Leadership metaphors: Evacuated principals’ role during a war crisis

Abstract

The role of school principals during crisis, and especially during a war crisis, is central to maintaining community stability, learning continuity, and the well-being of the educational staff. A war crisis threatens the organization's goals and its very survival, creates a complex reality of destruction, evacuation, and psychological distress, and necessitates an immediate principal's response. This study explores principals’ role perceptions through their use of metaphors, conceptualizing metaphors as a scaffold for understanding reality and creating meaning in the midst of extreme crisis. Based on a qualitative–narrative approach, semistructured indepth interviews were conducted with 33 Israeli school principals who were forced to evacuate their institutions due to the October 7 war. This approach is particularly suited for examining meaning-making processes, as leadership metaphors serve as interpretive tools through which principals construct their understanding of reality. Content analysis revealed five main axes of role dimensions expressed through metaphors: the principal as a role model, providing ethical inspiration; as a strategist, navigating the organization to safety; as emotionally containing, offering resilience and mental well-being; as a performer, generating creative solutions for unexpected complications; and as an operational, ensuring logistical stability and order within chaos. The study proposes a multilayered model for the principal's role during wartime, contributing to the development of a conceptual framework for school leadership during extreme crises. Accordingly, it recommends preparing principals for multidimensional leadership that integrates strategic thinking, distributed management, and delegation of authority, as well as incorporating the use of metaphors as a managerial tool for constructing meaning in conditions of uncertainty and displacement.

Introduction

Following the outbreak of the October 7 war in Israel, a large-scale evacuation of residents from their homes began. At the height of the crisis, approximately 250,000 residents from 93 communities in the northern and southern conflict zones were displaced. They were dispersed across hundreds of hotels, reception facilities, and temporary housing sites throughout the country (Magar and Heyman-Zehavi, 2024). The evacuation of residents in southern Israel was largely based on the activation of national evacuation plans for communities located within a 0–7 km range from the Gaza Strip border (Almagor-Lotan, 2023).

At the beginning of the war, Israel's entire formal education system shifted to remote learning. After one week, a gradual return began in three modalities: in-person learning, hybrid learning, or continued remote learning, depending on the security situation. The relocation of tens of thousands of students and hundreds of staff members created widespread organizational and pedagogical disruption. The main educational response for evacuees relied initially on “Together Centers”—dedicated educational frameworks established within or near the reception facilities. In the early stages, approximately 400 such centers operated; however, over time their number declined following the establishment of 45 temporary schools and the integration of students into existing educational frameworks in host municipalities (Worgen, 2024).

Building on the description of the context of the October 7 war and its broad impact on the civilian population and the education system, the resulting reality can be framed through the concept of “crisis.” In a broader context, crisis is defined as a state of high urgency characterized by extreme uncertainty, requiring immediate and decisive action from the organization and its leaders (Schechter et al., 2022; Striepe and Cunningham, 2022). A crisis event threatens the organization's goals and the safety of the people working within it (Alexander, 2021). In the education system, a crisis constitutes an unplanned disruption that destabilizes the school environment and exposes students and staff to experiences of trauma and loss (Alene, 2026; Da’as et al., 2023; Smith and Riley, 2012).

Accordingly, the events described—including the large-scale evacuation, the shift to remote learning, the widespread organizational disruption and the coping with severe trauma among students and families—clearly illustrate the transition from a routine educational reality to a state of ongoing crisis. While in normal times educational leadership primarily focuses on a pedagogical vision and prolonged academic processes, during a crisis it must shift to managing events, emotions, and immediate consequences (Hudson et al., 2024; Sheena et al., 2025; Urick et al., 2021).

A war crisis creates an especially complex reality of destruction and population evacuation. In this reality, schools become stabilizing factors, and the role of the principal becomes critical in creating a sense of certainty and continuity (Alon and Schechter, in press; Assefa et al., 2022; Budnyk et al., 2024; Striepe and Kafa, 2025). The principal is required to function as a community leader navigating the “ship in the heart of a storm” (Da’as et al., 2023; Hudson et al., 2024), while performing emotional work to strengthen social cohesion (Fernandes et al., 2023).

In these extreme situations, the use of metaphor takes on a central role as a cognitive tool that allows to understand complex phenomena and create meaning within a chaotic reality (Arnold and Crawford, 2014; McKay et al., 2019; Meiners, 2019). Principals use diverse metaphors to conceptualize their roles during chaotic situations, from military metaphors such as “commander on the battlefield” to recruit the team (Da’as et al., 2023; Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023), to metaphors such as “captain,” “healer,” or “sun” to provide stability and emotional support (Hernández-Amorós and Martínez Ruiz, 2018).

While there is a growing body of studies on school leadership in various crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Stephen, 2024) and natural disasters like the New Zealand earthquake (Grint, 2020), theoretically and empirically, there is a significant lack in research on school management during active warfare (Hudson et al., 2024). This gap highlights the need to deepen our understanding of how principals perceive their role during emergencies, especially when the system is required to manage evacuated communities under conditions of ongoing uncertainty. This study explores the metaphorical language used by school principals to describe their leadership role during a wartime crisis. Through the analysis of metaphors, the study seeks to deepen understanding of the ways in which principals make meaning of leadership experiences under conditions of extreme uncertainty and rapidly changing realities.

Theoretical underpinnings

Crisis

The concept of “crisis” is defined in the academic literature as a complex and multidimensional phenomenon; although definitions vary, a comparative analysis reveals several shared characteristics alongside differences in emphasis. On the one hand, a crisis is described as a sudden and significant disruption in the functioning of a system, organization, or society, characterized by high uncertainty, urgency, and a threat to stability and goals, requiring an immediate response and exceptional resources (Gordin Yoskovitz and Schechter, 2024; Smith and Riley, 2012). Within this framework, some definitions emphasize the dimension of threat and potential damage, portraying a crisis as an unexpected event that jeopardizes organizational objectives and performance, and demands swift and decisive action (Alexander, 2021; Schechter et al., 2022; Striepe and Cunningham, 2022). In contrast, alternative approaches highlight uncertainty, complexity, and the ongoing disruption of routine practices, requiring rapid adaptation and cognitive flexibility on the part of organizations and their leaders (Pashiardis and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, 2022). Furthermore, the distinction between sudden crises and emerging crises underscores the dynamic and multifaceted nature of crises (Grissom and Condon, 2021). The present study adopts an integrative definition of crisis as an extreme condition that combines a threat to organizational functioning, high levels of uncertainty, and ongoing disruption, alongside the need for immediate decision-making and continuous adaptation.

Beyond definitions, the literature identifies common characteristics of crises, including surprise, time pressure, multiple stakeholders, lack of control, and disruptions in communication and resources (Smith and Riley, 2012). Crises can also be classified according to their scope and nature into human, social, national, and global crises (Alexander, 2021; Striepe and Cunningham, 2022), as well as according to their developmental patterns—short-term, long-term, acute, or prolonged crises (Smith and Riley, 2012). Another classification relates to domains of impact, such as security, environmental, economic, and health crises, each posing distinct challenges and requiring tailored responses (Stephen, 2024). In the educational context, a crisis manifests as an unplanned disruption that undermines school stability and educational continuity, exposing stakeholders to experiences of trauma and loss (Alene, 2026; Da’as et al., 2023; Grissom and Condon, 2021; Smith and Riley, 2012). The literature further distinguishes between local crises and prolonged global crises—such as pandemics and wars—characterized by extreme environmental uncertainty and wide-ranging impacts (Da’as et al., 2023; Rouser et al., 2024).

A war-related crisis represents a unique and extreme case, combining an immediate threat with prolonged disruption, and creating a reality of destruction, population displacement, and psychological distress (Alene, 2026; Alon and Schechter, in press). In such contexts, conventional management approaches are insufficient, and schools are required to function as stabilizing institutions within their communities. Hence, the role of the principal becomes particularly central in fostering a sense of security, maintaining educational continuity, and leading systemic adaptation under conditions of extreme uncertainty (Assefa et al., 2022; Gutman, 2024; Herman, 2024; Hudson et al., 2024; Striepe and Kafa, 2025). Taken together, the range of definitions, characteristics, and classifications underscores the multilayered nature of crises and the need for a comprehensive systemic understanding for their effective management.

The leadership role during crisis

During a crisis, school leadership is required to shift to managing immediate events, emotions, and consequences in order to minimize personal and organizational damage (Hudson et al., 2024; Sheena et al., 2025; Smith and Riley, 2012; Urick et al., 2021). An educational crisis requires principals to quickly adapt to a changing reality, sometimes while transitioning to remote learning that creates physical separation from learners, while simultaneously exposing and exacerbating existing socioeconomic and digital gaps (Harris, 2020; Pollock et al., 2023; Schechter et al., 2024). In this reality, the principal is required to address psychosocial and basic needs, which creates an intensive workload and an increased risk of professional burnout (Lafferty et al., 2024; Pollock et al., 2023; Tahir et al., 2025). During times of crisis, the principal's mission is to foster a sense of certainty, instill hope, and restore the resilience and psychological well-being of all stakeholders (Da’as et al., 2023; Wolfenden et al., 2024).

During wartime, the role of a leader is a complex task that requires a combination of personal resilience, organizational flexibility, and a deep moral commitment to the well-being of the community (Hudson et al., 2024). The principal becomes primarily a community leader whose role is “to navigate the ship in the heart of a storm,” while maintaining human connection and educational continuity (Da’as et al., 2023; Hudson et al., 2024). The primary responsibility of educational leadership during wartime is to ensure the physical and mental well-being of students and staff (Budnyk et al., 2024), as well as to adapt teaching methods to extreme situations, such as remote learning, using various media channels to disseminate content, or learning in homes and community centers (Salha et al., 2024). Principals are required to establish and manage protected areas and shelters, sometimes by converting school infrastructure into sleeping quarters for refugees and evacuated families (Budnyk et al., 2024; Hudson et al., 2024). Beyond the physical aspect, the principal provides psychosocial support by identifying signs of trauma and emotional distress among teachers and students (Velykodna et al., 2023; Wolfenden et al., 2024). In many cases, the principal is required to perform emotional work, which includes deepening relationships and strengthening social cohesion (Fernandes et al., 2023). During these times, emotional support and demonstrating empathy become more important than academic achievements (O'Connor et al., 2025; Sheena et al., 2025).

The war creates extreme workload and complexity that makes it difficult for the principal to operate alone (Alene, 2026). Therefore, close collaboration with the school staff, parents, and the local community is seen as essential for restoring school resilience and ensuring learning continuity (Assefa et al., 2022; Budnyk et al., 2024). In wartime periods, a dispersed community has to be managed within extreme conditions of uncertainty, which requires principals and faculty members to act as change agents, fostering mental resilience and preserving cultural identity among the frightened community (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Javed and Niazi, 2015).

Metaphors in educational leadership during a crisis

In times of crisis, and particularly during a war crisis, educational leadership becomes a complex challenge that requires dealing with extreme uncertainty, collective anxiety, and immediate changes in organizational structure (Budnyk et al., 2024; Lafferty et al., 2024; Striepe and Kafa, 2025). In these situations, the need to convey the depth of the experience to others, or to effectively motivate action through verbal communication is greatly enhanced (Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023). In this context, the use of metaphors takes on a central role. Metaphors are not merely linguistic embellishments, but a fundamental cognitive mechanism that allows humans to understand abstract and complex phenomena through familiar, concrete concepts grounded in everyday experience (Arnold and Crawford, 2014; McKay et al., 2019; Meiners, 2019). The metaphor serves as a rhetorical communication tool to motivate action and as a psychological tool to help build personal and organizational resilience (Da’as et al., 2023; Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023).

As the crisis becomes more prolonged and intense, the need for metaphorical and narrative language to create meaning, order, and direction within a chaotic and unpredictable reality increases (Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023; McKay et al., 2019). School leaders operate within a narrative landscape, where language and metaphors reflect how they perceive reality, the challenges they face, and their role as leaders (Schellings et al., 2024). During the COVID-19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine, there was a noticeable widespread use of war metaphors by principals, such as “invisible enemy” and “battlefield” (Da’as et al., 2023; Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023). Principals described themselves as “soldiers” executing orders, or as “warriors” battling on the educational “front” (Da’as et al., 2023). Thus, by means of metaphors as a rhetorical reflective process, leaders can simplify complexities inherent in wartime crisis (Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023).

Metaphors operate as a cognitive tool that allows school leaders to conceptualize their role in a complex reality, amidst organizational changes, and in shaping collective identity (Steger, 2007). Although research on school leadership in different crisis situations is growing (Grint, 2020; Stephen, 2024), the volume of studies on educational management during active warfare is still very limited (Hudson et al., 2024). This gap points to the need to understand better how school principals perceive and define their role in ongoing emergency conditions, especially when they are required to lead educational systems and evacuated communities in situations of extreme uncertainty. In this context, the present study explores the metaphorical language that school principals use to describe their role during a wartime crisis marked by instability, continuous threat, and rapid change.

Research context

The October 7 war has greatly impacted the Israeli education system, primarily due to the immediate evacuation of 55 communities from five local authorities to different areas across the country and the relocation of the residential areas of approximately 25,000 students and hundreds of educational staff. At the same time, the education system was required to immediately establish alternative learning frameworks. School principals faced the complex challenge of developing a new pedagogical framework that needed to address the vast geographical dispersion, integrate in-person and online learning, and provide a holistic response to both academic and emotional aspects—all while managing staff shortages and the needs of evacuated personnel.

Research method

Using a qualitative approach, the current study examines the metaphorical language school principals have utilized to describe their role as school leaders during the October 7 war. Qualitative inquiry is particularly suitable for investigating sense-making processes, given that leadership metaphors operate as interpretive devices through which school principals construct meaning, negotiate expectations, and respond to change (Coburn and Penuel, 2016).

Study population

The sample included 33 school principals, representing the full population of principals who were evacuated from the southern region of the country due to the war and directly faced its consequences. In this study, we used a purposive sampling method, which allowed us to consciously select participants with relevant knowledge and experience related to the phenomenon under investigation, based on predefined criteria (Gentles et al., 2015). The study included principals, from 18 elementary schools, four middle schools, nine high schools, and two special education schools. There were 17 principals from regional councils and 16 from local authorities, comprising 23 female principals and 10 male principals. There were 29 Master's degree holders and four Bachelor's degree holders. Their tenure ranged from 1 to 18 years, with an average of 7.5 years.

Data collection

The study included semistructured interviews with 33 school principals from a wide range of educational settings, including elementary, middle, high, and special education schools. The interviews were narrative and dialogic in nature, focusing on the principals’ experiences, perceptions, emotions, and interpretations of their leadership roles during the war. The interviews included open-ended questions that allowed for a discussion of the metaphors used by the principals during the evacuation period. For example: which metaphor or image best describes your experience—emotionally, organizationally, and professionally—as a principal during the war? All interviews were audio-recorded and fully transcribed. Given the wartime context, the interview process involved significant coordination challenges, as evacuated principals were operating under conditions of uncertainty and multiple competing demands. Consequently, interviews were conducted online via Zoom and lasted between one and one and a half hour each.

Ethical sensitivity is embedded within qualitative research and its constructed methodology to such an extent that the two cannot be separated (Hammersley, 2025). In light of these theoretical perspectives, the principles of trustworthiness and professional ethics were strictly maintained throughout the entire research process (Nowell et al., 2017). It was clarified to the participants that they reserved the full right to withdraw and terminate their participation in the study at any stage (Stahl and King, 2020). Privacy and anonymity were meticulously safeguarded throughout all stages of the research; the identities of the principals and their institutions were not disclosed, and for the purpose of data presentation in the study, pseudonyms were used exclusively in order to maintain absolute confidentiality of their personal details (Arifin, 2018; Fleming and Zegwaard, 2018).

Data analysis

Data collection and analysis were conducted continuously across four stages: condensation, coding, categorization, and theorization (Miles et al., 2014). In the first stage, segments that related to the evacuated principals’ perceptions were identified, particularly regarding how they expressed their experiences, emotions, and understandings of their role through metaphors during the wartime period. In the second stage, each statement was inductively coded according to the aspect of the principals’ perceptions it reflected, with an emphasis on the metaphors used to convey their emotional, organizational, and professional experiences, rather than predefined categories (Rossman and Rallis, 2012). In the third stage, similar statements were grouped into broader categories, and conflicting data were clarified through ongoing analysis (Richards and Morse, 2013). At this stage, the relationships among different metaphors and the meanings they conveyed were also examined to understand how they reflected the ways in which principals interpreted and shaped their role during a crisis. In the final stage, a unified conceptual framework was constructed by integrating the categories and exploring their interconnections, with a focus on the role of metaphors in constructing leadership identity and interpreting the crisis reality (Richards and Morse, 2013).

The analysis was conducted in two phases: first, the perspectives of the evacuated principals were analyzed separately, and then, in the second phase, common categories and differences between the voices were examined to capture the diversity and complexity of the metaphors and meanings attributed to their experiences (Cohen et al., 2011). Throughout the analysis, a coding index was employed, making category development an inductive process based on the range of metaphors and perspectives articulated by the participants (Rossman and Rallis, 2012). The recursive nature of this analysis allowed emerging interpretations to be revisited and refined over time.

In qualitative research, the concept of “trustworthiness” replaces the traditional positivist concepts of validity and reliability, focusing instead on the subjective meaning interviewees attribute to events (Nowell et al., 2017). To ensure research quality and methodological rigor, trustworthiness is evaluated based on four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Stahl and King, 2020). In this study, the credibility criterion was achieved through the researcher's lack of prior acquaintance with the participating principals, and by conducting the interviews with informed consent in an atmosphere of respect and trust, which enabled the participants to express themselves freely and authentically without fear of bias (Arifin, 2018). The transferability criterion was achieved by providing a rich and detailed description of the research context and the unique reality in which the evacuated principals operated, thus enabling the examination of the findings’ relevance to future organizational contexts (Amankwaa, 2016; Carminati, 2018). The dependability criterion was achieved through recording and accurate transcription of the interviews, and by presenting the principals’ statements and metaphors in their original form, in order to provide a reliable echo to the multiplicity of voices and preserve their authentic voice without judgment (Noble and Heale, 2019). Furthermore, the confirmability criterion was established through an inductive and recursive data analysis process, utilizing a coding index that allows for objective, consistent, and repeated verification of the interpretations emerging from the field over time (Forero et al., 2018).

Findings

Based on the principals’ interviews, five dimensions of principals’ role perception during a war crisis can be characterized by the following themes, as derived from the interviewees’ usage of imagery and metaphorical rhetoric: the principal is: (1) a role model, (2) a strategist, (3) emotionally containing, (4) a performer, and (5) an operational leader.

The principal as a role model

The perception of the principal constituting a role model is fundamentally based on viewing the leader as a source of inspiration and their performance as an example to emulate. Metaphors relating to this view convey to their teams, trust, sense of significance, and intrinsic motivation, leading to the creation of a strong organizational culture that keeps functioning even under conditions of extreme uncertainty. Several principals referred to their sense of personal identity as expressed by their presence, commitment to their mission, and personal example during the chaotic war period as a source of inspiration for the staff. Adel, a middle school principal, emphasized the importance of offering personal modeling, exemplifying physical presence and full commitment to her role: “Personal example is the most prominent thing here. I did not miss even a single day. The feeling was to get under the stretcher, and others were drawn into it with us as well.” The stretcher metaphor, referring to soldiers who physically have to lift and carry together their friends injured in battle, is a model of extreme strain due to commitment to the greater good, emphasizing that everyone must share the burden in hard times.

Mai, a principal of a special education school, also referred to the principal's absolute commitment, relating to a biblical sense of devotion to the cause: “… A true leader needs to announce the Biblical ‘Here I am’ in every situation, to be fully committed. Even when it is not comfortable.” Rita, an elementary school principal, saw herself as an example for both her students and for her staff:

And we do it upright, with our heads held high and with bravery like superheroes […] If I serve as an example in dealing with discipline problems and in demanding that children strive for excellence, I make my staff take responsibility. And that brings us back to being a personal example and role models.

Some principals related to their commitment and inspiration through the theme of acting bravely in the face of difficulties. Ari, an elementary school principal, likened his role to that of a combat commander in action:

I really felt sometimes a bit like a commander on the battlefield, that despite taking a lot of fire and losing many soldiers, still runs forward and instills faith in the soldiers who are left to run forward with him. From a leadership perspective, this role took on a kind of dual meaning … I felt that people were looking up to me to see how I functioned, and how I responded.

In this context, Adam, an elementary school principal, used the model of Forrest Gump overcoming personal limitations and objective difficulties for the sake of reaching an important goal: “He was on crutches, he was limited, and in the end, he throws away the crutches, he throws away the limitations … on his legs, and the brace, everything! And he runs a marathon. When you are goal-oriented, when you want something, all obstacles disappear as you move along the way.”

In this perspective, the principal is perceived not only as an administrative authority, but as a source of spiritual and moral power for the organization. The metaphorical images emphasize leadership as the ability to continue acting and moving forward despite significant difficulties, thereby strengthening trust and impart a sense of security among staff members, while maintaining focus on the goal and demonstrating resilience, expressed in the organization's ability to renew itself.

The principal as strategist

Interviewees used metaphors conveying a view of the principal directing, building vision, capable of predicting changes and preparing for them, leading to growth and development, to infrastructure improvement and to human capital recruitment, thus turning crisis into opportunity. Some principals perceived their roles using sailing and maritime navigation imagery, viewing the war as stormy waters, like David, a high school principal:

My role is that of a stabilizing agent, as well as a kind of lighthouse… I am the ‘breakwater’ against which the waves crash […] creating an environment that allows for as normal functioning as possible. The lighthouse metaphor suits me well, being something very, very stable in the heart of a storm. Something that people orient themselves toward and that provides a clear point of direction.

Like David, Lucy, an elementary school principal, sees the war as a stormy sea and the school as offering rescue from instability—“the educational institution is a kind of anchor for the children”—explaining that “the war indeed proved the importance of school as providing a sense of belonging, a place that gives me stability.” And Yonatan, an elementary school principal said: “It was like a ship in a stormy sea, where you had to hold the helm and bring it to a safe harbor.” Natalie, a high school principal also used similar images:

I got aboard a ship with people, and now there needs to be someone who will bring this ship back to some shore, and even if he does not know how to sail, he knows that if he can operate other means of transportation, he will read the instruction manual and manage. Everyone's eyes are on him right now, and he somehow needs to steer this ship.

By means of these images, principals created for themselves a stable point of reference amidst the chaos, protecting the organization by absorbing external pressures, and actively “navigating toward a safe haven,” learning on the go, and defining a future vision.

However, not everyone shared the perception of the war as having created a destabilizing reality. Eitan, an elementary school principal, noted that the war deepened existing problems: “War is like monosodium glutamate. It has essentially amplified things that were already there, and they simply erupted much more strongly.” His systemic analysis identified the crisis as a factor exacerbating existing structural problems that require root-level solutions.

Following these perspectives, the principal comes out of the interviews as a strategist, a military leader, and a navigator who makes sense out of a chaotic reality, gives it meaning and serves as a physical and psychological buffer between external turmoil and the organizational sense of security, aiming to maintain routine and continuity. The principal not only survives the crisis but actively leads and navigates the organization out of it and prevents stagnation.

The principal as emotionally containing

The aspect of emotional containment, with resilience and well-being at its core, reflects the school leader's instilling cohesion and a sense of security within the organization, that lead to the prevention of staff burnout and the creation of organizational commitment. Some principals used familial metaphors and perceived themselves as the primary, sensible and sensitive adult in the household. Shane, a high school principal, noted, “I just felt it from some very deep inner place, that the attitude toward the students here needs to be very, very fatherly […] you need to be both the father and the mother.” Similarly, Ray, a middle school principal, referred to himself “as a kind of father, or not even a father but rather a grandfather who has children and grandchildren, and everyone needs attention […] Feeling like a grandfather is hard. A feeling of heaviness. It was very heavy.” Much like a parental figure containing the emotional bursts of their children, the principal understands the students’ emotional reactions to the problematic current conditions and contains them with patience and consideration.

The scene of a parent's coping with their children's difficulties is sometimes projected onto the staff cast as family members. David, a high school principal, compared the disintegrating staff to children's angry reactions: “In the case of disintegrating staff, I compare it to what we do as parents during a child's fit of rage. As there is not much we can do, we just need to somehow try to prevent them from getting hurt.” And Ari, an elementary school principal, related to performing the role of the responsible parent with their children on a flight: “With the children's … [in an emergency] on a plane, you need to put the oxygen mask on yourself first, before you put it on the children.” The images here refer to the patient and tolerant containment of emotional breakdowns and tensions among the staff, responding to and soothing existential anxieties, while maintaining safe boundaries and assuming responsibilities.

By way of contrast, Anna, the principal of an elementary school, did not refer to familial images while discussing emotional containment, but rather used imagery that expanded the dimension of care and healing to a cosmic scale.

I felt like I needed to warm those around me, like the sun, not just warming a specific area, but both sides of the Earth. As I needed to spread warmth all around, I needed to be constantly in motion … very present, and taking care of everyone […], This connection, this communication was like oxygen. The school I established was a healing home, really [meant] to heal the children's minds.

Within this perspective, the principal adopts patterns of behavior associated with a parental or grandparental figure who assumes responsibility for the well-being of their younger and more vulnerable family members, grounded in the understanding that during times of crisis, staff members experience trauma and require emotional support. At the same time, this perspective emphasizes that in order to offer a sense of safety and emotional warmth to the organizational environment, the principal must first attend to their own well-being and replenish their own energy.

The principal as a performer

The term performer emphasizes continuity and function, reflects movement, speed of response, and flexibility of solutions, leading to the prevention of organizational stagnation and ensuring learning continuity. Several principals used metaphors conveying the simultaneous managing of multiple arenas and maintaining continuous contact with decentralized hubs, with the goal of creating functional order and organizational harmony. Elin, a high school principal, described the situation as that of “a juggler holding lots and lots of balls: We were so busy trying not to drop the balls, but they still dropped. You cannot help it.” Adi, an elementary school principal, portrayed herself as a conductor in a concert hall: “I feel like I am conducting an orchestra where everyone is playing their own tune and their own rhythm, and I conduct to create some kind of harmony that is right for us.” Diana, an elementary school principal, pictured herself as offering solutions to all around her: “There is the circle where you put all the keys, and I am in this circle with other partners. All these keys are keys that I created, managing to open doors as well as people's hearts.”

However, not all the principals interviewed perceived themselves as harmoniously performing all tasks regarding all stakeholders. For example, Ron, a middle school principal, described tension between the factors, using military imagery. He related to the dynamic between a centralized management style and remote control, depending on the operational need of the moment:

There are two types of missiles in the army. There is fly-by-wire, where you launch a missile and it is still connected to you by wire, and you have to guide it to the target. Then there is the other one, fire-and-forget, where you launch it and leave, and it will reach the target on its own. I was constantly trying to move between these two worlds: on the one hand, we talked about decentralization of authority, and on the other hand, we still wanted to maintain control over what was possible, to know that we were aiming at the right point

Talma, a high school principal, did not grapple with this dilemma. Her strategy was one of control was: “I would say I am an octopus … I am a person who needs control. Just as I need to give the staff some kind of stability. And when I spread myself across twenty-three different places, I knew I was there.”

In parallel with overseeing multiple sites, the principal is required to have cognitive flexibility, allowing rapid shifts between centralized management and delegation of authority, bearing in mind that any wrong step could undermine organizational stability. During the war crisis, the main objective was to maintain functional continuity, alongside acceptance of imperfection and recognition that in an intensely shaken organizational reality, the effort focused on minimizing damage rather than achieving perfection of performance.

The principal as operational

Delineating the principal as operational emphasizes logistical coordination and information flow that ensure optimal functioning, while reflecting the perception of the principal as an anchor of stability and order within the school system. At the same time, principals describe carrying a heavy burden while striving to project strength outward. The intensity of the workload is a significant constraining factor. Sheila, an elementary school principal, used a metaphor of a burdened animal in relation to her operative role: “I am a donkey. Both a worker and a head-in-the-sand type. A mule.” Lucy, an elementary school principal, used similar imagery, and quoted a song: “How many times have I been ashamed to say that I need air. From the outside, everyone sees only a galloping horse. Who can beat me at pretending?” The workload was described as manifested in an unending multiplicity of tasks. Rita, the principal of an elementary school, referred to a marathon runner: “Crazy run. I run all day. We are in an endless marathon. A marathon without horizon in sight.” She described her management tasks as a continuous and Sisyphean effort that required resilience without a visible endpoint. In a similar description, Immanuelle, an elementary school principal, referred to her full commitment to performing a large variety of physical and organizational tasks: “If I need to be a security person, I will be a security person. If I need to be a secretary, I will be a secretary. If I need to carry tables, I will be a porter janitor carrying tables. I was the registration department, I organized trips, and I did everything. That is the approach.” In other words, she described her principals’ operative role as that of a person for all jobs, demanding the ability to handle a wide range of tasks.

Relating to this workload, principals described their managerial reality as an unstable environment characterized by sharp fluctuations. Sharon, an elementary school principal, described her feelings using a sailing metaphor: “For me, it was a stormy sea that had lost its calm … You were in a storm and constantly trying to see the calm, looking for peace.” And Taylor, a high school principal, used botanical imagery: “My initial feeling was that of a leaf blown by the wind. I did not know which direction I was rolling or where I was getting my strength from—and then a tall, strong tree with deep solid roots so that I could pay it forward.” Other principals characterized their operational management experiences of their daily routines as constantly changing. Opal, an elementary school principal described a sense of destabilizing motion: “I would say a roller coaster … a Ferris wheel. … Sometimes it is scary and sometimes it is satisfying and enjoyable.” In other words, despite the challenging conditions, she has not lost her sense of self efficacy, her ability to operate and act, which is highly rewarding.

In light of the workload and managerial complexity, the metaphors principals used express their need for replenishing energies. Maya, the principal of a special education school, said: “… Sometimes, even as a principal, you need to be humble enough and honest enough to come forward and say, ‘I also need a recharge right now.’” Similarly, Edith, an elementary school principal, said: “It is as if we are in a place where we have given and given, and this container has emptied … We need a moment to stop and refill it.” These metaphors enhance the need for recognition and support, reinforcement, and constant self-maintenance that would enable the principal to keep on working in spite of the temporary hardships.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore evacuated principals’ perceptions of their role during wartime, by means of the metaphors they employed. Analysis of the metaphors has revealed that school principals operate on several axes during a crisis (Figure 1). The perception of the principal as a role model refers to the principal who instills values and fosters a positive organizational culture (Hudson et al., 2024; Polatcan et al., 2024; Schechter and Firuz, 2015). The ability to remain calm and instill hope is one of the most important principalship qualities during a crisis, since the school principal serves as a role model for the entire team (Fletcher and Nicholas, 2016; Velykodna et al., 2023). Studies about the COVID-19 crisis found that leaders in intensive care units adopted the role of a protective and caring parent figure for their staff, out of a deep sense of responsibility for their well-being (Piel et al., 2023).

Figure 1.

A multilayered model of the principal's role during a war crisis.

The perception of school principals as strategists depicts them as influencing broad organizational structures and social systems through systemic thinking and management of change (Meiners, 2019). Such principals are required to demonstrate mental flexibility and the ability to adapt quickly to a changing reality (Pashiardis and Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, 2022). Through the use of a metaphor, the strategic principal can simplify the reality of “whirlpools of uncertainty” and transform them into a concrete action plan (Arar et al., 2022). Images such as “a bridge” focus on the role of the leader as a mediator between macro policies and the needs of the field, thereby turning crises into possible opportunities for growth (Da’as et al., 2023).

The perception of the principal as emotionally containing focuses on interpersonal relationships, empathy, and the mental well-being of organization members (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Meiners, 2019). In the reality of war, the principal is required to perform “invisible emotional work,” which includes identifying signs of trauma and distress among teachers and students (Fernandes et al., 2023; Velykodna et al., 2023). During these periods, emotional support and the demonstration of empathy become more important than academic achievements (O'Connor et al., 2025; Sheena et al., 2025). The metaphor described here can serve as an emotional tool for building a sense of collective belonging (Burkinshaw and White, 2020). A prominent example is the “healer” metaphor, through which the principal is viewed as implementing strategies for preventing and treating signs of trauma and loss of control among students.

The perception of the principal as a performer places operational emphasis on achieving results, meeting goals, and directly managing professional performance (Arar et al., 2022). The crisis necessitates urgent and decisive action and the adaptation of teaching methods to extreme situations, such as remote or hybrid learning (Alene, 2026; Salha et al., 2024). The metaphor serves as a cognitive and rhetorical tool that mobilizes psychological resources for rapid action, with the use of war metaphors (“soldiers,” “battle”) increasing as the severity of the crisis, aiming to persuade and motivate urgent action (Gkalitsiou and Kotsopoulos, 2023). Principals perceived themselves as the “magicians” needed for creating immediate solutions, or as “jugglers” maneuvering between the conflicting demands of parents, teachers, and the Ministry of Education (Da’as et al., 2023).

The perception of the principal as operational focuses on organizing chaos and establishing logistical order, seeing the principal as a “distributor,” attempting to connect the pieces of the puzzle and fill gaps in resources and manpower to keep the system functioning through logistical coordination, technical problem-solving, and maintaining organizational routine (Meiners, 2019; Piel et al., 2023). The role of the principal is sometimes conceptualized as a “mechanic” responsible for the proper functioning of the organizational “machine” and for the prevention of operational failures (Hernández-Amorós and Martínez Ruiz, 2018). The use of metaphors such as the “octopus” image reflects the principal's view of themselves as a multitasking leader, simultaneously overseeing multiple responsibilities, such as managing complex teacher systems and coordinating multiple operational areas during a crisis (Arar et al., 2022; Da’as et al., 2023).

Alvesson and Spicer (2010) emphasize that leadership is a multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon, and metaphors allow principals to work with this ambiguity without collapsing under it, while guiding organizational expectations and legitimacy during crisis. As illustrated in Figure 1, during crisis periods, the principal is required to synchronize between five metaphorical axes: the role model axis that influences trust; the strategic axis that shows direction; the emotional axis that creates cohesion and resilience; the performance axis that generates movement; and the operational axis that ensures organization and order. This interconnectedness creates responsive leadership capable of guiding the organization to stability and growth even under extreme uncertainty.

Theoretical and practical contribution, and future research recommendations

From a theoretical perspective, this study adds to our understanding of school leadership during wartime crises, a research area that is still lacking, especially regarding the roles of principals in evacuated communities and schools. The study contributes to the understanding that the use of metaphors is not merely a rhetorical device, but allows leaders to represent chaotic realities visually (Arnold and Crawford, 2014; McKay et al., 2019). Another key contribution is the characterization of the principal's role in a crisis through five synchronized functional axes: the principal as a role model (Schechter and Firuz, 2015), as a strategist (Meiners, 2019), as emotionally containing (Beauchamp et al., 2021), as a performer (Arar et al., 2022), and as an operational leader (Meiners, 2019). Through these five axes, the study reinforces the perception that crises are not only threats but also turning points that generate opportunities for developing new strategic directions in school leadership (Bowers et al., 2017). Furthermore, the findings emphasize that school leadership during wartime is not limited to survival, but is also focused on preserving community resilience and educational continuity despite evacuation, trauma, and security threats (Hudson et al., 2024).

From a practical standpoint, formulating the principal's perception through metaphors enables process-aware management: as a strategist, in decentralized management relying on delegation of authority, teamwork, and solving complex problems in multiple arenas (Alene, 2026; Harris, 2020), as emotionally containing, with priority given to “invisible emotional work,” which includes identifying signs of trauma and demonstrating empathy, which become more critical than academic achievements during times of crisis (Fernandes et al., 2023; O'Connor et al., 2025), as a role model and performer, by adopting rapid and transparent communication as a tool for building community trust (Javed and Niazi, 2015), and as operational, by demonstrating operational flexibility including reducing administrative tasks in favor of addressing urgent problems (Beauchamp et al., 2021; Schechter et al., 2022).

Follow-up studies can extend the metaphorical analysis to teachers as well, to understand how they perceive their professional identity during a crisis in relation to principals (Schellings et al., 2024), and also to follow the same principals further on and examine whether the metaphorical image they presented during the war changes over time. It is also recommended to compare role perceptions between principals who were evacuated and those who were not evacuated during the same period from other areas of the country. Finally, it is important to explore leadership metaphors in various modes of crisis, such as temporary or ongoing crises.