The unseen work of ECEC leaders in a crisis, and why shared leadership matters

When floods, bushfires or other crises disrupt an early childhood education and care (ECEC) service, someone has to make decisions about staffing, safety, communication and continuity of care. An Australian study suggests that leaders also carry a less visible responsibility: absorbing uncertainty and helping their teams and families manage it.

In a paper published on 23 September 2026 in The Australian Educational Researcher, researcher Leanne Gibbs examines how 16 Australian ECEC leaders described their work during the COVID-19 pandemic, climate disasters and community tragedies. The study offers a close view of leadership under pressure, while raising questions about the support available to the people expected to keep services operating.

What leaders described

The research drew on 12 online group discussions, called Dialogic Cafés, held over six months. Participants worked across different ECEC settings and governance arrangements. Rather than asking leaders to choose from a fixed list of challenges, the discussions allowed them to raise and explore issues that mattered in their own contexts.

Their accounts show how a crisis can bring several demands together. A leader may need to interpret changing guidance, revise a routine, reassure a worried educator and respond to families, all while keeping children’s needs in view. Participants also discussed everyday complexities, including staffing, compliance and family circumstances, that do not disappear when an emergency occurs.

Gibbs analyses their experiences through three connected forms of leadership. Adaptive leadership involves changing a response when existing routines no longer fit the situation. Enabling leadership makes room for educators to contribute ideas and take responsibility. Administrative leadership keeps policies, staffing arrangements and other organisational systems functioning. In practice, one service leader may be working across all three at once.

Trust can help teams respond

The participants described teams finding solutions together, including when pandemic requirements changed the way services operated. Clear roles and shared plans helped educators act, while trust gave them room to use their professional judgement. The study suggests that a service’s response is shaped by relationships developed before a disruption, as well as decisions made during it.

That does not remove a leader’s formal responsibilities. Governance, compliance and communication still need clear ownership. It does, however, challenge the expectation that one person should identify every problem, decide every response and carry every emotional consequence alone.

The distinction matters for approved providers and service managers. Making responsibilities clear across a team, providing time for colleagues to discuss emerging issues and identifying who can step into key roles are practical implications of the participants’ accounts. These are implications drawn from the study, rather than interventions it tested.

Emotional labour deserves attention

Gibbs also identifies the work leaders do to remain calm and available for others while managing their own reactions. Participants recounted supporting educators and families through difficult circumstances and, in some cases, attending to administrative work outside operating hours. That effort can be hard to see in a roster, a compliance record or a crisis plan.

For providers, the finding raises a question beyond whether a director has completed emergency management training: who supports that director when an event lasts for weeks, when guidance changes or when a community is recovering from trauma? The study points to peer networks, preparation that reflects the realities of the role and broader organisational support as areas for attention.

It also has a policy dimension. Leaders in the research described the difficulty of making sense of decisions announced with little warning and then explaining them to families and staff. Involving ECEC leaders when policies are developed, and communicating requirements clearly when they change, may help services respond more effectively. The study does not measure the effect of any particular policy approach.

These findings come from a small, self-selected group of 16 leaders discussing their experiences. They illuminate how leadership can work under pressure; they do not establish how common each experience is across Australian services or prove that a particular leadership model improves outcomes for children.

The practical message is still substantial. Crisis planning concerns people as well as procedures. A service that prepares for disruption should consider who makes decisions, how educators contribute and where leaders can turn for support when the immediate emergency passes.