When decisions must be made under pressure and parties have differing interests, it’s often not the substance that determines the outcome—but how we structure the process.
Whether it’s a sensitive negotiation in the workplace, a mediation between two parties, or the election of a new pope in the Vatican, experience shows that structure, safety, and clear frameworks can be crucial to reaching agreement.
In this article, I compare the tools of mediation with the centuries-old rituals of the papal conclave, exploring how they can inspire modern negotiation and process leadership.
Mediation’s Process Tools – Key Principles
A professional mediator or facilitator works according to a set of universally recognized principles. These include:
- Voluntariness: The parties participate because they choose to, not because they are obligated to.
- Neutrality and balance: The mediator has no stake in the outcome and ensures equal participation.
- Confidentiality: Everything shared remains within the process.
- Self-determination: The parties own the solution and make the decisions themselves. The mediator facilitates but does not solve the conflict.
- Preparation and safety: The mediator supports the parties in preparing and creates a safe environment for sharing and exploration.
- Quality and professionalism: The mediation process is led with respect, openness, and methodological clarity.
The Conclave – Process Design in the Papal Election
The Catholic Church’s conclave is an almost theatrical—but highly effective—example of structured process in action. The cardinals gather behind closed doors in the Sistine Chapel, isolated from the outside world and media, governed by a set of rituals and strict procedures:
- Commitment to rules: The cardinals agree to the procedures in advance, including the requirement for a two-thirds majority.
- Structured voting: Up to four votes are held each day until consensus is reached.
- No external influence: Physical isolation enhances focus and discretion.
- Symbolism and community: Smoke from the chimney signals the outcome—white for agreement, black for no decision.
- Shared responsibility and ownership: The decision is made collectively, which strengthens its legitimacy.
This is more than a religious tradition. It is a designed process that fosters collaboration, safety, and ownership.
Trust in Structure Fosters Acceptance and Commitment
Confidentiality is a shared hallmark. Without media, leaks, or external scrutiny, the cardinals can vote honestly and explore options. In mediation, private conversations and confidentiality serve the same purpose—creating space for safe exploration and gradual progress.
Voluntariness and ownership of the framework build trust. This trust makes it easier to stand in disagreement and still find a path forward. In mediation, voluntariness enhances engagement. In the conclave, the commitment to the rules adds gravity. The mediator creates a safe space for meaningful dialogue. The cardinals experience the same, shaped by structure and intentional shielding from outside pressure.
Both processes are led neutrally. The mediator does not decide, and the conclave has no external authority imposing a result. Whether resolving a conflict or electing a pope, the responsibility for finding a solution lies with the participants themselves.
A clear, fair, and structured process increases the likelihood of agreement and follow-through. Defined frameworks, shared understanding, and predictable sequencing foster progress—not through rigidity, but by reducing uncertainty and supporting focus.
Structure, Fairness, and Shared Ownership
Experiences from my own clients, the literature on conflict resolution and mediation, and lessons from my own practice all point to the same insight: parties are far more likely to accept an outcome, even when it’s not ideal, if they perceive the process as fair.
In the book Conflict Resilience, Robert Bordone and Joel Salinas introduce a practical approach to help people manage conflict more effectively over time. They describe three foundational exercises—Observe, Consider, and Try—as tools to build what they call “conflict resilience.” First, observe what’s happening both internally and externally. Then, consider what really matters in the moment. Finally, try something—take an intentional step toward engaging differently.
These steps are not a mediation method per se, but they align with core principles of conflict engagement: curiosity, reflection, and intentional action. They reinforce the idea that good process leadership isn’t about controlling the conversation—it’s about creating a safe structure where people can explore, learn, and commit to meaningful steps forward.
Trust in the process is not a luxury—it is foundational. A good process doesn’t get in the way of the solution—it makes the solution possible.
What This Means for Your Negotiation Strategy
Whether you’re a leader, union representative, facilitator, or mediator—experienced or developing—there is valuable inspiration to draw from both the papal conclave and mediation practice. These processes show how clear structure, and a sense of safety can enable resolution, even in complex or seemingly stuck situations. Here are three suggestions from me to you:
1. Define the process before addressing the content. Take time to clarify how the conversation will unfold, who will participate, and what ground rules apply. A shared understanding of the framework makes it easier to navigate disagreement.
2. Create safe spaces for openness and reflection. Not every issue should be discussed in plenary. Consider private conversations, pauses for reflection, or segments where people can share without being contradicted. Safety is a prerequisite for honesty.
3. Be mindful of structure and symbolism. A process that begins and ends intentionally—with clear transitions and role clarity—has a better chance of being perceived as fair and coherent. It doesn’t need to be dramatic—but it should be deliberate.
Tradition as Inspiration
It’s easy to believe we must agree on everything to move forward. But experience from the Vatican—and from professional mediators—shows the opposite: what matters most is that we agree on how to deal with disagreement.
Conscious process design isn’t window dressing—it’s the foundation that holds the dialogue together.
Let’s learn from tradition, from experience—and from the white smoke that finally rose. The next time you’re negotiating, mediating, or facilitating an important meeting: start with the process. Only then can the participants truly own the outcome.