CHRISTOPHER THOMAS

GIS SECRETS OF ATTILA THE HUN

Christopher D. Thomas GIS Coordinator

City of Ontario
303 East "B" Street
Ontario, California, USA 91764
Telephone: (909) 986-1151
Fax: (909) 391-0692

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing" Ralph Waldo Emerson (1841)

INTRODUCTION

At first glance, Attila the Hun would not appear to be one of the great GIS thinkers and leaders in history. In fact, many have characterized Attila as ominous and an unlikely candidate to model ones management skills after. However, when one sets aside the barbaric characterization attached to his name, managers will discover an individual possessing excellent managerial and leadership skills. Attila was able to motivate and inspire tribes of men to carve out a sprawling kingdom during the reign of the Roman Empire. The premise of this paper is to explore the obstacles Attila the Hun encountered and the management principles he used to lead a nation as an analogy to implementing GIS technology. Attila will share his views on building consensus, developing an effective training program, and establishing an enterprise GIS.

ABANDONING THE NORM

Typically organizations that are embarking on the implementation of a GIS program search out systems which appear to have beaten the odds to become a "successful installation". All to often this research avoids asking the critical questions revolving around organizational acceptance and focuses more on asking "How much does it cost?" and "What are the immediate benefits?". All to often, managers and organizations attempt to model themselves after socially acceptable men and women who have reached the pinnacle of achievement in business, athletics, politics, education, or public office. Many of the writings associated with these individuals prove to be a worthwhile study. Every strong leader whether it be Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, or Attila the Hun has within himself an understanding of what is required to pull together a team and to forge ahead for a common cause. If you think about it each of these leaders was faced with great adversity, much like attempting to establish a GIS program.

A LITTLE HISTORY: WHAT'S IN A NAME?

Void of any characterization as a brilliant leader Attila is passed off as analogy for a tyrant boss or organizational structure. Even the utterance of the name Attila the Hun visions of a cruel leader are conjured up. In fact Attila was known as the Scourge of God. However, although there is much truth to the legend of Attila the Hun much of what is known about Attila can be passed off as fiction. After all, the Huns did not write history. There is a story that he claimed to own the actual sword of Mars, and that other barbarian chiefs could not look the King of the Huns directly in the eyes without flinching. Attila was a striking figure, and Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire offered a famous description of the personality and appearance of the Hun, based on an ancient account:

His features, according to the observation of a Gothic historian, bore the stamp of his national origin...a large head, a swarthy complexion, small, deep-seated eyes, a flat nose, a few hairs in the place of a beard, broad shoulders, and a short square body, of a nervous strength, though of a disproportionate form. The haughty step and demeanor of the king of the Huns expressed the consciousness of his superiority above the rest of mankind; and he had a custom of fiercely rolling his eyes, as if he wished to enjoy the terror which he inspired....He delighted in war; but, after he had ascended the throne in a mature age, his head, rather than his hand, achieved the conquest of the North; and the fame of an adventurous soldier was usefully exchanged for that of a prudent and successful general.

Attila united the Huns, who were various tribes of Mongoloid peoples, and invaded the Roman Empire from 436 to 453. Attila murdered his brother in 436 to gain sole control over the Hunnish Empire, which ranged from the Rhine River on the west to the Ural River on the east, and as far north as the Baltic Sea. The Danube River formed the Empire's southern border.

The decisive turn of events came with the accession of Attila as King of the Huns. The new ruler was much more aggressive and ambitious than his predecessors had been, and arrogance sometimes made him unpredictable. All these personality traits aside Attila knew what it took to establish a successful organization. He recognized that it required the skills of many individuals along with a cohesive unit working together towards a common goal.

BUILDING CONSENSUS

A customary practice in ancient Rome was to hold hostages to ensure treaties were upheld. Part of this practice consisted of the kings exchanging the sons of their enemies as an "insurance policy". In other words, if as part of our treaty, I hold your son as "hostage", you are less likely to attack me and break our treaty. Attila was no stranger to this practice. He was exchanged into the Roman Empire as part of a treaty. While held as a hostage, he was educated and trained within the Roman Empire. It was here that Attila learned intimately the ways of the Romans while understanding their weaknesses.

Once he was released from the Romans, Attila vowed to conquer the nation he despised. Attila knew that he would need to build allies within the Hun nation to build a powerful Hun Empire which would release his people from the Roman domination. The Hun nation was comprised of various un-united tribes. These tribesman were lead by chieftains yielding no true allegiance to the Hun King. These tribesmen and chieftains were content to act as soldiers of fortune and relish in the bounty that came with conquering provinces. Thus, it is with great reason that most of the civilized peoples of the time considered the Huns reprehensible savages.

Attila recognized the leadership skills required to unite the tribesman. It is worth repeating that the premise of this paper is to acknowledge that a leader is a leader is a leader. That is, the basic skills deemed necessary to establish a successful program are the same, for example an understanding of what motivates people.

Many GIS managers are looking for some magical formula to help sell their GIS program, convince an organization to establish an organization wide approach, and to maintain momentum once it is established. Attila the Hun offers us a systematic approach to accomplishing all of these goals.

Attila realized that it would take some convincing to organize the Hun tribes as a unified nation. It might be stated that Attila devised the following viewpoints in order to build consensus in the Hun Empire:

Attilaisms

By the time Attila completed his term as a hostage and returned to the Huns, he had become a man. He realized the Roman Empire was vulnerable but saw its conquest as anything but certain. His first step was to unify the Huns, provide them with central leadership, give them national goals of their own, and rid them of Roman military domination.
Among highly competitive chieftains and warriors, unity of purpose has a fragile existence; it must be constantly fought for, or it will be lost. Attila realized that uniting the Huns would require time, patience, loyalty, and teamwork.
Solicit advice from both your warriors and chieftains.
Although warriors prefer independence, chieftains should persuade them to work cooperatively. A unified effort produces superior results.

Consensus building is critical to establishing a widespread GIS program. GIS programs often take the form of departmental or centralized strategies. In either case what is most importance is to understand that GIS benefits are realized It is important to understand that the power of a GIS is derived by leveraging existing expertises, databases, and monies. Once an organization understands these items GIS technology can become a staple tool in the organizations arsenal.

ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE TRAINING PROGRAM

The establishment of an effective training of GIS technology professionals and users is often overlooked. Not as a matter of an unwillingness to train but rather it is passed off as something that can be approached or handled later. Attila recognized that the chieftains and warriors were rewarded by the booty they obtained from war. However, he also recognized that these same individuals found reward in greater responsibility and training. After all training an individual for a task which may be deemed out of their classification instills trust and acceptance.

Attila also recognized that each of the chieftains had experience and qualities which made the kingdom stronger. He instilled a practice of cross training as a means of reaffirming unity. GIS training should be approached in the same manner. Some of the best GIS programs recognize that the power of the technology lies in tapping into the various databases found throughout the organization. Relying on the "owners" or discipline which created the information to provide education not only leads to a new understanding of data but also forces those individuals to understand their importance to the overall GIS program. Experience teaches us that people in their field generally work best if they are enabled to make their own decisions and use of technology. The application of this concept promotes the development of employees who are well versed in their respective disciplines rather than creating an new era of GIS experts.

CHOOSE YOUR ENEMIES WISELY

Obviously a training program should provide education in the use of the technology. Often overlooked is the education of what data means and how can it be applied. These concepts are commonly not covered in the technology side of training. An individual is better equipped to understand command lines and GUI interfaces if they know why they are performing the task.

Success has been achieved in a training program that is progressive in nature. For example, start by training the computer illiterate! Many times an organization will select "Bob" because he is the department's computer expert or "sally" because she has a computer at home to provide technical guidance and to be assigned to the GIS. One disadvantage of this approach is that the individuals are not necessarily good instructors. An alternative approach might be to train those individuals who do not understand technology. The theory is that the computer literate will fall into place quickly and naturally. This in turn, establishes a fast track to an army of GIS users.

Another consideration in establishing a positive GIS training program is took look to similar organizations who are also in need of developing computer literacy. This approach may offer an venue to cross train and to share and exchange limited resources.

Attilaisms

Developing Chieftains

Strong Chieftains always have strong weaknesses. A king's duty is to make a chieftain's strengths prevail.
Huns learn less from success than they do from failure. Huns learn much faster when faced with adversity.
A good chieftain takes risks by delegating to inexperienced Hun in order to strengthen his leadership abilities.
The experience of Huns must be structured to allow them to broaden and deepen themselves to develop the character they will need when appointed a chieftain.
Huns are best prepared to become chieftains when given appropriate challenges at successively higher levels of responsibility.
If it were easy to be a chieftain, everyone would be one. Without a challenge, a Hun's potential is never realized.
Appropriate stress is essential in developing chieftains.

Training

Adequate training of Huns is essential to war and cannot be disregarded by chieftains in more peaceful times.
Teachable skills are for developing Huns. Learnable skills are reserved for chieftains.
The consequence for not adequately training your Huns is their failure to accomplish that which is expected of them.
A Chieftain who consistently inspects the work of the warrior Huns finds they consistently produce better results.
Unless chieftains assign warriors to jobs that allow them to grow and develop, the talents of both warriors and Huns deteriorate.
Huns given tasks without deadlines don't get them done.

ESTABLISHING AN ENTERPRISE GIS

The Hun's reputation was based more in fiction than in fact. The Huns invoked an air of mystery and caused panic because they seemed strange, savage, and invulnerable. They spoke a language incomprehensible to the Romans and looked more like furry animals than human beings. The Huns also relished in battle and the bounty that resulted, all which by the Huns standard was normal. The reality is that the Huns were more dreaded than ferocious. Each tribe was lead by a warrior-chieftain and acted independently. Although a Mongol aristocracy evolved, there was no clear vision and no apparent need to unite the tribes geographically was present. That is until Attila became King!

As a hostage in the Roman Empire Attila was educated in the ways of the Romans. This training included the Roman's view of politics, customs, and military intelligence. The thought was that the hostages would be reintroduce back into their tribes and the ideals of the Romans would be introduced. Attila used this training and education to over throw the Roman Empire and to unite the Huns.

The establishment of a enterprise of organization wide is often the long term goal of most organizations.

A strong commitment by a strong leader was mandated in order to reach this objective. Attila the Hun was no stranger to bringing together the various tribes who in effect had their own agendas. After all, they had their own ideas of how a Hun should act as a nation and a desire to maintain their small part of the Hun kingdom. When approached by Attila to unite on a common front he was confronted with an "if it ain't broke don't fix it" attitude. Attila realized that he had to convince the chieftains that there was more to be gained by working together than by fighting one another or acting as soldiers of fortune for the Romans.

Does this attitude sound familiar? GIS managers will be faced with the conflict between a department's commitment of working towards organizational goals and the protection of their own discipline. The protection often stems from a desire to maintain visibility, safeguard critical staffing and budgetary resources, and preserve a sense of importance to the organization. In order to overcome this obstacle, Attila recognized the need to consult the opinions of the chieftains and warriors. This effort instilled a common trust and a sense of purpose to the individuals. The purpose, of course, is the establishment of a united mission.

Attilaisms

Although warriors prefer independence, chieftains should persuade them to work cooperatively. A unique effort produces superior results.
One Hun's bad habits can infect other Huns. Likewise, one Hun's good habits can inspire other Hun's. Wise chieftains reward habits they wish the tribe to adopt.
Lasting bonds between chieftains and their warriors and Huns aren't forged in the battlefield triumphs and tragedies. They develop over time as everyday exchanges between chieftains and warriors and Huns build esteem and tribal well being.
Outstanding warriors have a natural arrogance that must be disciplined to benefit the tribe. Achieving cooperation among these stars is a slow, challenging process even for a chieftain of iron will.
A warrior never abandons his or her cause. So a wise chieftain makes sure his or her warriors support the tribe's cause.
If a chieftain ignores top performers, they lose their winning edge. If a chieftain ignores weak performers, they never develop a winning edge.
A tribe performs at its best when everyone is assigned the tasks he or she does best for the tribe.
Often when warriors and Huns fail to achieve what is expected of them, their chieftain has failed to convey his or her expectations to them.
When warriors and Huns achieve everything expected of them goals have been set to low. Training of warriors and Huns should cease when all goals have been reached. When all goals have been reached a chieftain can expect a system which has failed.

WHERE ATTILA FAILED

Although there is still some debate as to exactly how Attila died, the following account is somewhat agreed upon. He took a new, young, beautiful bride, a damsel named Ildico, though he already had a coterie of wives. The wedding day was spent in heavy drinking and partying, and the King of the Huns took his new bride to bed that night in drunken lust. The next morning it was discovered that he had died--drowned in his drunkenness in his own nosebleed. The new bride was found quivering in fear in the great man's bed quarters. The empire of the Huns dissipated nearly as quickly as its most famous leader. In 454 the Ostrogoths and other Germanic tribes revolted against the Huns, and the sons of Attila, who had quarreled among themselves, could not deal with the crisis. In a sense, the Huns were "scattered to the winds."

THE LESSON

Unfortunately, Attila must have felt he was invincible. Attila not only did not trust his own sons to take over his empire he did not establish a successor to his throne. He generally felt a successor could be chosen in time. Attila did not recognize that a successor should have been chosen immediately!

Attilaisms

Continuously build consensus.
Provide adequate training.
Create an adequate support system to perpetuate an enterprise system.

GIS managers should implement their programs not only as a means of self gratification but as a means of perpetuating the status qua. What should be strived for is a legacy system tied to the organization's goals and objectives rather than an individuals ambitions. The definition of a successful GIS program should not be measured by the number of machines in place or by the size of an organizations budget. It should be measured by a programs ability to continue even after the recognized leader has moved on.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Roberts, Wess Ph.D. Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun. New York: Warner Books, Inc. 1987.

Roberts, Wess Ph.D.. Victory Secrets of Attila the Hun. New York: Del Publishing. 1993.