Leading through wildfires: a typology of communication during crisis events Open Access

Worldwide, there has been an increase in severe fire and flood events linked with climate change. The impact on global ecosystems and “the fabric of life as we know it” (Ben Zvi Assaraf et al., 2025, p. 191) has been described by the United Nations (2021, online) as a “code red” assessment for humanity. In Australia, school communities and their surrounding landscapes have been ravaged by fire and flood. These events are becoming more common and critical events that impact schools are only likely to increase (Bolan et al., 2025; Keenan-Jones et al., 2025). This is not a problem associated only with the Australian continent, rather it is a global concern. This article shares findings from research premised on a theoretical framework drawn from both leadership and school crisis literature.

This research examines how school leaders communicate effectively during natural disaster crises, with a focus on identifying the strategies and values that underpin responsive communication. Despite extensive work on crisis leadership (Kreamer et al., 2025; Lehtonen et al., 2025) empirical research on leaders' crisis-communication practices during catastrophic wildfires remains limited. The study therefore delineates from the pandemic dominant crisis literature and is guided by two research questions: What crisis communication practices do school leaders enact during catastrophic wildfire events? How do the identified practices function to build trust, support safety, and sustain operational continuity?

Scholars suggest that an alternative approach to leadership is required during crises (Schechter et al., 2022; Striepe and Cunningham, 2021; Drysdale and Gurr, 2017; Mutch, 2015; Smith and Riley, 2012). School leaders are forced to very abruptly deal with catastrophic events which require very specific crisis leadership skills, tools, strategies, and practices. This study is informed by scholarship on crisis leadership (Akbaba Altun, 2025; Bellibaş and Karaferye, 2025; Striepe and Cunningham, 2021), relational leadership (Eacott, 2016), and communication as social practice (Wang, 2022). Crisis leadership research identifies three interrelated dimensions as particularly salient in schooling contexts: (1) safeguarding physical and psychological safety (Alon and Schechter, 2025); (2) sustaining organisational continuity under uncertainty (Peltola et al., 2024); and (3) maintaining relational trust and collaboration within complex stakeholder networks (Brown and Jones, 2025; Schechter et al., 2022). Communication mediates each of these dimensions. It is through communication that leaders interpret risk, coordinate action, distribute authority, and enact care.

Natural disasters constitute a distinct category of crisis. Unlike reputational or organisational crises, wildfire events involve rapidly shifting environmental conditions, infrastructure disruption, and direct threats to life (Bolan et al., 2025). These conditions intensify the temporal pressures of leadership decision-making and amplify the ethical stakes of communication. While the COVID-19 pandemic generated a substantial body of research on crisis leadership in schools (Striepe and Kafa, 2025; Lien et al., 2023), fewer empirical studies examine school leadership during catastrophic natural disasters in high-risk environmental contexts (Rørstad Welle and Gunnulfsen, 2025).

This research focuses on communication as a situated leadership practice enacted under conditions of acute environmental threat. Specifically, the research maps extant literature on communication during crises alongside data from a qualitative case study that features the communication of school leaders who have experienced catastrophic wildfires. When a major fire affects a school, the impact can be felt for years to come and how school communities rebuild depends on strong leadership (Nye, 2016). It is therefore timely to consider this elemental aspect of leadership, given the prevalence of unanticipated crisis events across the globe that affect communities and specifically schools (Ben Zvi Assaraf et al., 2025). Furthermore, this is an opportunity to reflect on the complex dynamics within school communities and the interdependent nature of crisis leadership and communication (Striepe and Kafa, 2025).

Leaders are never sole operators. They are always part of a community or an eco-system (Hudson and Gurr, 2025; Diaz-Gibson et al., 2021). In a systems approach the community comprises of a “constellation of actors” (Diaz-Gibson et al., 2021, p. 439) where the opportunity for co-producing a sense of vitality is enacted. Contextual features are always essential considerations for leading through crises, as school communities are complex relational environments. Leaders are enmeshed in a range of relationships and social constellations where trust is an important feature (Da'as et al., 2025; Ramshaw, 2025; Castelnovo et al., 2023; Sezer and Uzon, 2023; Kosonen and Ikonen, 2022; Schechter et al.., 2022; Wilson and Cunliffe, 2022; Lawson et al., 2017).

Trust is increasingly recognised as a dynamic and multifaceted aspect of communication and leadership within schools, influencing both relationships and organisational effectiveness. Lawson et al. (2017) argue that when researchers are assessing the effectiveness of communication three lenses can be applied: the communication forms, content and existing social relations (p. 40). Importantly, “relational trust” and “reciprocal trust” need to be developed within the school (Lawson et al., 2017, p. 46). Likewise, Döös and Wilhelmson (2024) found that the value of mutual respect, responsibility and trust were key to success in their study of co-principal teams. In highlighting the emergent quality of trust in schools, Wilson and Cunliffe (2022) acknowledge how “relationship quality, trust, and trusting behaviours are not outcomes, but interrelated constituents of an iterative and emergent process of relationship development on the part of both leaders and staff” (p. 362). Research has shown that teachers believe that not enough time is given to communication practices in schools (Higham et al., 2025; Schad, 2019; Chen-Levi, 2019; Parker, 2017).

Despite widespread agreement on the critical role of communication in schools (Striepe and Kafa, 2025), both research and practice reveal ongoing challenges in prioritising, resourcing, and enacting responsive communication strategies. Researchers agree that smooth communication in schools is essential for day-to-day functioning but that there is a “knowledge and theory gap” in research (De Nobile, 2021). Communication practices need to be seen as authentic and genuine (Klein, 2017) and leaders must “convert the talk to walk” (Bendikson, 2015, p. 5). Furthermore, schools need to be well resourced with up-to-date communication tools (Waite and Garcia-Carmona, 2025).

During crises, schools often operate amid disrupted infrastructure and intensified misinformation, requiring leaders to communicate across multiple channels, audiences and time horizons. The importance of school leaders' communication during crisis events cannot be overstated. Communication during crises has to be responsive as it is key in navigating the events and their aftermath. Responsive communication is foundational for protecting lives, maintaining a school's reputation, and mitigating any negative repercussions associated with crises (Coombs, 2019). When usual avenues are not possible due to disruption in traditional lines of communication, alternatives need to be found. There can be the use of supplemental communication tools, such as phone tree systems, text messages, word-of-mouth, posted signs, messages to local authorities, and daily announcements through local media (Bishop et al., 2015). School leaders broker external messages, make interim arrangements with partner agencies (for instance, finding premises after a catastrophic school fire) and mediate information for teachers, school students, and their families during crises (Hulme et al., 2021).

Social media can be used to counteract false information, address confusion and ensure appropriate support is mobilised for the school community (Rehm et al., 2021). Crisis communication increasingly relies on digital platforms, including SMS systems, social media, email newsletters, and learning management systems (Alanezi, 2021; Ewing and Cooper, 2024). During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital communication emerged as central to sustaining school/community connectivity under physical separation (Lien et al., 2023; Peltola et al., 2024). Multi-channel communication enhances message reach, mitigates misinformation, and strengthens perceived transparency (Shahbazi and Bunker, 2024). However, digital communication also introduces equity concerns, as access to devices, connectivity, and digital literacy varies across communities. These considerations are especially salient in geographically dispersed, rural contexts affected by natural disasters, like those in Australia.

Responsive leaders provide clear and transparent information during crises (Adams et al.., 2023; Lien et al., 2023). Reliable information about the crisis situation, protocols, and information about regulations are needed, as well as responsive adjustments and adaptations required as information is supplied by the government, local authorities, and Departments of Education (Lien et al., 2023). Although traditional means of communication may be obstructed during a crisis, finding a means for rapid and accurate communication can mitigate material losses and foster trust between school leaders and those adversely affected (Alanezi, 2021).

Research indicates that effective leaders provide clear and transparent information during crises (Adams et al.., 2023; Lien et al., 2023) and there is capacity for coherent coordination and connectivity (Hayes and Derrington, 2023). Reliable information about the crisis situation, protocols, and information about regulations are needed, as well as responsive adjustments and adaptations required as information is supplied by the government, local authorities, and Departments of Education (Lien et al., 2023). Although traditional means of communication may be obstructed during a crisis, finding a means for rapid and accurate communication can mitigate material losses and foster trust between school leaders and those adversely affected (Alanezi, 2021).

School leaders filter messages from mainstream news outlets and social media to reassure teachers and parents (Hulme et al., 2021) and, in turn, they are responsible for brokering information to the community and public. This requires expertise in working with the media. Moreover, communication is an important element in the recuperation process as leaders deal with communities in trauma and shock (Akbaba Altun, 2025). There is a particular need for flexibility. The literature indicates that school leaders around the world encounter uncertainty and the unexpected in times of crisis (Hulme et al., 2021). As an example, a teacher in Ireland from Hulme et al.’s study (2021) noted: “We are constantly reinventing how school can run the next week” (p.171). With such high levels of uncertainty during crisis periods, school leaders need to be agile and responsive (Venesser et al., 2023). This is especially important as leaders play a central role in safeguarding their communities from trauma and adversity during crisis events (Mutch, 2015). They therefore need to make assessments and act, which requires expertise in communication.

The research was designed to provide a snapshot of the experiences of six school leaders who led their schools through catastrophic wildfire events. This study employed an interpretivist case study design (Creswell and Poth, 2018) to explore leadership communication practices across multiple school sites affected by catastrophic wildfires in New South Wales, Australia. Ethical clearance was received from the University of New England (Approval HE20-037) and the school leaders received information letters explaining the study, requesting consent for voluntary involvement and assuring confidentiality.

Six school principals were purposively selected for the research based on direct leadership experience during catastrophic wildfire events. Relevant selection criteria included: (a) principalship during the crisis event; (b) direct community impact (evacuation, property loss, or school closure); and (c) willingness to participate in reflective interviews. The interviews were 60–90 min in length and were audio recorded and professionally transcribed to ensure accuracy and facilitate in-depth analysis. The interviews were open ended, allowing school leaders to narrate their experiences (Creswell and Poth, 2018). In addition to the interviews, data collection consisted of the examination of documents relating to the fires and social media captures. Photographs were also provided by the school leaders of the devastation and the key initiatives developed during the recuperation phase. It became apparent during the interviews that communication was an important feature of leadership during the wildfire crises.

Data from three interviews are presented in depth in this article because they provided the most comprehensive illustrations of the typology dimensions. However, all six interviews informed coding and theme development. Transcripts were independently coded by the two researchers using an inductive process to identify significant themes and patterns within the data. The researchers used colour coding to identify codes (Williams and Moser, 2019). The process followed Braun and Clarke's (2017) reflexive thematic analysis. Codes were compared and iteratively refined through analytic dialogue. This dialogue between the researchers supported analytic rigour, with the collaboration located in a constructivist paradigm (Coulston et al., 2025).

Initial codes were generated, reviewed, and grouped into broader thematic categories, which were then discussed between the researchers to reach consensus and enhance trustworthiness (Nowell et al., 2017). Themes were examined in relation to the research questions concerning trust-building, safety, and operational continuity. A typology was developed through abstraction from the researchers' comparison of patterns. Trustworthiness was strengthened through independent coding and the comparison of summary interpretations. The participant pseudonyms and school profiles are as follows:

Quotations from the dataset are used to develop and illustrate a typology of communication that is intended to inform leadership approaches during crises.

The findings provide a set of interrelated communication practices that leaders can enact under conditions of acute environmental threat, and analyse how these practices function to support trust, safety, and continuity within school communities. The following section is structured according to the two research questions guiding the study: (1) What crisis communication practices do school leaders enact during catastrophic wildfire events? and (2) How do these practices function to build trust, support safety, and sustain operational continuity? The analysis is organised into two interrelated dimensions. Firstly, a set of empirically grounded communication practices enacted by leaders during crisis conditions are identified. Secondly, we examine how these practices operate to produce relational, organisational, and safety-oriented outcomes within school communities.

From communicating to ensure the physical needs of their communities are met, to recruiting and briefing stakeholders, leaders work with others to make critical decisions under pressure. Their approaches underscore a nuanced appreciation of the importance of maintaining a delicate balance between professional obligations and personal empathy. Whether through providing practical support, such as washing facilities during droughts, or protecting staff welfare against unreasonable demands, the leaders in the study draw on a spectrum of communication strategies that are responsive, value-driven, and decisively empathetic.

Their stories, from managing resources during wildfires to engaging in proactive and equitable dialogue with all stakeholders, illustrate a typology of communication characteristics essential for navigating the turbulence of crisis leadership in education settings.

During crises there is a need to understand the balance between educators' professional and personal responsibilities: There is a need to navigate the complex dynamics of ensuring staff well-being while maintaining focus on student and family needs. Barry's comment highlights his emotional intelligence, as he understood that he was not in the precarious position that the staff and community were in.

A community in long-term drought and without water is a dangerous fact of life in many Australian regions. In addition to dealing with the impact of fires, Barry's responsive communication led to a practical way to support his community. He opened the school to provide a service. The simple provision of a means to wash one's clothes has an enormous impact on a sense of well-being and the community's capacity to live in difficult circumstances.

Responding to specific community needs, like the lack of washing facilities, demonstrates sensitive and responsive communication and leadership. It involves listening to the community and taking practical and perceptive actions to address their needs.

A school is often the hub of a community and as such there is a duty of care that extends beyond what schools would normally be expected to do. Actions communicate values and John highlights the importance of communicating care by addressing the most basic needs, assisting to ensure families had meals. These leadership actions communicate that the school understood the trauma and sought to provide support and stability to the children, ensuring that their physical needs were met during the crisis.

Projecting calm with solutions to support the community enables them to have faith in their ability to overcome the crisis (Potter et al., 2021).

Barry's leader role also involved ethical decision-making and communicating assertively with higher authorities to protect the well-being of the staff. This shows how leaders have to balance external demands with the internal capacity and needs of their team. Communicating ethically was important for Barry. Seeing his staff were exhausted, Barry spoke about having to push back against the Department's demands that seemed unreasonable. The well-being of the staff was at the forefront of Barry's mind.

All leaders in the study anticipated and responded to threats and ascertained risk. They needed to make and communicate timely decisions to safeguard the school community. This required proactive decision-making based on risk assessment. Decision-making in the moment was crucial. Like many of the participants, Peter spoke about the need to make considered decisions. Facing unpredictable fires and imminent danger, school leaders need to be able to make judgments and act. They need to trust contextual knowledge. Peter described the early closure of the school retrospectively as the correct thing to do. He had to work with his director and predict what to do ahead of time. Peter liaised with his director to make the decision to close the school in anticipation of worsening conditions which illustrates proactive leadership. Effective communication about such decisions, based on risk assessment, is crucial in ensuring safety and preparedness.

Clear and effective messaging and communication to media and staff is an imperative during a crisis. Leaders are typically well placed and experienced to furnish clear and transparent information (Lien et al., 2023). There is the need to provide coherent and reliable information about the crisis situation, rules, and regulations, as well as adjusting and adapting the information supplied by the government, local authorities or Department of Education (Lien et al., 2023). It is helpful for previously developed communication strategies to be in place with distributed roles for the different staff. As Peter's comment highlights, engaging office staff in strategic planning emphasises the importance of having a coordinated and multi-channel communication approach. This ensures that information reaches all stakeholders in a timely and effective manner.

Communicating receptively involves using active listening and making space so all stakeholders can express needs and concerns. This involves being open to hearing people's stories during and after the event. John talks about being open to learning from others and valuing informal forms of communication so that the lived experience can inform practice.

The successful management of adversity with balanced decision-making that prioritises safety can strengthen trust in the school community. Building trust with the teachers and school community is a critical aspect of effective communication during crises (Lien et al., 2023; Mutch, 2015). If leaders are open and honest, people are more likely to trust them, even if the news is not good. Trust can break down if there is any sense that information is being withheld (Sutherland, 2017). Building trust with families and stakeholders was important for participants in the study. Peter talks about how his actions during adversity built trust with his community.

Ensuring transparency in communicating decisions, through mediums such as social media, can play a key role in developing and maintaining trust.

Decisive communication is crucial in times of crisis. Decisions may need to be made to close the school to ensure safety for the school community and so there is a need to assess evolving circumstances and respond quickly. There is also value in planning a measured response even when critical decisions are to be communicated under time pressure. The decision to close a school, influenced by emergency services advice, reflects decisive communication. John's quotation illustrates how conveying such decisions clearly, especially when they significantly impact so many people, is vital.

Managing school community concerns and balancing various stakeholder needs are key actions for leaders. According to Potter et al. (2021), engagement with parent and community voice is foundational. Listening to their concerns and delivering on their needs, where possible, builds trust, enables a dialogue, and creates a sense of collaboration during a crisis. However, with a community in distress, it is advisable to ensure clear protocols govern how concerns are received, triaged, and responded to. The concern is that communication can be dominated by the loudest voices. An inclusive approach considers the needs of the entire community and not just a vocal few. John signals how communication should be managed judiciously, in a way that considers the needs and concerns of all members.

Where relevant and feasible, it may be possible to invite contributions from the broader community to inform decision-making. Community and wider stakeholder meetings can be scheduled to share leadership decisions, and to communicate why decisions are made (Sutherland, 2017). Where possible and appropriate, the community can contribute to decision-making so as to avoid the risk of backlash where solutions are not seen to be relevant to their needs.

The identified communication practices do not operate in isolation. Moreover, they function relationally to produce outcomes associated with trust, safety, and organisational continuity. Trust is strengthened through transparency, consistency, and visible care in leader communication. Safety is supported through timely, risk-informed messaging and proactive decision-making that prioritises the physical and psychological wellbeing of the school community. Operational continuity is sustained through coordinated, multi-channel communication that enables role clarity, adaptive responses, and the maintenance of key organisational functions under conditions of disruption. These dimensions are mutually reinforcing and highlight the centrality of communication as a mediating practice in crisis leadership.

Leadership is not an objective entity but rather a social construction. It therefore follows that as a relational construct that requires situated action (Eacott, 2016), leading is contingent on the context of the school environment -who is there and what event is unfolding. In times of crisis, effective communication emerges as a cornerstone of leadership (Bishop et al., 2015) especially within educational settings where the stakes include the well-being of staff, students, and the broader community. As Sutherland (2017) points out, the possible outcomes of a crisis, whether positive or negative, are dependent on “technical dynamics” of the response and the “cultural dynamics” within the school community (p.4).

The data presented in this article are used to form a typology which categorises the various dimensions of communication during crises that school leaders can deploy. Figure 1 maps the typology of communication we generated from the data analysis. While this model is ambitious given the number of participants, it captures nuanced, context-dependent aspects of crisis leadership. This framework emphasises the urgency, emotional labour, and rapid decision-making unique to crisis scenarios. Each category reflects a specific challenge or strategy and is supported by real-life examples and quotations from research participants.

This typology offers a framework that leaders can use to balance urgent response strategies with transparent, empathetic, and trust-building interactions. Table 1 is a reflective self-assessment tool for individual leaders or leadership teams.

While the typology of crisis communication is grounded in data from three schools, it captures recurring challenges and responses that are heightened during natural disaster crises. Unlike generic communication models (Haupt, 2021; Wang, 2022), this framework integrates the need for urgent, emotionally attuned, and ethically complex communication strategies demanded in school crisis situations. Elements such as real-time risk assessment, transparent advocacy, and trauma-informed engagement (Charteris et al., 2025) distinguish this typology from everyday communication approaches. Moreover, it is tailored to crises in schooling contexts. Future research with a larger number of participants would further refine and validate the model's specificity to school crisis contexts.

Figure 2 provides a tool that leaders can use to continually refine approaches to communication, with a view to specifically ensure safety, trust, and resilience across their school communities.

The typology highlights how trust-building in crisis conditions depend on communicative practices that combine care with competence. Uncertainty is acknowledged without amplifying panic. Rationales for decision are articulated and relational assurance is maintained through visible, ethically grounded messaging. The findings suggest that safety is strengthened when communication makes risk thresholds explicit. This supports rapid coordination with staff and relevant agencies (e.g. fire crew, police and other first responders). Leaders can codify escalation protocols, clarify who decides what and under which conditions, and rehearse multi-channel safety messaging so that clarity is maintained, even when time is compressed and information is partial.

The typology shows that continuity is sustained by communication that coordinates operational adaptations (learning delivery, staffing, attendance expectations, reopening and recovery) and that stabilises routines where possible. This implies the value of continuity communication planning as a distinct component of crisis readiness. In particular there is attention to communicating transitions, roles, timelines, and recovery pathways to reduce organisational drift. Practically, the typology can be used as a diagnostic and developmental tool by leaders and systems to self-audit crisis-communication readiness. Used in this way, the typology could support deliberate preparation and post-event learning.

Research on crises in schools mainly centres on prevention and the approaches taken to mitigate impacts during and immediately after crisis events (Mutch, 2014). Multifaceted communication is integral to this work (Striepe and Kafa, 2025). Each school, community, and landscape is different, and each crisis is born of unique circumstances. While it is well acknowledged that context significantly impacts leadership practices (Clarke and O'Donoghue, 2016; Gurr and Drysdale, 2018) educators and researchers may find the findings relatable and applicable across a range of crisis scenarios. The data explored in this paper highlight the importance of establishing practices based on building resilience, community care and belonging and finding practical means for repair and recovery. Each process or step communicated needs to be clear and address immediate needs. But there is also a need to keep in mind the goals of long-term and stable recovery.

Leaders in the schools spoke of the need for keeping school life as normal as possible during the natural disaster, ensuring that planned activities continued where feasible. The minimisation of disruption was seen as a means to build confidence in the future and maintain a sense of stability. Crisis leadership is premised on relational practice, where communication is required to support extensive delegation and a proactive stance toward arising dilemmas (Rørstad Welle and Gunnulfsen, 2025; Adams et al., 2023).

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. The study draws on a small group of Australian school leaders and focuses on catastrophic wildfire events. As such, the findings are not intended to be statistically generalisable. Accounts are retrospective and may privilege salient moments over routine practices. Crisis communication capacities are also shaped by jurisdictional policy settings, resourcing, local geography, and digital infrastructure. Transferability to other contexts and crisis types should therefore be undertaken cautiously. Nonetheless, the typology is offered as a heuristic to support analytic transferability and practical reflection, with further research needed to test and refine the framework across crisis types and education systems.

The findings have implications for policy, professional practice, and leadership development in education systems increasingly affected by climate-related crises. At the policy level, the typology provides a framework for the development of system-wide crisis communication protocols that integrate relational, ethical, and operational dimensions of leadership. This includes clarifying escalation procedures, defining communication roles, and embedding multi-channel strategies that remain functional under conditions of infrastructural disruption.

For professional learning, the findings indicate the need to move beyond procedural crisis management toward the development of communication capabilities that are emotionally attuned, ethically grounded, and adaptive to uncertainty. As Newstead and colleagues (2026) observe, leader practice needs to take account of ethical considerations which includes “acting with humanity, justice, and prudence” (p. 62). Leadership preparation programmes and professional development initiatives can draw on the typology as a basis for scenario-based training and reflective practice.

At the school level, the typology and accompanying reflective tool offer a practical mechanism for auditing and strengthening crisis readiness. Leadership teams can use the framework to evaluate existing communication practices, identify gaps in equity and access, and rehearse coordinated responses prior to crisis events. The research contributes not only to theoretical understandings around crisis leadership communication, but also to the development of actionable strategies that support resilient school communities.

It has been noted that many current theories and frameworks of educational leadership fall short when it comes to addressing the unique demands and intensity that leaders experience during times of crisis (Striepe and Cunningham, 2021). As Striepe and Cunningham (2021) explain, these models have not been shaped by empirical research set in high-stakes contexts, where lives may be endangered and the emotional and psychological well-being of students, staff, and community members is profoundly impacted. Furthermore, existing leadership models often overlook the heightened moral, ethical, and pastoral responsibilities that crises impose. The participants in this study were at the frontline of crises and the typology presented here is anchored in their lived experiences of navigating acute threats, safeguarding their communities, and making ethically complex decisions under extraordinary pressure. The research offers both practical and theoretical contributions to the field of educational leadership. Practically, it presents a grounded typology of communication strategies employed by school leaders during catastrophic wildfire events. These strategies, ranging from emotionally intelligent responses to risk-informed and ethical decision-making, are not only relevant in natural disaster contexts but also transferable to other crisis situations such as pandemics or community trauma.

The reflective tool embedded in the typology provides school leaders with a framework for self-assessment and team dialogue, promoting preparedness, resilience, and relational leadership. Theoretically, the study extends existing literature on crisis leadership by emphasising the relational, context-dependent, and trust-based dimensions of communication. It foregrounds leadership as a situated, socially constructed practice that unfolds through interrelationships and associated patterns of interaction, rather than through top-down directives alone. This grounded perspective provides insights into forms of leadership and communication that are distinct from those described in conventional models, highlighting the practical realities and relational demands of leading schools through crisis events.

Key communication strategies have been identified which have been implemented by school principals during and after catastrophic fires and floods. While each community is unique, common threads emerged, particularly the importance of a care-based approach to rebuilding and restoration. The dimensions of leadership communication outlined here can serve as a framework for educators, as it offers an overview of the communication dynamics warranted in crisis situations. Although much has been written about educators' responses to COVID-19 (Daas et al., 2025; Peltola et al., 2024; Lien et al., 2023; Adams et al., 2021, 2023), the sudden and destructive nature of natural disasters presents distinct challenges (Mutch, 2015; Smith and Riley, 2012). The communication focus of this study may assist educators and policymakers in preparing for future disasters. Moreover the findings highlight the critical role of effective communication in fostering trust, maintaining continuity, and promoting resilience in school communities. There is also value in supporting distributed leadership in post-crisis recovery and resourcing (Mutch, 2015). As crises become more frequent and complex, ongoing attention to responsive, ethical, and inclusive communication will be essential in strengthening leadership capacity in schools.

ChatGPT-5.2 was used in the preparation of this manuscript. Specifically, it was deployed for minor editorial refinement which involved correcting typographical errors, clarifying sentence structure, and improving consistency in terminology and referencing. The research design, data analysis and all interpretive work remain the authors' responsibility.