Attila the Hun was believe it or not a modest man. Yes, brutally disgusting in battle and slayed hundreds of people in the most gruesome of ways, but modest. A Roman diplomat by the name Priscus had attended a banquet with Attila. Priscus had wrote that “a luxurious meal, served on a silver plate, had been made ready for us and the barbarian guests, but Attila ate nothing but meat on a wooden trencher”. He also kept a plain sword without adornments, drank from a wooden cup as opposed to gold or silver and wore plain clothing (Jarus, 2014).
Making the accusation that Attila the Hun served his people seems ludicrous however, his people did benefit highly from his plunders. He also saw his armies into battle and fought alongside them, leading by example. Although he may not have seemed the most caring of leader, Priscus (whom I mentioned before) wrote more about the banquet they attended together saying that Attila appeared to be in a depressed mood so he had asked him why. Attila had said he was told “that prophets had forewarned Attila that his race would fall, but would be restored by this boy (Ernas his youngest son)” (Jarus, 2014). This shows his value in Greenleaf’s tenth characteristic of servant leadership, Building Community. The other nine are as follows:
1. Listening- Despite killing his brother because of his desire for total control, Attila listened to absolutely nobody and did as he pleased and saw fit.
2. Empathy- Do I need to discuss whether or not Attila the Hun was empathetic.
3. Healing- According to the Smithsonian, after he killed his brother he did marry his wife. I’m sure that was healing to her.
4. Awareness- Northouse defines this as being able to step aside and view themselves and their own perspectives in the greater context of the situation. Northouse also says that this includes understanding oneself and the impact one has on others. Being a highly conceded and strategized military leader who killed whomever he pleased, I’m sure he saw and felt empathetic for the ruins he was leaving after wiping out entire villages.
5. Persuasion- Around 450 A.D. Princess Honoria of France had asked for help from Attila in order to escape from the man her father wanted her to marry (Jarus, 2014). After she had denied Attila’s request to marry he marched over to kill her father and take her. He was attacked by a few roman’s, goths and other barbarian groups, all who hated Attila and was defeated. Let’s check the box for not very persuasive.
6. Conceptualization- This refers to an individual’s ability to be a visionary (Northouse, 2016). Although he was a mongrel, he was quite the visionary.
7. Foresight- Attila the Hun had prophets that helped him predict the future. His only foresight was some prophet who probably had a psychic readings shop on the side.
8. Stewardship- Northouse defines this as taking responsibility for the leadership role entrusted to the leader. Attila was known for drinking in excessive amounts and was found dead on the night of one of his many weddings from drinking and eating in excess. Leaders gotta have fun too, right?
9. Commitment to the growth of people- Historians aren’t really sure about his social life. But, from what we do know with previous experiences, he probably didn’t commit to helping others grow. Unless of course they were in his military.
Realistically servant leaders are probably the most unknown. They most likely aren’t CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies or politicians. You’ll find them in small businesses helping their employees grow and become the absolute best they can be. I’d have to say one of my last bosses (and owner of the company) was a prime servant leader. He possessed each of the ten characteristics and truly focused on the growth of people. I haven’t worked there for over two years and we still email back and forth helping each other with whatever we might need.
References:
Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Lesson 12: Authentic leadership. PSYCH 485.
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Authentic Leadership. Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Jarus, O. (2014, March 27). Attila the Hun: Biography of the ‘Scourge of God’. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/44417-attila-the-hun.html
Dash, M. (2012, February 03). Nice Things to Say About Attila the Hun. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nice-things-to-say-about-attila-the-hun-87559701/
Ehren Van Wart says
Hello Tristan,
Your post hit the serious points and I even got a few laughs. I think you chose an excellent figure to analyze with the servant leadership theory. When one thinks of Atilla the Hun, the last word to come to mind is likely “servant.” It’s kind of backwards thinking to claim Atilla was altruistic and community oriented. “Servant leadership works best when leaders are altruistic” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 239). However, you made a great point that his people benefitted from the plunders and considering the situation of those people back then, this may have been a huge increase in the quality of life for them. When we talk of community, we can consider Atilla’s people—his community. “Servant leadership does not occur in a vacuum but occurs within a given organizational context and a particular culture” (pg. 231). Sure, Atilla and his army were huns, “a barbarous, destructive person; vandal” (dictionary.com, 2018) but it could be argued that Atilla’s leadership was for the greater good of his community. Hey, why not…other nations have used similar justifications for war and plunder.
Although servant leadership is the last theory I’d use for analysis of the leadership style of Atilla, I’ll stick with it to add some of my own thoughts. “It should be noted that in much of the writing on servant leadership there is an underlying philosophical position, originally set forth by Greenleaf (1970), that leaders should be altruistic and humanistic” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 239). There is a small amount of support from your resource that, in certain areas, Atilla may have been altruistic or unselfish (examples; wooden trencher and cup, plain clothes, no adornments) but I can’t find anything to support Atilla being humanistic. Of course, Atilla would not need to demonstrate all 10 behaviors listed by Northouse on servant leadership, but the underlying philosophical position seems a more important factor on whether this theory can apply to Atilla at all.
If I had to choose any one theory to analyze Atilla the Hun, I would start with the LMX theory. “LMX theory makes the dyadic relationship between leaders and followers the focal point of the leadership process” (Northouse, 2016, pg. 137). When I think of Atilla and his people, I envision clans of warriors that are in dyadic relationships. Think of sword practice, it is normally done with two people. When the Huns go out to battle, it is likely that these dyads fight together and cover each other in those groupings.
Furthermore, there is an “in-group,” the warriors, and the “out-group,” the women and children and other non-warriors. “Followers in the in-group receive more information, influence, confidence, and concern from their leaders than do out-group followers” (pg. 138). It seems most likely in a nomadic, warring tribe, that the warriors would be the most valuable assets to the leader, Atilla. “In-group members are willing to do more than is required in their job description and look for innovative ways to advance the group’s goals” (pg. 144). We are talking about killers! Atilla’s army are reported of slaughtering entire communities, raping the women, and looting everything. The flexibility of no moral bounds gives an edge to that person in combat. This behavior reinforces what it takes to be an unthinking murderer. “Effective leadership occurs when the communication of leaders and followers is characterized by mutual trust, respect, and commitment” (pg. 146). The out-group members likely took care of horses, cooked, cleaned, etc. The out-group members depended on the in-group members to survive. And by have an “out-group” the warriors, and the leader, did more of what they did best.
Excellent post. Very funny, especially the part about persuasion. In conclusion, I’d like to share what the instructor gave me as feedback: “Often, theories can effectively complement one another or can be used to offset the limitations of a particular theory, so it would be useful to consider this as well” (Williams, 2018, feedback). One of the most important things that I’ve learned in this class so far is that a leader can fit in some way or form into any of the leadership theories, but comprehension of leadership involves the stronger fits and the interplays of the models.
References
Dictionary.com. 2018. Hun definition. Retrieved from http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hun
Northouse, Peter. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Williams, Jason. (2018). Pennsylvania State University. Feedback on Policy Paper Topic.
hss5134 says
I really enjoyed your comparison of Attila the Hun to servant leadership. I also liked how you were able to argue both sides, in some aspects Attila did fit the description, and in other aspects he was far from it. I will say that in terms of foresight the use of a prophet was technically the only way to foresee the future at that time so I would argue that was using foresight. Maybe not instinctive foresight, but they believed prophets more than instincts. I am also not exactly sure if you are being sarcastic or not in the healing section, I am hoping you are because as a woman, I would not feel healed if my dead husbands murderer/brother married me. Overall I would say you were right in your argument, Attila was definitely not a servant leader. He wasn’t worried about the growth or healing of others, we was more concerned with battle. I do like that there is evidence for his sense of community, however, I would deem community to be more than just family bond. It could be argued that there was community in his army and that his ruthless leadership is what kept them bound as a community. Communities don’t require nurturing just “a sense of unity and relatedness” (Northouse, 2016, p. 229). It could also be said that how Attila dressed and ate was an attempt to stay level with the rest of his companions of war. I am curious as to what sparked the inspiration for this post and what you feel Attila’s actual leadership style is?