On July 22nd, we, as a team, participated in the Amazing Race outdoor event at Langley campus. When we arrived at the starting point, we immediately spot the high rope, not knowing how exactly it was used. After we were introduced the rules of the activity, including the high rope walk, the words hunting on the campus, and the puzzle games, a conflict over the next steps for our team broke out during the first activity.

      Asmita expressed her strong willingness to go for the high rope walk, because she wanted to try it and successfully finishing it would give us handsome sixty points, the largest possible gain from a single item in the event. Maryam stated firmly she would stay on the ground and watch the game. I was a bit hesitant, knowing I might be uncomfortable with the height. Behdis and Zahra, while looking hesitant, agreed to try together with Asmita. Since two and only two people were needed, Behdis joined Asmita to start the game. However, after Behdis landed at one end of the rope, she felt too scared to keep moving. We tried to help Behdis by cheering her up, but she was unable to move and wanted to come down.

      Now we got a conflict here. Asmita would like to finish the game, knowing she would enjoy the game and help us get the points. Behdis tried her best but eventually could not keep moving. Neither Zahra nor Maryam was able to replace Behdis. Conflict is a struggle between parties over incompatible goals (Piercy, 2021). We had a conflict between Asmita and the rest of the team over the high rope walk game. To be precise, in the context of Amazing Race event, our conflict was a process one (Levi & Askay, 2020), since everyone shared the same goal of finishing the first while we disagreed over whether to finish the high rope walk to score the points.

      We relied on the five A’s technique (Advameg, Inc., 2020) to resolve the conflict. First, our assessment was one of us really wanted to finish the walk, and we were halfway through after getting all the gear set up. We would like to collaborate to get a win-win solution, according to the Thomas-Kilmann model (Day, 2012). Second, we acknowledged Asmita’s strong willingness to finish the game and at the same time the refusal from Behdis, Zahra, and Maryam to join due to the discomfort of height. Third, we concluded our attitudes were positive and constructive, working together as a team to enjoy the event and get as many points as possible. Fourth, since we agreed on the collaboration mode for conflict resolution, one of us should overcome the discomfort with height and join Asmita to finish the game as soon as possible. Lastly, I decided to join Asmita in the high rope walk and end the conflict. After quick and rational analysis, I realized I could overcome the slight discomfort with height if I focused on the task and worked with a trustworthy teammate. I had tried other thrilling activities before, such as skydiving and extreme rollercoasters. I just needed some push factor.

      To sum up the story, at the rope course, we hit an early process clash. Asmita wanted the 60‑point high‑rope bonus, but our first partner froze, and the others refused the height. A fast five‑A check pushed us to a win‑win fix. I swallowed my own nerves, clipped in beside Asmita, we crossed together, banked the points, and the team rolled on as one.

      Conflict negotiation involves resolving disputes peacefully through wisdom, empathy, and fairness. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ consistently demonstrated these qualities when addressing conflicts, using patience and spiritual insight to de-escalate tensions and promote understanding. We will explore two scriptural examples illustrating how Jesus applied conflict negotiation in His life and teachings.

      One notable example is the encounter with the woman caught in adultery (English Standard Version Bible, 2016, John 8:3–11). The Pharisees sought to trap Jesus by asking whether she should be stoned, as prescribed by Mosaic law, knowing that a direct answer could either alienate the crowd or violate Roman law. Rather than reacting defensively, Jesus calmly wrote on the ground and responded, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (ESV, 2016, John 8:7). This statement prompted the accusers to reflect on their own faults, leading them to depart quietly. Jesus then addressed the woman with compassion, advising her to sin no more. This approach diffused the conflict without confrontation, showcasing Jesus’ ability to foster self-reflection and restore peace.

      Another instance of Jesus’ conflict negotiation skills occurred when religious leaders questioned whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar (ESV, 2016, Matt 22:15–22). Their intention was to ensnare Him. Affirming the tax could alienate Jewish followers, while opposing it might provoke Roman authorities. Jesus requested a coin and replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (ESV, 2016, Matt 22:21). This response avoided entanglement in a political dispute while offering a profound principle that satisfied both sides. By reframing the issue, Jesus neutralized the conflict and maintained His authority.

      These examples highlight Jesus’ approach to conflict negotiation, characterized by composure, strategic timing, and a focus on truth and reconciliation. Rather than reacting emotionally or taking sides, He listened attentively, responded thoughtfully, and prioritized the dignity of all involved. His methods serve as a model for resolving disputes with justice and compassion.

  Conflict is inevitable in both personal and professional environments. How we manage it determines whether it becomes destructive or a catalyst for growth.

In Personal Settings

• Use "I" Statements, not "You" Accusations

• Find Shared Goals

• Avoid the "Splitting the Difference" Trap (Voss, 2016) Compromising isn’t always fair. Instead, seek creative solutions.

• Practice Empathy by asking: "What’s their underlying fear or need?" (Thompson, 2020)

In professional settings

• Adopt a Servant Leadership Mindset (Northouse, 2021)

• Use Active Listening & Reframing (Piercy, 2021)

• Separate People from Problems (Piercy, 2021)

• Explore Win-Win Solutions (Northouse, 2021)

Consider Cultural Norms

• In high-context cultures (e.g., Japan, Middle East), indirect communication may be preferred.

• In low-context cultures (e.g., U.S., Germany), direct and explicit communication is valued.

• Adapt your approach based on cultural expectations.

Impact on My Organization & Leadership Approach

  As a servant leader, I will use this toolkit to:

• Foster Psychological Safety: Encourage open dialogue where team members feel heard.

• Model Constructive Conflict Resolution: Demonstrate how disagreements can lead to innovation rather than division.

• Train Teams in Negotiation Skills: Conduct workshops using Piercy’s (2021) problem-solving frameworks.

• Adapt to Cultural Differences: Recognize that conflict styles vary across cultures and adjust my leadership accordingly.

Leading differently with servant leadership

  Servant leadership prioritizes empathy, listening, healing, and commitment to others’ growth. Conflict negotiation becomes an act of service, not control. Through this lens I will:

• Facilitate team discussions, not dictate solutions.

• Mentor others on conflict styles and support their development.

• Foster collaborative decision-making, particularly in intercultural settings where indirect communication is valued (e.g., in many Asian or Middle Eastern cultures).

• How can I adapt my conflict negotiation style to diverse cultural norms and personalities within my team?

• How does my listening approach need to adapt when team members from different cultural backgrounds express concerns?

• What was one recent conflict where accommodation was the right choice? One where it was the wrong choice? What distinguished these situations?