. Hence, those dimensions remain to exist.

Measurement Model

Table 1 Validity & Reliability HOC (Higher Order Construct)
Construct	Dimension	Outer Loading	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Transformational Leadership	Idealized influence	0.682	0.803	0.506
	Individualized consideration	0.706
	Inspirational motivation	0.686
	Intellectual stimulation	0.768
Goal-oriented synergistic interaction	Goal-oriented interaction	0.568	0.807	0.589
	Cooperative interaction	0.893
	Value-added interaction	0.805
Organizational Culture	External Orientation	0.933	0.887	0.797
	Internal Integration	0.851
Organizational Performance	Firm Financial Performance	0.944	0.866	0.766
	Firm Operational Performance	0.800

Table 2 below shows that the overall dimensions are considered as reliable and valid. This condition is shown through the composite reliability scores, which range from 0.758 to 0.898 (higher than 0.7). The dimensions are deemed valid since the overall AVE values range from 0.512 to 0.815 (higher than 0.5). Nevertheless, several items possess outer loading values lower than 0.7, such as item II2 (0.543); IC1 (0.661); IS4 (0.609); CI6 (0.671); VA3 (0.678); EO1 (0.635); and EO2 (0.693). These items remain to exist since they contain important information for each construct. Besides, each construct with an outer loading value below 0.7 possesses an AVE score higher than 0.5.

Table 2 Validity & Reliability LOC (Lower Order Construct)
No.	Construct	Dimension	Items	Outer Loading	Composite	AVE
					Reliability
1	Transformational Leadership (TL)	Idealized Influence (II)	II1	0,794	0,758	0,517
			II2	0,543
			II3	0,791
		Individualized Consideration (IC)	IC1	0,661	0,791	0,560
			IC2	0,830
			IC3	0,745
		Inspirational Motivation (IM)	IM2	0,818	0,808	0,677
			IM3	0,828
		Intellectual Stimulation (IS)	IS3	0,704	0,815	0,527
			IS4	0,609
			IS5	0,735
			IS6	0,838
2	Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction (GOSI)	Goal-Oriented Interaction (GOI)	GOI1	0,727	0,830	0,621
			GOI2	0,832
			GOI3	0,801
		Cooperative Interaction (CI)	CI1	0,789	0,871	0,576
			CI2	0,793
			CI3	0,798
			CI4	0,736
			CI6	0,671
		Value-added interaction (VA)	VA3	0,678	0,864	0,561
			VA4	0,821
			VA5	0,709
			VA6	0,806
			VA7	0,722
3	Organizational Culture (OC)	External Orientation (EO)	EO1	0,635	0,807	0,512
			EO2	0,693
			EO3	0,789
			EO4	0,736
		Internal Integration (IIC)	IIC1	0,867	0,829	0,709
			IIC2	0,816
4	Organizational Performance (OP)	Firm Financial Performance (FFP)	FFP1	0,725	0,789	0,555
			FFP3	0,745
			FFP6	0,765
		Firm Operational Performance (FOP)	FOP1	0,909	0,898	0,815
			FOP2	0,896

The other validity testing was discriminant validity using the Heretroit-Monotrait ratio or HTMT approach. The HTMT value should be lower than 0.90. Table 3. below displays that each dimension of HTMT score (lower-order construct/LOC) is less than 0.90. Furthermore, the discriminant validity between construct (higher-order construct/HOC) with dimension (LOC) cannot be determined (Hair et al., 2017). Therefore, the discriminant validity requirement is met.

Table 3 Discriminant Validity Assessment Uusing the HTMT Criterion
	D-Ci**	D-EO**	D-FFP**	D-FOP**	D-GOI**	D-IC**	D-II**	D-IIC**	D-IM**	D-IS**	D-VA**	GOSI*	OC*	OP*	TL*
D-Ci**
D-EO**	0.16
D-FFP**	0.65	0.36
D-FOP**	0.42	0.24	0.871
D-GOI**	0.5	0.24	0.417	0.324
D-IC**	0.61	0.29	0.615	0.367	0.534
D-II**	0.65	0.27	0.734	0.728	0.628	0.63
D-IIC**	0.09	0.89	0.228	0.186	0.323	0.22	0.25
D-IM**	0.59	0.21	0.572	0.156	0.531	0.69	0.61	0.11
D-IS**	0.56	0.3	0.469	0.52	0.327	0.45	0.55	0.26	0.61
D-VA**	0.65	0.2	0.562	0.402	0.326	0.74	0.3	0.18	0.39	0.4
GOSI*	1.034***	0.24	0.689	0.478	0.789	0.79	0.63	0.22	0.62	0.5	0.988***
OC*	0.14	1.298***	0.321	0.285	0.276	0.27	0.27	1.212***	0.18	0.3	0.2	0.2
OP*	0.63	0.42	1.494***	1.076***	0.427	0.62	0.82	0.28	0.46	0.5	0.61	0.7	0.4
TL*	0.74	0.34	0.719	0.574	0.594	1.031***	1.103***	0.27	1.057***	1.042***	0.55	0.8	0.3	0.7
Note: *=Higher Order Construct (HOC) **=Lower Order Construct (LOC) ***= cannot establish discriminant validity between LOC and HOC (Hair et al., 2017): Threshold value <0.9 (Hair et al., 2017).

Structural Model

The result of data analysis indicates that the coefficient of determination scores for the goal-oriented synergistic interaction construct reaches 40.60%, meaning that the construct could be explained by the transformational leadership construct by 40.60%, while the rest 59.40% could be explained by other variables not included in the study. Similarly, the organizational performance construct could be explained by 33.40%, and the rest 66.60% can be explained by other variables not included in the study.

This research is a population or census research, where all population members are the respondents. Therefore, this study did not conduct a t-test to examine the hypotheses. The hypothesis test here is merely concerned with the direction of the standardized path coefficient, which is all positive, except H₃ (Table 4). The dominant construct towards the organizational performance is the transformational leadership construct with a standardized path coefficient value of 0.329 compared with the goal-oriented synergistic interaction and organizational culture. Thus, the higher the transformational leadership, the higher the goal-oriented synergistic interaction and organizational performance.

Table4 Size and Significance of Path Coefficient
Hypothesis	Standardized Path Coefficient	Decision
H1:Transformational Leadership has a positive influence on Organizational Performance	0.329	Supported
H2:Transformational Leadership has a positive influence on Goal-Oriented Synergistic Interaction	0.638	Supported
H3:Transformational Leadership has a positive influence on Organizational Culture	-0.138	Not Supported
H4:Goal-oriented Synergistic Interaction has a positive influence on Organizational Performance	0.309	Supported
H5:Goal-oriented Synergistic Interaction has a positive influence on Organizational Culture	0.089	Supported
H6:Organizational Culture has a positive influence on Organizational Performance	0.016	Supported

Discussion

The result on the first hypothesis (H₁) reveals that the transformational leadership positively influences organizational performance. It is in line with several previous researches (Arshad et al., 2016;Khan et al., 2018; Noruzy et al., 2013; Para-Gonzales et al., 2018). In the emerging general insurance industry in Indonesia, this type of leadership was perceived as the most capable leadership to direct and drive the organization to the insurance digital technology (insurtech) to increase the insurance literacy and achieve a higher performance, which would eventually contribute to the country’s GDP. This condition could be seen from the respondents’ responses which mostly confirmed that their company leaders had always inspired them to achieve the objectives and the leaders continuously made decisions to support the development of insurtech.

The empirical model portrays that the transformational leadership also positively influences the goal-oriented synergistic interaction (H₂). It is seen from a standardized path coefficient score of 0.638. This condition is similar with previous researches of transformational leadership and goal-oriented synergistic interaction dimensions (Runhaar et al., 2010; Shadraconis, 2013; Agote et al.,2015; Mooradian et al., 2016; Jensen et al., 2018). The transformational leaders could encourage the organization members to interact synergistically to achieve the collective goals. In the general insurance industry, the leaders would direct the employees to commit to the collaboration strength, sharing knowledge and experiences which aimed to achieve insurtech and increase society’s insurance literacy.

Further, based on the hypothesis testing, the standardized path coefficient score for the relationship of transformational leadership and organizational culture (H₃) is negative (-0.138). There are several previous studies that aligned with this finding. A research examining several retail companies in India stated that the organizational culture did not have a significant and positive relationship with the transformational leadership (Pradnan, Panda & Jena, 2017). Another study of several IT teams in Chennai, India also showed that the transformational leadership did not have a positive influence to the adhocracy culture (Durgadevi, 2017).

Furthermore, the goal-oriented synergistic interaction is also confirmed to have a positive relationship with organizational performance (H₄). It can be seen in the standardized path coefficient value of 0.309. The organization members would proactively collaborate to achieve the organizational performance (both financial and operational). The majority of respondents agreed that the members of the organization were encouraged to have goals aligned with company’s goals and to have sharing -knowledge activities within the company. This result is in line with previous researches on the relationship between dimensions of goal-oriented synergistic interaction and organizational performance (Birasnav, 2014; Choudhary, Akhtar & Zaheer, 2013; Iqbal et al., 2019; Zhang, 2005).

Goal-oriented synergistic interaction also shows a positive relationship with organizational culture (H₅) with a score of 0.089, which is not in line with H₃. This means that the goal-oriented synergistic interaction dimensions such as the goal-oriented interaction, cooperative interaction and value-added interaction could be implemented in the general insurance companies in Indonesia to develop a robust culture to accomplish the organizational performance.

Lastly, the last hypothesis (H₆) proposing a positive relationship between the organizational culture and organizational performance is empirically supported. This indicated that the higher the ability of the organization to establish clear direction and working procedures, treat employees as a big family and create togetherness, invoke innovative spirit towards in surtech and willing to adapt, then the higher organizational performance would be.

Conclusion

This study investigates the relationship between transformational leadership, organizational culture and organizational performance in the general insurance companies in Indonesia. 72 actively operating general insurance companies in Indonesia in 2021 were represented by 144 respondents (consist of 72 leaders and 72 subordinates). The outcomes of this research offer essential implications about organizational interaction in the insurance industry’s emerging market, such as in Indonesia.

In the digital era, the insurance industry must enhance and innovate its traditional business model to help increase the insurance literacy in the society. Based on the results described and explained, it can be concluded that the transformational leadership has a positive role towards organizational performance. For this reason, the insurance leadership management must use this type of leadership to drive the insurance digital innovation (insurtech) to better achieve both financial and operational insurance performance.

Furthermore, based on the data analysis, the goal-oriented synergistic interaction positively influences the organizational performance in the general insurance companies in Indonesia. There is no one-size-fits-all or specific pattern in collaborating to attain the insurance performance.

However, through this study, it can be confirmed that by having a clear goal to be targeted and working synergistically using each other’s strengths, and being adaptive towards a changing environment, the insurance companies will achieve a sustainable performance.

For the leaders, this study suggests that they need to spend extensive efforts ensuring a synergistic interaction among the goal-oriented teams to set the insurtech target, budget, procedures and key performance indicators to produce innovations in the insurance digital products or services and create a digital insurance market. When the target is established, the leaders will have to promote the synergistic interaction to ensure achieving the ultimate organization goals. The silo's mentality, which frequently occurs in the organization, can be mitigated by team compilation that incorporates various skills, experiences, and characters. Thus, it can involve many areas and expertise and ultimately connect the participants. The interaction will promote the insurtech innovation; hence the company will have a unique value proposition to compete in the market.

Considering that respondents of this study are all insurance companies in Indonesia, they entailed various organizational background, such as whether they were state-owned, joint venture, newly established, private-owned without conglomeration support, or had long been operated, attained conglomeration/group support, had sturdy capital and even were in a state of requiring an immediate capital injection. For this reason, each company had embodied different kind of organizational culture. Therefore, it can be concluded that not all companies will be suitable to be led by a single particular leadership style, such as transformational leadership. According to Masood, Dani, Burns & Backhouse (2006) in a study of 336 subordinates and 76 leaders from Pakistan manufacturing companies, it was confirmed that the transformational leaders were more suitable to lead an organization with a clan culture instead of the hierarchy culture. This is one of the reasons that the relationship of transformational leadership and organizational culture in this study is not positive.

Finally, this study contributes theoretically and practically to the discussion on the goal-oriented synergistic interaction, organizational performance, and transformational leadership of insurance leaders in the digital insurance industry. This type of leadership - which can communicate vision, mission, and corporate values, become a character model, and employees' inspiration to achieve the goal will be able to stimulate the initiative for the company's interaction to a particular interaction. This type of interaction focuses on achieving goals (goal-oriented interaction), building members' collaboration to work proactively (cooperative interaction), persevering, and being able to adapt towards changes and participating in knowledge and experience-sharing (value-added interaction) to achieve the organizational objectives. This study confirms that the transformational leadership and synergistic interaction that is goal-oriented would work together to accomplish financial and innovative operational performance. If all or most general insurance companies in Indonesia accomplished the organizational performance target, the country's GDP will undoubtedly escalate.

Limitations and Suggestions

There are several limitations in this research. For example, this research only focuses on the transformational leadership as the only leadership type to spearhead the interaction and develop culture to achieve the organization performance. Future studies are suggested to incorporate the transactional leadership style in the model and analyze the difference. It is also suggested to use a qualitative method with an extensive interview to leaders and subordinates to explore further the correlation and causal effect of each construct. Next, future studies also can also incorporate the company’s shareholders type (state-owned, private, joint venture) and differentiate them based on the firm age in order to analyze the relationship of organizational culture and leadership style. Both practitioners and academics can also examine the utilization of the goal-oriented synergistic interaction as an integral part of the organizational behavior and evaluate the impact on job performance.

The coefficient determinant test of this study shows that the organizational performance could be explained by only 33.40% since all the constructs in this model are mostly the internal constructs. Thus, future researches are suggested to include the external constructs in the empirical model, such as: country rules, regulations, economy, social, politics, market preference and perceptions.

When this study was conducted, the general insurance industry in Indonesia was being impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, the responses of organizational performance were also under the pandemic influence. In order to analyze the relationship of all constructs towards the firm performance optimally, future researches are highly suggested to be conducted when the pandemic has subsided to attain a more relevant result.

References

1. Abbasi, E., & Zamani, N. (2013). The role of transformational leadership, organizational culture and organizational learning in improving the performance of Iranian agricultural faculties. Higher Education. 66.
2. Agote, L., Aramburu, N., & Lines, R. (2015). Authentic leadership perception, trust in the leader, and followers’ emotions in organizational change processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(1), 35-63.
3. Alrowwad, A., Obeidat, B., Tarhini, A., & Aqqad, N. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on organizational performance via the mediating role of corporate social responsibility: A structural equation modeling approach. International Business Research. 10. 199-221.
4. Arshad, A.S., Rasli, A., Arshad, A.A., & Zain, Z.M. (2014). The impact of entrepreneurial orientation on business performance: A study of technology-based SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences, 130(2014), 46-53.
5. Indonesian Statistic Bureau. (2021). Census of 2020 population.
6. Indonesian Statistic Bureau. (2015). Scrutinize Indonesian tribes’ data.
7. Birasnav, M., Albufalasa, M., & Bader, Y. (2013). The role of transformational leadership and knowledge management processes on predicting product and process innovation: An empirical study developed in the Kingdom of Bahrain. Tékhne, 11(2), 64-75.
8. Blau, P.M. (1968). Interaction: Social exchange. New York: Macmillan/Free Press.
9. Bolchini, D., & Mylopoulos, J. (2004). From task-oriented to goal-oriented Web requirements analysis. 166- 175.
10. Burns, J.M.G. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
11. Chen, J.X., Sharma, P., Zhan, W., & Liu, L. (2019). Demystifying the impact of CEO transformational leadership on firm performance: Interactive roles of exploratory innovation and environmental uncertainty. Journal of Business Research, 96, 85-96.
12. Chen, L., Zheng, W., Yang, B., & Bai, S. (2016). Transformational leadership, social capital and organizational innovation. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 843-859.
13. Choudhary, A.I., Akhtar, S.A., & Zaheer, A. (2013). Impact of transformational and servant leadership on organizational performance: A comparative analysis. J Bus Ethics, 116, 433–440.
14. Denison, D.R., & Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organization Science, 6(2), 204-23.
15. Do, B.R., Yeh, P.W., & Madsen, J. (2016). Exploring the relationship among human resource flexibility, organizational innovation, and adaptability culture, Chinese Management Studies, 10(4), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-01-2016-0022.
16. Durgadevi, S. (2017). Organizational culture and its impact on employee performance (A study with reference to IT sector Chennai). Indian Journal of Public Health Research and Development, 8(2):315.
17. Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.
18. Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.
19. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L., (2015). The value of corporate culture. J. Finance.Econ. 117 (1), 60-76
20. Hair, J.F., Jr., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2-24.
21. Hardeep, C.R.C., & Dangwal, S.R. (2016). Marketing orientation, strategic orientation and their synergistic impact on business performance: A case of SMEs in emerging context (India). Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(1).
22. Hernaus, T., Bach, M., & Vuksic, V. (2012). Influence of strategic approach to BPM on financial and non-financial performance. Baltic Journal of Management, 7(4), 376-396.
23. Homans, G.C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597–606.
24. Hsiao, Y.C., & Chen, C.J., & Chang, S.C. (2011). Knowledge management capacity and organizational performance: The social interaction view. International Journal of Manpower, 32, 645-660.
25. Huang, C.M., Hsu, P.Y., & Chiau, W.L. (2011). Perceptions of the impact of chief executive leadership style on organizational performance through successful enterprise resource planning. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 39(7), 865-878.
26. Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U.F., & Hussain, S. (2018). From knowledge management to organizational performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 36-59.
27. Jensen, M., Poto?nik, K., & Chaudhry, S. (2020). A mixed-methods study of CEO transformational leadership and firm performance. European Management Journal.
28. Jensen, U.T., Andersen, L.B., & Jacobsen, C.B. (2018). Only when we agree! How value congruence moderates the impact of goal-oriented leadership on public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 11(13), 8-17.
29. Jin, S., Seo, M.G., & Shapiro, D.L. (2016).Do happy leaders lead better? Affective and attitudinal antecedents of transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(1), 64–84.
30. Kao, R.H., Cornelius, N., & Garavan, T.N. (2017). The relationship between work characteristics and change-oriented organizational citizenship behavior: A multilevel study on transformational leadership and organizational climate in immigration workers. Personnel Review.
31. Karpen, I.O., Bove, L.L., & Lukas, B.A. (2012). Linking service-dominantlogic and strategic business practice. Journal of Service Research, 15(1), 21-38.
32. Karpen, I.O., Bove, L.L., Lukas, B.A., & Zyphur, M.J. (2015). Service-dominant orientation: Measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), 89-108.
33. Katou, A.A. (2015). Transformational leadership and organizational performance. Employee Relations, 37(3), 329 - 353.
34. Khalili, A. (2016). Linking transformational leadership, creativity, innovation, and innovation-supportive climate. Management Decision, 54(9), 2277-2293.
35. Khan, H.U.R., Ali, M., Olya, H.G.T., Zulqarnain, M., & Khan, Z.R. (2018). Transformational leadership, corporate social responsibility, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: Symmetrical and asymmetrical analytical approaches. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma., 1–14.
36. Lacerenza, C.N., Marlow, S.L., Tannenbaum, S.I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73(4), 517–531.
37. Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
38. Masa'deh, R.E., Obeidat, B.Y., & Tarhini, A. (2016). A Jordanian empirical study of the associations among transformational leadership, transactional leadership, knowledge sharing, job performance, and firm performance: A structural equation modelling approach. Journal of Management Development, 35(5), 681-705.
39. Mirza, S.A., & Javed, A. (2013). Determinants of financial performance of a firm: Case of Pakistani stock market. Journal of Economics and International Finance, 5(2), 43-52.
40. Mooradian, T., Renzl, B., & Matzler, K. (2016). Who trusts? personality, trust, and knowledge sharing. Management Learning, 37(4), 523-540.
41. Noruzy, A., Dalfard, V.M., Azhdari, B., Shirkouhi, S.N., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Relations between transformational leadership, organizational learning, knowledge management, organizational innovation, and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of manufacturing firms. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 64, 1073–1085.
42. Obiwuru, T.C., Okwu, A.T., Akpa, V.O., & Nwankwere, I.A. (2011). Effects of leadership style on organizational performance: A survey of selected small scale enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu council development area of Lagos State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), 100-111.
43. Ocak, M., & Ozturk, A. (2018). The role of Transformational leadership behaviors’ effects on corporate entrepreneurship behaviors and financial performance of firms. International Review of Management and Marketing, 8(4), 45-55.
44. OJK. (2019). OJK: Indonesians have not realized the importance of insurance. Republika.
45. Para-Gonzalez, L., Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Martínez-Lorente, A.R. (2018). Exploring the mediating effects between transformational leadership and organizational performance. Employee Relations, 40(2), 412-432.
46. Park, T., & Pierce, B. (2019). Impacts of transformational leadership on turnover intention of child welfare workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 2(1), 104624.
47. Politis, J.D. (2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(8), 354-364.
48. Rajapathirana, R.P.J., & Hui, Y. (2018). Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(1), 44-55.
49. Rowold, J. (2011). Relationship between leadership behaviors and performance: The moderating role of a work team's level of age, gender, and cultural heterogeneity. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(6), 628–647.
50. Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., & Yang, H. (2010). Stimulating teachers' reflection and feedback asking: An interplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and transformational leadership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1154–1161.
51. Schunk, D.H. (2012). Learning theories: An educational perspective (6th edition). Boston: Pearson.
52. Shadraconis, S. (2013). Organizational leadership in times of uncertainty: Is transformational leadership the answer? LUX: A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and Research from Claremont Graduate University, 2(1), 28.
53. Someh, A.S., Ida, R., Wixom, B., Davern, M.S., & Graeme, P. (2017). Enablers and mechanisms: Practices for achieving synergy with business analytics. Journal of Information Technology, 21(2), 411-423.
54. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K.M., & Locke, E.A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
55. Tarba, S.Y., Ahammad, M.F., Junni, P., Stokes, P., & Morag, O. (2017). The impact of organizational culture differences, synergy potential, and autonomy granted to the acquired high-tech firms on the M&A performance. Group & Organization Management,
56. VandeWalle, D. (2003). A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review, 13, 581-604.
57. Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17.
58. Vania, V., Angelo, B., Pierpaolo, M., & Kristine, K. (2016). Corporate culture and firm performance: A service-oriented perspective. International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting. Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, 8(2), 109-123.
59. Von, B.L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller
60. Werkhoven, J. (2019). Building synergies with HR analytics capabilities. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
61. Yu, H., Guan, X., Zheng, X., & Zhijin, H. (2017). Career adaptability with or without career identity: How career adaptability lead to organizational success and individual career success? Journal of Career Assessment. 26.
62. Zhang, M.J. (2005). Information systems, strategic flexibility and firm performance: An empirical investigation, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22, 163–184.
63. Zuraik, A., & Kelly, L. (2019). The role of CEO transformational leadership and innovation climate in exploration and exploitation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(1), 84-104.