When we observe what is happening in many countries around the world that are presently war-torn and in crisis, we can consider ourselves fortunate. Yet even the most settled and secure Western societies have in recent years faced profoundly challenging events: disease contagion, extreme weather, and both the threat and reality of terrorism. Governments vary in their competence when it comes to contingency planning and decisive action to protect and support their citizens. While none of us, for the sake of our own psychological wellbeing, can afford to dwell excessively on catastrophe or dread, reviewing our readiness to respond effectively to crisis and disaster makes sound and responsible sense.¹
To take Australia as an example, few rural, regional, or outback communities are strangers to disaster. Bushfires, droughts, floods, destructive winds, and motor vehicle tragedies are sadly familiar. Such communities are rightly known for their capacity to pull together quickly in co-operative and practical ways.² Yet even they may lack confidence in addressing the psychological dimension of disaster and its aftermath. In reality, much of this too lies within community capacity, provided leaders understand what is genuinely helpful.³
Experience across multiple disasters suggests that formal mental health services and counselling can have an important role, mainly after the acute phase has passed and primarily for those whose difficulties persist or significantly impair their functioning.⁴ In the immediate aftermath, most people experience distress reactions that are understandable responses to abnormal events. With appropriate practical and social support, these reactions usually settle over time without clinical service involvement.⁵ Longitudinal research following major disasters, including Australian bushfires, indicates that while a significant minority develop longer-term psychological difficulties, the majority demonstrate resilience and experience natural recovery.⁶
Different disasters affect individuals and communities in different ways and to varying degrees. However, evidence consistently shows that people’s ability to cope and adjust depends largely on receiving early support that promotes safety, stability, connection, and practical assistance.³,⁷ Effective leadership responses include:
• Comforting, consoling, and listening to those who are distressed, while helping them feel safe from further threat.³,⁷
• Providing clear, simple, and accurate information, particularly concerning loved ones.³
• Reuniting people with family members and close supports as quickly as possible.³,⁷
• Helping individuals orient to the reality of the situation and regain a sense of agency by participating in manageable, useful tasks.⁷
• Ensuring practical and physical needs are met — food, shelter, sanitation, clothing.³
• Offering opportunities to share experiences without expecting or compelling disclosure, as compulsory psychological debriefing has not been shown to prevent later disorder and is no longer recommended.⁸,⁹
• Linking people promptly to systems of support delivered respectfully and appropriately.³
• Arranging professional assistance for those with persistent, unrelenting stress reactions or significant difficulties beyond the initial acute period.⁴ ¹⁰
Leadership during crisis is rarely about dramatic gestures or elaborate psychological interventions. It is about steadiness, clarity, practical care, and disciplined restraint. When leaders prioritise safety, accurate information, human connection, and tangible support, they strengthen the natural resilience already present within individuals and communities. In doing so, they not only reduce the risk of longer-term psychological harm but also foster confidence, cohesion, and durable recovery.⁷
References
- Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20–28.
- Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience. (2018). Australian disaster resilience handbook collection. Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience.
- World Health Organization, War Trauma Foundation, & World Vision International. (2011). Psychological first aid: Guide for field workers. World Health Organization.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2018). Post-traumatic stress disorder (NICE Guideline NG116; updated 2025). NICE.
- Bryant, R. A., Gibbs, L., Gallagher, H. C., Pattison, P., Lusher, D., MacDougall, C., Harms, L., Block, K., Snowdon, E., Ireton, G., Richardson, J., & Forbes, D. (2014). Longitudinal study of changing psychological outcomes following the Victorian Black Saturday bushfires. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 48(7), 629–638.
- Gibbs, L., Bryant, R. A., Harms, L., Forbes, D., Block, K., Gallagher, H. C., Pattison, P., Lusher, D., MacDougall, C., Richardson, J., Ireton, G., & Snowdon, E. (2016). Beyond Bushfires: Community resilience and recovery 5 years on. University of Melbourne.
- Hobfoll, S. E., Watson, P., Bell, C. C., Bryant, R. A., Brymer, M. J., Friedman, M. J., Friedman, M., Gersons, B. P. R., de Jong, J. T. V. M., Layne, C. M., Maguen, S., Neria, Y., Norwood, A., Pynoos, R. S., Reissman, D., Ruzek, J., Shultz, J., Spinner, J., Steinberg, A., & Ursano, R. J. (2007). Five essential elements of immediate and mid-term mass trauma intervention: Empirical evidence. Psychiatry, 70(4), 283–315.
- Rose, S., Bisson, J., Churchill, R., & Wessely, S. (2010). Psychological debriefing for preventing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2), CD000560.
- Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health. (2013). Australian guidelines for the treatment of acute stress disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder. ACPMH.
- Forbes, D., et al. (2020). Australian guidelines for the prevention and treatment of acute stress disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder and complex PTSD (3rd ed.). Phoenix Australia – Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health.