What Leadership Can Learn from the Middle Ages: Reading „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ Differently

The following essay reads Wolfram von Eschenbach's „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ as texts that model leadership as a problem of legitimation, commitment, and conflict, without turning medieval figures into management case studies. After all, these texts do not provide instructions for action. Rather, they outline constellations in which authority is established, loyalty is binding, and violence is limited or escalates. The transfer to the present remains heuristic and aims at conceptual refinement. What must leadership achieve in decision-making under uncertainty? What happens when commitments simultaneously stabilize and become risky, and when conflicts must not only be resolved but also generated and managed?

From Prof. Dr. Patrick Peters, Professor of Communication and sustainability and Vice-Rector for Research and Teaching Material Development at the Allensbach University

1. Starting point and delimitation

The starting point of this investigation is a scientifically confirmed observation. The literature of the German Middle Ages stages rule, fealty, and decision-making not as purely private matters, but as public practices bound to norms, roles, and institutional expectations (exemplified by Brandt, 1993; Bumke, 2002; Oschema, 2011). Texts such as Wolfram von Eschenbach's „Parzival“ or the German-language „Nibelungenlied,“ based on older sagas, create constellations in which authority is established, contested, or played out, but not assumed. They thereby negotiate questions that can be described as leadership issues, provided „leadership“ is not narrowly defined psychologically. Rather, „leadership“ should be understood as a bundle of forms of action and communication that enable coordination under uncertainty and address conflicts within specific notions of order.

For philological work, it is crucial to precisely determine the status of literary statements. Medieval epic does not offer documentary protocols of „leadership practice“ but rather models norms and deviations in narrative form. It works with exemplary figures, with conflict-ridden arrangements, with evaluation logics that are expressed through narrator commentary, character speech, plot consequences, and social resonance within the text. Anyone who wants to draw „lessons“ from such texts must therefore first clarify which value systems the text presupposes, which it problematizes, and which it plausibilizes as guides for action. Only on this basis can one meaningfully speak of a heuristic transfer.

1.1 Why use medieval literature for a leadership heuristic?

The suitability of medieval literature for a leadership heuristic does not stem from its anticipation of modern organizational problems, but rather from its illumination of fundamental issues of social coordination under normative pressure. In both of the guiding texts of this contribution, „leadership“ (exemplified by Burns, 1978) is at the intersection of three dimensions of order: firstly, legitimacy (i.e., the justification of authority); secondly, commitment (i.e., the stabilization of social relationships through loyalty, honor, kinship, contract, or service); and thirdly, conflict (i.e., the question of how disputes are limited, mediated, or escalated). These dimensions are historically specific; in the Middle Ages, they were bound to estate-based hierarchies, religious interpretive frameworks, and an order of violence that is regulated differently in modern state and organizational forms.

This very difference is productive: it forces us to clarify concepts and not reduce leadership issues to contemporary buzzwords. Philologically, this productivity can be summarized in a second observation: medieval texts are highly reflective regarding the conditions of order. They address, often indirectly, the prerequisites for recognition, the role of advice and mediation, the connection between word and violence, the consequences of secrecy and public shame, the limits of loyalty. In doing so, they raise questions about attribution of responsibility and burdens of consequences that are also central to modern leadership debates, without having to project modern theoretical terms onto the text. The benefit thus lies in structural work: texts do not provide instructions, but they make structures of action, commitment, and escalation visible.

1.2 What this post explicitly does not do

The contribution does not intend to treat medieval figures as case studies for modern management literature. Such a perspective would already lead to anachronisms at the conceptual level: concepts such as „organization,“ „team,“ „motivation,“ or „career“ are not readily applicable to estate-based, courtly, and feudal orders because social relationships in the texts are not primarily stabilized through functional roles; instead, personalized bonds and symbolic orders are the focus. Likewise, it is not claimed that medieval texts can be read as early precursors to specific leadership theories. Modern theories can at best serve as a subordinate heuristic tool, not as an interpretive authority over the texts.

This is related to a second delimitation: The contribution does not rely on moral labeling of characters. Neither „Parzival“ nor the „Nibelungenlied“ are constructed as catalogues of „good“ and „bad“ conduct. Both texts work with ambivalence, with faulty judgments, with conflicts of commitment, with situations in which different norms collide. An interpretation that prematurely sorts characters morally loses precisely the analytical core: the question of which constellations open up or close off which options for action and what consequences follow from them.

1.3 Working Definition: „Leadership“ as an Analytical Term

In order not to burden the texts with indeterminate everyday notions, „leadership“ is narrowly defined here as an analytical term. In the context of this contribution, leadership refers to the practice of coordinating action under conditions of uncertainty, thereby establishing or securing recognition. This practice comprises six elements that can be observed in the texts. First, leadership refers to the practice of coordinating action under conditions of uncertainty, thereby establishing or securing recognition.

First, it encompasses decisions in the strict sense, meaning the choice between courses of action under limited information and normative pressure. Second, it includes the legitimation of authority, which is fed in the texts, depending on the constellation, by rank, achievement, advice, law, religious interpretation, or public consent. Third, leadership involves communication as the management of knowledge: it includes openness and secrecy, as well as dealing with the public, reputation, and shame as social control mechanisms. Fourth, leadership operates through bonding, i.e., through the stabilization of loyalty and compliance and through the negotiation of duties of fidelity, including their limits. Fifth, it includes forms of conflict resolution, understood as processes of mediation, de-escalation, or escalation, and as the regulation of violence and retribution. Sixth, and finally, leadership implies responsibility in the sense of attributing consequences and assuming or warding off guilt and burdens.

These elements serve as a framework for consolidating and comparing observations in „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied.“ This simultaneously sets the stage for heuristic transfer: not individual character actions are „transferred,“ but rather structural problems arising from the interplay of legitimation, commitment, and conflict.

1.4 Heuristic Transfer: Goal and Limit

The transfer to the present remains heuristic because medieval orders cannot be translated into modern organizations, and it pursues a limited goal: the texts should serve as an instrument for conceptual clarification and sharpen the awareness that leadership, beyond individual characteristics, operates within normative frameworks, structures of obligation, and communication orders. Those who reflect on modern leadership can, from this perspective, primarily learn about the risks that arise when loyalty replaces criticism, when communication is strategically reduced, or when conflicts escalate irreversibly without mediation. Likewise, it can become apparent that legitimacy must be asserted and, beyond that, also narratively constructed and socially recognized. The structure of the contribution is determined by this demarcation. Therefore, the next step will not be a general treatment of „leadership in the Middle Ages,“ but rather two key texts will be read as models of different leadership problems: „Parzival“ as a narrative of judgment and assumption of responsibility in the learning process, and the „Nibelungenlied“ as a narrative of obligatory attachment, communication, and the logic of escalation.

2. Method: How to explore „leadership“ closely from the text

The fundamental methodological decision of this contribution is to treat „leadership“ not as a psychological characteristic of individual figures, but as a bundle of forms of action and communication that become visible in narrative constellations. This decision is particularly obvious for working with medieval texts, because the epics of the 12th and 13th centuries provide neither empirical descriptions of political practice nor normative treatises in the narrower sense, but rather model narrative contexts in which order, recognition, and conflict appear as observable processes. The approach is therefore not deductive in the sense of applying modern categories, but reconstructive: it asks how the text itself plausibilizes authority, how it stabilizes or destabilizes bonds, and which forms of conflict management it presents as possible or impossible.

Text-immanent analysis first requires precisely determining the status of evaluations within the narrative text. Medieval epic rarely evaluates solely through explicit commentary; instead, it frequently does so through the distribution of success and failure, by framing actions as „fitting“ or „unfitting,“ through the reactions of other characters, and through the consequences the text attaches to decisions. Consequently, evaluative logics are often organized indirectly: an action may be asserted as legitimate within character communication without the text solidifying this legitimation; conversely, an action may be socially sanctioned even though it appears plausible from another normative perspective. Anyone wishing to use leadership as an analytical concept must capture this multi-layered nature and must not reduce the text to a simple moral structure. What is decisive is whether and how the text links recognition to specific practices and which alternatives it marks as no longer attainable.

This entails a second methodological consequence: the analysis must distinguish between norms, interactions, and consequences, without turning this into a schematic framework. Norms are articulated in the text as expectations, as implicit standards of honor, loyalty, justice, measure, or religious interpretation, and they frequently appear in competition. Interactions are the stage on which such norms become effective: council situations, messenger communication, negotiations, ritual acts of recognition, but also shame, threat, and secrecy. Consequences, in turn, are the level on which the text tests the viability of norms and forms of interaction. It is precisely here that „leadership“ can be understood, because leadership in these texts is not visible in statements of intent but in the control of situations and in the assumption of the burdens of consequences. Where decisions must be justified to others, loyalty must be redeemed through risky actions, and conflicts gain their dynamic through mediation or escalation mechanisms, the leadership aspect of the constellation can be precisely described.

A third methodological guideline concerns dealing with historical differences. Terms such as legitimation, obligation, or responsibility are not anchored in a modern institutional framework in medieval texts but rather in an order of personal relationships and symbolic value logics. Recognition often arises through rank, origin, ritual visibility, and performative proof; obligation is stabilized through loyalty, allegiance, kinship, and oath; responsibility is less primarily legal-institutional and more socially and frequently religiously coded.

Working close to the text therefore means taking the semantic fields of the central terms in the text itself seriously and not replacing them with modern equivalents. Where, for example, „êre“ or „triuwe“ become guiding concepts, one must first reconstruct what expectations the text attaches to these terms before translating them into modern vocabulary. This caution is particularly necessary with the two key texts of the contribution because they model different forms of order: one text works strongly through learning and interpretation processes, the other through the compulsion to bond, face logic, and irreversible conflict.

Finally, heuristic transfer must be methodologically limited so as not to depart from the text. Transfer is the controlled attempt to use the structural observations gained through textual analysis as conceptual clarification for contemporary questions. It remains at the level of problem types and action logics: on the question of which conditions stabilize recognition, how bonds function in conflict situations, when communication escalates or de-escalates, and how responsibility is organized in the mode of consequential attribution. Modern leadership theories can at best serve as subordinate orientation knowledge here, not as proof frameworks. It remains crucial that every claim of transfer is re-linked to a reconstruction close to the text and that historical differences are used as a means of cognition. From this perspective, „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ do not become precursors to modern leadership discourses, but rather literary models through which fundamental problems of legitimation, bonding, and conflict can be analyzed with high vividness and under clear normative tensions.

3. Source Text I: „Parzival“ – Leadership as a Process of Learning and Responsibility

Why „Parzival“?

Wolfram's „Parzival“ (composed around 1200-1210) is suitable for the question pursued here because the text constructs leadership less as a stable disposition of a character and more as the result of learning processes, misjudgments, corrections, and the gradual assumption of consequential burdens. The novel combines an Arthurian world of knightly recognition with a Grail context that links legitimacy to conditions other than rank and proof of prowess in tournaments. In this intertwining, a literary model emerges in which authority, advice, interpretation, and responsibility become visible as interconnected practices. Research has long identified this structure, albeit with different emphases.

Joachim Bumke (2004) describes Parzival precisely as a work that combines courtly custom, political configurations, and narrative order in a way that allows for an interpretation of its plot logic only by linking textual observation with historical context. Walter Haug (2009), furthermore, showed in his analysis of the prologue that Wolfram's storytelling itself contains a literary-theoretical program that thematizes perspectivity, uncertainty, and the limits of knowledge; this is central for an analysis of leadership, because it often makes decisions in the text appear as decisions made under incomplete information and competing norms. For the religious and formal dimension, Peter Wapnewski (1955), in his early studies, marked the connection between religiosity and form as a fundamental interpretive problem; this also implies that „right action“ in „Parzival“ does not appear as a mere moral rule but as the result of insight produced narratively.

The process of learning and responsibility is most sharply defined in the Grail scene surrounding Anfortas. Parzival's failure to ask the question related to suffering is presented in the text as an intersection of several leadership problems: adherence to standardized communication rules, dependence on advice, the ability to perceive suffering as a matter relevant to action, and the willingness to bear the consequences of one's own silence. The later „question of redemption“ is frequently discussed in research under the heading of the question of pity. Crucial for the approach chosen here is that Wolfram links an action with strong social and salvational historical impact to a communicative act that acknowledges a relationship and translates responsibility into language. The wording „oeheim, waz wirret dier?“ precisely marks this translation: Parzival addresses Anfortas as a relative and asks about the suffering that had previously been visible in the ritual but had remained blocked communicatively.

This allows for an initial finding that is viable for the leadership heuristic, without modernizing the text: Parzival makes legitimation dependent on judgment and the ability to read norms situationally. Parzival is initially successful in the courtly context because he integrates into the logic of âventiure; in the Grail context, this logic is insufficient because it demands not only testing but also interpretation and participation. The text thus establishes a difference between recognition through performative chivalry and recognition through responsible interpretation. The tension is not resolved in a didactic manner; Wolfram stages it through error, shame, advice, and renewed attempt.

The second finding concerns the role of advice and authority. Parzival features an striking density of teaching and counseling situations; these passages show how much decisions depend on accessible knowledge and how precarious the selection of the relevant norm can be. Wolfram's narrative does not turn these into a stable pedagogy, but rather a test of the capacity for advice itself. In the text, advice is a medium of legitimation, but also a source of limitation, because advice remains bound to perspectives and interests. Haug's reference to the perspectivity and controlled unreliability of certain character parts can be methodologically connected here: leadership appears in the text as a practice that requires advice without being able to establish advice absolutely.

The third finding concerns responsibility in the strict sense of attribution of consequences. Wolfram links learning progress to dealing with guilt and to the willingness not to externalize the consequences of actions. In the ninth book constellation around Trevrizent, the text condenses Parzival's self-interpretation as acting guiltily and intertwines it with a theological framework. Research has treated this complex as a nexus of guilt and sin reflection; it is simultaneously a narrative technique that models the assumption of responsibility as a prerequisite for reorientation. In the logic of the novel, responsibility does not remain a private category. It affects the order of the community, because misjudgments and communication failures can prolong suffering and stabilize conflict situations.

From these observations, a precise, text-close conclusion emerges for the contribution: Parzival does not offer an „ideal profile“ of leadership, but rather a model in which legitimation, advice, interpretation, and assumption of responsibility appear as conditions for the development of authority in a learning process. Leadership here is neither guaranteed by status nor secured by performative success alone. The text presupposes the ability to perceive competing norms, to integrate advice, and to bear the consequences. This is precisely the type of structure that is relevant for heuristic transfer: leadership becomes visible as a process tied to the ability to correct and gain insight, and which treats communicative acts as actions relevant to order.

3.2 Three observation fields close to the text

The learning and responsibility process that Parzival outlines can be precisely grasped in three areas of observation. The focus here is not on psychological character traits, but on situations in which the text intertwines decision-making, legitimation, communication, and accountability for consequences. The analysis therefore works with constellations that reveal competing norms, dependence on advice, and the burden of consequences.</p>

A first area of observation is the connection between judgment and normative reading competence. Wolfram stages Parzival's early socialization not as a mere „introduction to court,“ but as training in rules that apply differently in different spaces. The scenes of advice and instruction—paradigmatically the teachings of Gurnemanz—establish behavioral norms intended to secure recognition in the courtly interactive space. It is precisely these norms that come into tension with another order of expectations in the Grail context. Parzival has rules that tell him how a knight should behave with propriety; however, he lacks the ability to read the situation itself as an exception and derive a different communicative obligation from it.

From a research-historical perspective, this constellation has often been described as a problem of competing norms. It is closely related to Wolfram's poetological orientation, which presents knowledge as perspectival and situation-dependent. For a leadership heuristic, the structural point is relevant here: the text links recognition not to rule-following as such, but to the ability to determine the scope of rules and to choose the appropriate norm in case of conflict.

A second area of observation concerns communication as an order-relevant action. The Grail scene surrounding Anfortas is more than a religiously charged event; it is a testing ground for how the text evaluates linguistic action. Parzival's silence is not based on pure inability, but on a norm he adopts from courtly instruction and then applies in the wrong situation. Wolfram links the healing of the suffering king to a communicative act that translates recognition and participation into language. The question formula that Parzival later poses precisely stages this translation. The question addresses Anfortas as a relative, names the suffering as a fact relevant to action, and breaks through the communication barrier previously plausibilized as polite.

Research has often discussed this structure through the motive of pity and questioning; methodologically crucial here is that Wolfram does not „resolve“ a situation of order through violence, possession, or rank, but through linguistic action that recognizes a relationship and realizes responsibility in communication. Leadership, from this perspective, appears as the ability to find the right communicative form when routines fail.

A third area of observation concerns the imputation of consequences for actions and the formation of responsibility as a burden. Wolfram organizes learning progress through a specific form of guilt reflection, which takes a particularly concentrated shape in the Trevrizent complex. Parzival is not simply taught; he is confronted with an interpretation that embeds his own actions into a chain of consequences. The text thus makes the inclination to externalize consequences difficult, as it narratively links suffering, disruption, and delay to decisions.

Research has described this complex as a theological and narrative nexus: guilt is treated not as a psychological feeling, but as a hermeneutic structure that makes actions interpretable and demands reorientation. In the logic of the novel, responsibility therefore does not form a private category. It becomes socially relevant because misjudgments and communication failures can stabilize suffering and block order. The text models responsibility as a willingness to accept the burden of consequences, rather than warding it off through rank, chance, or attribution of blame to others.

These three fields together present a picture of leadership that can be described as a process. Wolfram emphasizes the ability to interpret norms appropriately for the situation, the relevance of linguistic actions for states of order, and the cultivation of responsibility through accountability for consequences. The text therefore does not provide a simple norm, but a model in which authority is linked to the ability to learn, interpret, and take responsibility for consequences.

3.3 Heuristic Transfer

The heuristic yield of reading Parzival lies in the possibility of clarifying structural leadership problems without forcing the novel into a modern theoretical format. Wolfram does not offer a „profile“ of successful leadership here, but rather a narrative configuration in which authority appears as the result of learning and correction processes. For current leadership, the insight that recognition cannot be treated as a permanent resource but must be repeatedly re-established under conditions of normative uncertainty is initially connectable. The novel shows how quickly rule-based knowledge becomes unusable in a different order situation because it does not reflect the scope of the norms. In today's terminology, this could be framed as a problem of situational judgment; closer to the text is the observation that Wolfram makes the boundary between rule-guided appropriateness and responsible exceptional decision visible through narrative.

Another transfer point concerns the role of communication. Parzival suggests that communicative acts are actions with order-creating or order-blocking effects in certain constellations. The Grail scene functions here as a model case: a situation where the right communicative step cannot be derived from routine, requires a form of attention that translates suffering, relationship, and responsibility into language. From this, no „technique“ can be gained for today's leadership, but rather a conceptual sharpening: communication is always the transport of information, but can above all also create recognition, relieve conflicts, or – in the case of silence – close off order situations. Precisely because Wolfram narratively displays the consequences of silence, the novel is suitable as a space for reflection on the question of under what conditions communicative restraint can become irresponsibility.

Finally, „Parzival“ offers a heuristic approach to responsibility as a burden of consequences. The novel highlights that learning processes are particularly decided by the willingness to attribute consequences, not solely by the acquisition of competence. Responsibility arises here from the recognition that one's own actions enter a chain of consequences that others bear. From this, a strict, non-moralizing insight can be derived for modern leadership: responsible action begins where consequences are not rhetorically delegated but are treated as part of one's own responsibility. Wolfram deliberately shapes this insight narratively by showcasing the social and salvation-historical impact of individual decisions.

This means that heuristic transfer is strictly limited. It neither replaces historical differences nor does it detach the text from its order of thought framed by religion and courtliness. However, it does allow for a conceptual clarification of leadership as a formative process of authority development, as a communicative practice of order, and as a consequence of attribution. From this perspective, „Parzival“ can be read as a model of a leadership type that is not guaranteed by rank. It earns its position through the ability to interpret norms in conflict situations, to integrate advice, and to accept responsibility as a burden.

4. Source Text II: „Nibelungenlied“ – Leadership as a Problem of Escalation and Loyalty

4.1 Why „Nibelungenlied“?

The „Nibelungenlied“ is not suitable for the research question pursued here because it exhibits „leadership“ in a normative teaching form. Rather, the text makes visible the conditions under which bonds and loyalties intensify conflicts. The text, which becomes tangible in written form around 1200, has been transmitted anonymously as a heroic epic; precisely this situation of transmission is part of the philological basis of any reading, because it makes the text understandable as a literary construction of an order of conflict. The plot is organized in such a way that it crosses thresholds of escalation at several points, without a return to reliable forms of mediation becoming plausible. This creates a model in which leadership does not appear as possession of authority, but as a problem of conflict management under competing loyalties.

Research has described this structure in varying terms, often from the perspective of tragic inevitability or as a representation of a commitment dilemma in which obligations intersect, consequently forcing actions that appear as betrayal from another perspective. In an influential introduction, Jan-Dirk Müller (2009) unfolded the analysis of the „Nibelungenlied“ precisely as a problem of such structural tensions, in which textual order, value semantics, and chains of action can only be understood together. Joachim Heinzle (2015) bundles the text together with the lament and makes it visible in the commentary that the narrative presents a catastrophe and simultaneously continues to literarily process the question of guilt, explanation, and subsequent order. This establishes a significant point: the text itself contains no stable entity that „resolves“ conflict. Rather, it shows how conflicts are tied to commitments, honor, and communication, and how these factors can stabilize a logic of escalation.

For a leadership heuristic, this can initially be refined by the basic semantic tension that structures the actions of the central actors. The Nibelungenlied works with a concept of obligation that is moral and, beyond that, socio-institutional. Loyalty obligations—towards kinship, towards the royal house, towards one's own system of rank and honor—are not additive but can exclude each other. Where one obligation is asserted as absolute, any alternative loyalty becomes a breach of faith. The plot gains its dynamism precisely from this: it is not decisive that characters act „badly,“ but that they operate within an order in which competing obligations are barely reconcilable once the conflict becomes public. From this perspective, the famous catastrophe at the end is not merely the result of revenge: rather, it must be read as the result of an order of obligations in which de-escalation appears as loss of face and as the renunciation of social identity.

The second methodologically relevant aspect is the organization of communication. In the „Nibelungenlied,“ communication is rarely just about conveying information; it is often a strategic management of knowledge, a practice of public exposure and shame. The dispute between the queens, the question of precedence, the unmasking, and the political exploitation of knowledge serve as catalysts for escalation in the plot. On this level, the text demonstrates that conflicts do not arise solely from violence but from the way knowledge circulates, how rumors, evidence, oaths, and public performances generate recognition or disgrace. For „leadership,“ within the scope of this contribution, it means: whoever wants to act must make decisions and, furthermore, manage communicative situations in such a way that mediation remains possible. The „Nibelungenlied“ shows how quickly this possibility is blocked when communication primarily functions as a weapon in a conflict of honor.

Finally, the text lays bare the question of responsibility in a way that is particularly illuminating for the intended comparison with Parzival. While Wolfram organizes legitimacy in a teachable manner and through consequential imputation, the Nibelungenlied shifts responsibility into a realm of competing loyalties, where the consequences of actions are visible but can no longer be clearly attributed to a single entity without taking sides oneself. The lament responds to this situation by recounting the events in an organizing manner and asking about guilt; in doing so, it simultaneously makes it clear that the catastrophe resists simple meaning-making. What is crucial for the approach chosen here is that „leadership“ does not appear as salvation by a superior authority, but as a problem of an order that no longer provides stable procedures for bringing loyalty, honor, and conflict into a communicable form.

This determines the function of the „Nibelungenlied“ within the scope of this contribution. The text serves as a counter-model to „Parzival“: it does not primarily show leadership as a process of learning and responsibility, but as a problem of escalation in an order of bonds where loyalty and honor restrict communication and delegitimize mediation. The following sections will concretize this finding in three observation fields closely related to the text and then formulate the heuristic transfer in a controlled manner.

4.2 Three Text-Close Observation Fields

The escalation logic of the „Nibelungenlied“ can be described close to the text in three areas of observation, which become tangible at different points in the plot but converge in a common structure. The text models conflict not as a punctual event, but as a process in which bonds, forms of communication, and orders of recognition interlock. Crucial for an analysis of leadership is that the text installs neither a sovereign controlling agent nor offers stable mediation procedures once certain thresholds are crossed.</p>

A first observation field concerns loyalty as both a resource and a risk. The „Nibelungenlied“ presupposes a social order of bonds in which fidelity does not appear as a flexible form of cooperation, but as an identity-forming obligation that translates rank, kinship, and allegiance into a rigid structure of expectations. This structure initially makes loyalty actionable: allegiance, duties of protection, and alliances create reliability, without which leadership and warfare would be inconceivable. At the same time, the same structure generates risk as soon as obligations collide. The text does not present such collisions as exceptions, but as the engine of the narrative: loyalty becomes destructive where it delegitimizes criticism, advice, and retraction.

Leadership appears as a problem in this constellation because loyalties no longer function as a means of social stabilization but as a compulsion to take actions that actually promote escalation. The text makes this dynamic visible by frequently deriving actions from justifications of loyalty and simultaneously presenting the chain of consequences that results from this justification. Loyalty thus becomes a semantic resource for legitimation and, at the same time, a structure that blocks alternative options for action.

A second area of observation concerns communication as the control of knowledge and as a practice of publicity. The „Nibelungenlied“ strikingly utilizes situations in which not only actions but also communicative acts produce recognition or dishonor. The quarrel of the queens, in this sense, is an event that shifts the situation of hierarchy, legitimation, and readiness for violence anew, because it makes knowledge public and thus destroys social withdrawal spaces. Communication here is not neutral information, but a technique that can preserve or destroy face. It generates escalation because it transforms conflicts from a negotiable framework into a public honor code, in which retraction appears as weakness and as a loss of recognition.

In this mode, language itself becomes a medium of violence because it generates compulsive actions: whoever is publicly shamed can hardly react through compensation within the presented value logic without damaging their own rank. The text thus shows that escalation does not only begin with physical violence but is already organized at the level of knowledge circulation, staging, and public attribution.

A third area of observation concerns the absence of stable conflict resolution procedures and the resulting irreversibility. Especially in the second part of the epic, it becomes clear that although the text features council scenes and occasionally allows characters to warn or weigh considerations, these procedures lose their effectiveness the moment loyalty and honor narrow the spaces for communication. Conflict management is then not absent because no one is „reasonable“ enough, but because the order itself does not provide a legitimate authority that could permanently enforce mediation. Where the plot tips into a mode of retribution, de-escalation becomes practically difficult and normatively discredited.

The text thus models an escalation logic that results from the combination of the compulsion to bond, public shaming, and a lack of mediating authority. From this perspective, leadership asks what conditions of order still allow for decisions to be made in order to limit a conflict. The catastrophe functions in the narrative as a consequence of an order that, while highly valuing bonding, provides no robust mechanisms for productively negotiating bonding collisions.

These three observational fields can be bundled into a structural formula: „The Nibelungenlied“ narrates leadership within a social order where loyalty generates agency, communication produces public constraints, and conflict resolution fails due to the irreversibility of an escalated honor logic. The text thus gains its particular analytical sharpness for the question being pursued here, because it does not isolate „wrong decisions,“ but rather makes visible the interplay of order, communication, and attachment as an escalation generator.

4.3 Heuristic Transfer</h2>

The heuristic yield of the Nibelungenlied lies less in individual „lessons“ than in a conceptual refinement of what leadership must achieve under conditions of strong bonds and public recognition regimes to be able to limit escalation. The text makes it clear that loyalty as a leadership resource is ambivalent. It stabilizes cooperation and readiness for action, but at the same time can destroy the possibility of internal correction if it codes criticism as a breach of loyalty. This observation is relevant for contemporary leadership without equating modern organizations with court retinues: even in modern contexts, bonds – for example, in the form of belonging, loyalty norms, or demands for identification – can limit the capacity for correction if they delegitimize withdrawal, doubt, or contradiction. Therefore, the Nibelungenlied compels us to think of loyalty not only as a desirable attitude but as a structuring risk that requires rules and procedures to avoid becoming capable of escalation.

A second transfer point concerns the role of communication as a mechanism for order. The text shows how communication creates constraints on action through publicity, status, and shame. For contemporary leadership, this does not mean transferring medieval honor systems, but rather understanding that communication spaces must be self-regulated if conflicts are to remain negotiable. Where information is used strategically, where public attribution leads to loss of face, and where conflict communication primarily aims at shaming, the likelihood of achieving reconciliation decreases. The „Nibelungenlied“ provides a model of irreversibility for this: as soon as communication tips into a mode of public fixation, alternative options become normatively implausible, even if they would be practically available.

A third transfer point concerns conflict resolution as an institutional issue. The catastrophe of the Nibelungenlied does not arise because no one *wants* to „moderate,“ but because mediation has no stable place within the depicted order once conflicting loyalties escalate. From this, for contemporary leadership, it can be soberly inferred that conflict resolution does not depend solely on individual virtues, but on procedures, forms of authority, and legitimized spaces in which retraction, compensation, and saving face remain possible. The text thus makes it clear that escalation is often the result of a lack of legitimized mediation, not merely a lack of insight.

Compared to „Parzival,“ this results in a controlled, heuristically usable difference: while Wolfram models leadership as a formative process of authority building under conditions of perspectival knowledge, the „Nibelungenlied“ shows leadership as a problem of escalation control within a system of allegiances that narrows communication and delegitimizes mediation. The gain for the present lies not in the moral evaluation of individual figures, but in conceptual clarification: leadership is endangered where loyalty blocks criticism, where communication produces public space as a space of coercion, and where conflict resolution is not institutionally or procedurally secured.

5. Comparison: Two Leadership Models, Two Risks

5.1 What the texts reveal

The comparison of „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ is fruitful for a typology of leadership because both texts, operating within different genre logics, present the same fundamental finding: leadership is not a purely individual ability, but a practice embedded in social orders and contingent upon conditions of recognition. In both cases, authority arises not solely from „character“ but from the social validation of actions, from being embedded in relationships, and from the communicative forms in which decisions become visible and attributable. The texts thus suggest that leadership always operates within a field of tension that cannot be resolved by moral appeals or pure instrumental rationality. From this perspective, the central role of relationships also becomes clear.

„Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ show that loyalty and belonging are not merely accompanying phenomena of political or courtly order, but structuring forces that enable and simultaneously limit action. Bonds create pressure of expectation, they stabilize cooperation and establish identity. However, they can also narrow the scope for correction and mediation as soon as competing obligations arise. Both texts thus make it clear that leadership cannot be reduced to decision-making, because decisions only become plausible or implausible within a network of obligations.

Also shared is the insight that communication does not function as a mere means of information transfer, but as a form of organizational work. This is evident in Wolfram's novel in the constellation that a specific linguistic act – the question about suffering – has relevance-conferring consequences and opens up the possibility of healing in the first place. In the „Nibelungenlied,“ communication appears in a different function: as the control of knowledge and public perception, which can render conflicts negotiable or make them irreversible. Both texts thus demonstrate that leadership in crucial moments depends on the shaping of communicative situations because communication simultaneously organizes recognition, shame, obligation, and the possibility of action. Finally, both works share a structural attention to causal attribution.

Even though the forms differ, action is bound by consequences in both texts. Wolfram explicitly makes the burden of consequences the medium of learning; the „Nibelungenlied“ shows how consequences become visible, but can no longer be clearly resolved within a web of colliding bonds and logic of attribution. In both cases, the philologically relevant point is that responsibility is not asserted as an abstract norm, but as a narrative structure that embeds action within an order of consequences.

5.2 Where the Models Diverge

Despite all shared structural work, the two texts differ in how they manage order, recognition, and conflict, resulting in two distinct risks that can be described as leadership risks. „Parzival“ primarily models leadership as a process of authority formation through the capacity to learn. The fundamental danger here lies in misjudgments arising from normative misdirection: rules are applied inappropriately for the situation, advice is unreflectively treated as absolute, and interpretation falls short of the situation's complexity. Wolfram makes this risk narratively productive by transforming it into correction. The text thus opens up the possibility of rehabilitation: authority can be re-legitimized when insight, acceptance of responsibility, and a changed approach to norms and advice become possible. The risk, therefore, is not the existence of conflict, but the inability to recognize conflict as a task of interpretation and responsibility.

The „Nibelungenlied“ unfolds a different logic. Here, the danger lies less in the lack of learning ability of individual actors and more in the stabilization of an escalation order. The central risk is that bonds and recognition regimes narrow communicative options and de-legitimize mediation. The text shows not only that conflicts arise, but that they can transition into a state where de-escalation becomes normatively implausible because it appears as loss of face, betrayal of loyalty, or renunciation of rank. This shifts the focus from individual judgment to the question of the availability of legitimate mediation bodies and procedures. Where such bodies are not effective or not recognized, chains of conflict become irreversible, even if individual figures possess insight or voice warnings.</p>

This difference leads to a precise comparison: Wolfram designs a model in which leadership appears as a learning-based practice under conditions of perspective knowledge; the risk lies in the misreading of normative situations and can be mitigated by insight and

responsibility is processed. The „Nibelungenlied“ outlines an environment where leadership appears as conflict management within a harsh order of bonds; the risk lies in the escalatory potential of loyalty and public opinion, and can only be limitedly controlled by individual insight because the order itself devalues withdrawal and mediation. The comparison thus makes it visible that leadership problems in literary texts do not merely appear as characteristics of figures: they are effects of conditions of order, bond structures, and communicative regimes in which actions become attributable.</p>

6. Connection to Modern Leadership Theories

The connection to modern leadership theories can only be meaningful in a limited sense for the preceding text analysis. The theoretical models do not serve here to „unlock“ medieval texts, but rather to conceptually focus what has already been reconstructed close to the text and to make it connectable in a language that is available in today's leadership discourse. In this function, several theory families can be named as resonance spaces, without this implying interpretive authority over the texts.

For „Parzival,“ the strand of transformational and values-based leadership is initially relevant, insofar as Wolfram links legitimacy not to maturation, interpretation, and consequential burden. The classical distinction between transactional and transformational leadership, as conceptualized by Burns (1978) and further developed organizationally by Bass (1985), should not be read as an explanation of the novel; however, it makes visible why the text does not identify recognition with achievement in the narrow sense, but rather links it to a normative change in action orientation. For the same complex, the concept of sensemaking can be used, because Wolfram models leadership in constellations of perspective knowledge and exhibits the ability for situation-appropriate interpretation as relevant to order. Weick's program (1995), to understand meaning as a process of retrospective reality construction, provides a controlled conceptual bracket for this.

In the context of „Parzival,“ the strand of Authentic Leadership can also be drawn upon, insofar as the novel links authority to self-relation, integration, and normative change (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Here too, the theory does not explain the text; it merely provides modern vocabulary for the observation that Wolfram legitimizes (or makes plausible) his authority not only through fulfilling roles but especially through a process of internal and external consistency.

In the „Nibelungenlied,“ the point of resonance lies less in development and meaning-making and more in bonds, conflict management, and the question of how leadership can be described as a practice in situations of distributed responsibility and loyalty. Concepts of shared or distributed leadership can be helpful here in a narrow, analytical sense because the text does not establish a sovereign steering authority but rather plausibly explains actions based on loyalty bonds, hierarchies, and mutual obligations. Gronn's suggestion (2002) to conceive of leadership as a distributed practice and thus as a unit of analysis can serve as a conceptual countermeasure against the premature personalization of events, without equating the courtly-hierarchical order of the text with modern organizations.

Finally, the area of normative-ethical leadership theories is relevant for both texts as a resonance space because the chains of action are consistently tied to questions of legitimation, attribution, and responsibility. Research on Ethical Leadership asks precisely how moral norms are modeled as action-guiding, communicated, and socially effective; in this regard, it can serve as a conceptual foil for more precisely naming the recognition and shame mechanisms visible in both texts (Greenleaf, 1977; Brown & Treviño, 2006). In addition, Responsible Leadership can be drawn upon from a relational perspective, which explicitly understands responsibility as a relational process in complex stakeholder or bonding situations. While medieval bonding orders remain categorically different, the theoretical focus on relational structures of responsibility helps to describe the collision of obligations in the Nibelungenlied as a structural problem and not merely a character problem (Maak & Pless, 2006).

Important: The benefit of such resonance spaces depends on methodological discipline. First, theories must not be a grid that replaces textual logic. At best, they can provide post-hoc terminological refinement. Second, historical distance must be explicitly maintained: „Parzival“ and „Nibelungenlied“ operate within feudal systems of recognition, a religiously framed worldview, and orders of violence that do not share the prerequisites of modern statehood and modern organizations. Third, in transfer, a distinction must be made between structural observations and normative recommendations. The texts are suitable for structural observations on legitimation, cohesion, communicative constraints, and escalation logics; they are not suitable as a reservoir of direct behavioral norms for today's leadership practice. Finally, the temptation to simply project modern categories like „psychological safety“ (Edmondson, 1999) backward must also be avoided; terms of this kind are bound to specific organizational and interactional cultures and can at best serve as a contrasting backdrop in medieval systems of honor and shame.

7. Conclusion

The preceding readings did not treat „Parzival“ and the „Nibelungenlied“ as a reservoir of supposedly timeless maxims of action. The text understands them as literary models in which leadership becomes observable under historically specific conditions. The yield, accordingly, does not lie in „lessons“ in a normative sense. The focus is on a conceptually controlled clarification of problem situations, which are explored with high consistency in both texts. Legitimation arises as a process of recognition, commitment stabilizes and narrows room for maneuver, communication creates ordering effects, and conflicts develop their own logic as soon as mediation is delegitimized or structurally unavailable.

For Wolfram's „Parzival,“ it can be stated that authority appears as a learning-oriented practice but is not guaranteed by status. The text links recognition to sound judgment in situations with competing norms, to the ability to determine communicative duties appropriately for the situation, and to the willingness not to externalize the burden of consequences. Leadership, from this perspective, becomes visible as a process in which interpretation, advice, and responsibility intertwine. The novel centers not on rule-following, but on appropriate norm selection and the acceptance of consequences.

In contrast, the „Nibelungenlied“ models leadership as a problem of escalation control within a system of bonds that condense loyalty, honor, and public perception into rigid constraints on action. The text demonstrates how loyalty becomes both a resource and a risk, how communication as a practice of public attribution can make conflicts irreversible, and how mediation fails due to loss of legitimacy once conflicting loyalties can no longer be negotiated. In this logic, the catastrophe is less the sum of individual wrong decisions than the result of an order in which the social prerequisites for de-escalation and withdrawal systematically erode.

The methodological gain of this comparison is that leadership becomes visible as a relation: between norms and situations, between attachment and the ability to correct, between communication and force, between responsibility and accountability. Precisely because the texts operate within stratified, courtly, and religiously framed orders, their reading necessitates conceptual discipline. The heuristic transfer therefore remains tied to the logic of the text. It consists in sharpening what leadership must accomplish when recognition is not presupposed, attachment is ambivalent, communication is order-effective, and conflict is structurally capable of escalation.

Bibliography

Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005): Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. In: The Leadership Quarterly 16/3, pp. 315–338.
Bass, B. M. (1985): Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press.
Brandt, R. (1993): Enclaves – Exclaves: On the Literary Representation of Public and Non-Public Spheres in the Middle Ages. Wilhelm Fink.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. *The Leadership Quarterly*, *17*(6), 595–616.
Bumke, J. (2002): Courtly Culture. Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages. 10th Edition. Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
Bumke, J. (2004): Wolfram von Eschenbach. 8th edition. Metzler.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
Edmondson, A. (1999): Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 44/2, pp. 350-383.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977): Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. Paulist Press.
Gronn, P. (2002): Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. In: The Leadership Quarterly 13/4, pp. 423–451.
Haug, W. (2009): The literary theoretical concept of Wolfram von Eschenbach. A new reading of the „Parzival“ prologue. In: Contributions to the History of the German Language and Literature 123, pp. 211–229.
Heinzle, J. (Ed.) (2015): The Nibelungenlied. Text and Commentary. 2nd ed. Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.
Maak, T. & Pless, N. M. (2006): Responsible Leadership in a Stakeholder Society – A Relational Perspective. In: Journal of Business Ethics 66/1, pp. 99–115.
Müller, J.-D. (2009): Das Nibelungenlied. 3rd, newly revised and expanded edition. Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Oschema, K. (2011): The Public Sphere of the Political. In: Political Public Sphere in the Late Middle Ages. Edited by M. Kintzinger and B. Schneidmüller. Jan Thorbecke Verlag.
Wapnewski, P. (1955): Wolfram's Parzival. Studies on Religiosity and Form. Winter.
Weick, K. E. (1995): Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications.

Title image: Jean de Vaudetar presents his work as a gift to King Charles V. 1371/72, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1773786