Abstract

The current study aims to reveal the relationship between methods of crises management and psychological hardness in light of variables of gender, number of years of experience, and administrative level. The sample of the study consisted of (59) academic leaders who were chosen using convenience sampling technique. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the researchers used the correlational research method and develop scales for crises management methods and the psychological hardness. The results of the study indicated that the dimensions of cooperation, confrontation and containment came to a high degree, while the dimension of escape came at a low degree, and the level of psychological hardness came to a moderate degree. The results also indicated that there no statistically significant differences in the practice of crisis management methods due to gender. In addition, the results indicated that there are statistically significant differences in the practice of crisis management methods due to years of experience in favor of those with higher years of experience. The results also indicated that there are statistically significant differences in the practice of crisis management methods in favor of the higher administrative level. Furthermore, there is a positive statistically significant relationship between the dimension of commitment and mental toughness on the one hand and each dimension of confrontation, cooperation, and inclusion. Finally, there is a positive statistically significant relationship between the challenge dimension and the cooperation dimension. The study recommended several recommendations, the most important of which are: Providing counseling programs for academic leaders to support and enhance their psychological hardiness through mental health institutions, and governmental and non-governmental psychological counseling.