Leadership is considered one of the fundamental pillars upon which the effectiveness of work in organizations rests, particularly during times of crisis that require wise intervention. Especially in light of the rapid transformations the world is witnessing, the need has emerged for leadership styles characterized by flexibility and the ability to contain complex challenges, such as diplomatic leadership.

Diplomatic leadership requires demonstrating a direction that enhances individuals’ ability to work in a spirit of cooperation and harmony to achieve shared objectives, such as promoting peace or mutual understanding among nations. The effectiveness of diplomatic leadership depends largely on the ability of individuals to perform their roles efficiently and successfully in achieving desired goals (Govand, 2021). Diplomatic leadership refers to the ability to employ diplomatic principles in managing individuals and organizations in a manner that achieves balance among different interests and promotes cooperation in complex environments. It can be regarded as a multidimensional approach encompassing science, art, law, history, and professionalism (Abu Amer, 2020).

Dawooda (2023) identified the dimensions of diplomatic leadership as: culture development, openness, cooperation, communication and clarity, and shared purpose. Certain studies have identified additional equally relevant attributes associated with diplomatic leadership, namely: centering, candor, consistency, and curiosity (Prestia, 2017).

Diplomatic leadership is also associated with a high level of commitment, which includes setting personal interests aside and assuming responsibility. Contrary to the traditional perception, diplomats can demonstrate significant leadership capabilities by prioritizing higher objectives and learning lessons from their mistakes (Feldman, 2022).

The role of leadership in crisis management is considered central to mitigating and containing the impact of crises. The crisis management process has been divided into two phases: the first is the immediate reactive response, in which the crisis is confronted and addressed urgently; the second is the phase of treatment and reputation rebuilding, which focuses on restoring trust and improving the image after the crisis (Saleem, 2023; Hallaq, 2020). It is also evident that the level of responsibility varies depending on the type of crisis; in cases of crises resulting from natural disasters or unintentional incidents, responsibility is limited, whereas it increases in cases of human error or poor performance. In all phases of a crisis, it is important that relevant parties and stakeholders participate in the decision-making process (Al-Shamsi, 2021).

As for the term “crisis management,” it first appeared in international political relations during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which erupted between the United States and the Soviet Union. The crisis began when the Soviet Union deployed ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads in Cuba, in response to Cuban President Fidel Castro’s request to protect his country from a potential American invasion. The United States considered this move a direct threat to its national security, which prompted it to decide to invade Cuba. However, diplomatic intervention between the two parties led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis. After the crisis ended, the U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time declared: “A new era has begun, one that shall be called the era of crisis management” (Mustafa, 2024).

Palestinian government institutions, like other institutions in countries experiencing complex political and economic challenges, face multiple crises that require effective leadership strategies to address them. Given the role that diplomatic leadership plays in determining how these crises are managed and how interaction with various parties—whether international or local—takes place, despite the difficult conditions imposed by the Israeli occupation and internal division, Palestinian leaders need to use their diplomatic skills to guide government institutions toward making well-considered strategic decisions that enhance stability and alleviate the severity of crises. From this standpoint, this study seeks to examine the impact of diplomatic leadership on crisis management in government institutions in Palestine.

The study addresses various concepts, some of which are newly introduced in the administrative sciences. Therefore, the study examined the most important of these concepts as follows:

Contemporary organizations face a fundamental problem represented by the absence of a single leadership style that can be considered effective in all organizational circumstances and potential crises, as the level of leadership effectiveness is determined according to a range of contextual factors, foremost among which are the nature of the crisis, its degree of complexity, and the competence and readiness of followers to assume responsibility (Chiwisa, 2024). Despite the research consensus on the pivotal role of administrative leadership in directing organizational behavior and achieving institutional stability, studies point to a clear variance in the outcomes of applying different leadership styles, particularly in crisis contexts (Gupta & Pandey, 2024).

While the democratic leadership style contributes to activating communication channels in all directions and enhances group cohesion and high morale, its effectiveness may decline in crises that require decisiveness and speed in decision-making. Conversely, the laissez-faire leadership style tends to raise employees’ morale at the expense of productivity, in addition to its limitations in developing their skills and expertise, making it unsuitable for managing complex crises (Saleem, 2023). The consultative leadership style is distinguished by its ability to read risks and opportunities associated with crises, and it encourages initiative, teamwork, and creative thinking in finding alternatives, thereby enhancing the efficiency of crisis management (Al-Rishi, 2020).

In contrast, lax or extreme leadership practices reveal serious negative effects, as the absence of responsibility, delayed decision-making, or disregard for vital data leads to the escalation of crises and increased material, human, and moral losses. Furthermore, exaggerating the magnitude of a crisis and viewing it as an existential threat to the organization drives some leaders to monopolize decision-making and act under pressure, which raises the probability of managerial failure and multiplies future risks (Boudoucha, 2017). These variations confirm that leadership represents a decisive factor in building a motivating organizational climate that enhances loyalty and belonging, or conversely, in producing a repellent organizational environment that generates crises.

Accordingly, a research dilemma emerges regarding which leadership style most effectively influences crisis management, especially given the limited number of studies that have addressed contemporary leadership styles that have not received adequate attention. Foremost among these styles is the diplomatic leadership style, which is distinguished by continuous communication skills, the ability to empathize and understand individuals’ needs, and building relationships based on trust and containment, thereby contributing to enhancing employee engagement and retention within the organization. It is likely to play an effective role in improving the efficiency of crisis management (Dawooda, 2023). Hence arises the pressing need to study the relationship between diplomatic leadership and crisis management, and to reveal the extent of its ability to mitigate the effects of crises and achieve organizational stability.

At the Palestinian level, Palestinian government institutions face significant challenges resulting from the intersection of political, economic, and social crises, in addition to the unstable environment that casts its shadow over their daily operations. Dealing with these crises requires highly competent leadership capable of adopting innovative and effective approaches to managing them and alleviating their negative impacts. This makes the diplomatic leadership style one of the patterns worthy of study in the Palestinian context and a style that may be compatible with the nature of the challenges facing Palestinian reality, given the leadership behaviors inherent in this style that may be influential and effective in a turbulent environment facing various internal and external challenges.

Main research question: What is the impact of diplomatic leadership on crisis management in government institutions in Bethlehem Governorate?

Sub-questions:

Theoretical Significance: The study acquires importance through the topic it addresses, namely diplomatic leadership, particularly given the scarcity of Arabic studies that have examined it within the scope of the researchers’ knowledge. This constitutes a scientific contribution and an attempt to fill the scientific gaps related to the topic of diplomatic leadership and its role in crisis management, especially in Palestine.

Practical Significance: The study may contribute to providing insights into how diplomatic leadership can be used to confront crises in government institutions. Through analyzing effective diplomatic leadership methods, institutions can improve their strategies in dealing with crises, which may help reduce the effects of crises on operational continuity and develop effective policies for confronting future crises. The study may also offer recommendations to decision-makers that could contribute to improving crisis management and enhancing the diplomatic leadership style in the organizations under study.

First Main Hypothesis: It is expected that there is no statistically significant impact at the significance level (α ≤ 0.05) of diplomatic leadership in its dimensions (culture development, cooperation, communication and clarity, shared purpose) on crisis management in its dimensions (crisis detection, crisis preparedness, crisis containment, recovery and restoration of balance, learning from the crisis) in government institutions in Bethlehem Governorate.

The following sub-hypotheses branch from it:

Second Main Hypothesis: It is expected that there is no statistically significant relationship at the significance level (α ≤ 0.05) between diplomatic leadership and crisis management.