Two mediations can look different while both aim to help participants find agreement. In one, the mediator mainly structures the discussion and helps the participants develop proposals. In another, the parties also ask to discuss possible solutions. Instead of choosing an approach by its name, clarify the meeting’s purpose, the expected role of the mediator and how decisions will be made. This applies to meetings in Kraków and to online mediation alike.
Key points before you start
- Style names describe approaches to discussion; they do not replace an agreement on ground rules.
- It helps to distinguish a stated demand from the need it is intended to meet.
- A mediator’s suggestion remains non-binding, and participants retain control over the outcome.
A facilitative approach: support for developing your own options
Jerzy Plis describes facilitative mediation as an approach focused on the discussion process. The mediator helps clarify needs, asks questions and organises the exchange of information. Participants develop the main proposals themselves. This creates room to consider solutions tailored to their circumstances rather than immediately reducing the discussion to a single demand.
For a client, the practical question is whether they primarily need conditions for a calm discussion and the development of their own options. A payment deadline dispute, for example, may also involve documenting completion of a service, reporting concerns and future cooperation. Organising these issues can be as important as discussing the amount itself.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 63–64]
An evaluative approach: clarify what kind of assessment is expected
In the description of evaluative mediation, assessing possible solutions and the mediator’s more active involvement in considering them play a larger role. The author also presents debate about the limits of that role. The label “evaluative mediation” is therefore not specific enough: clarify whether it means questions about feasibility, discussion of options or other activities.
In Polish civil mediation, current Article 183³ᵃ KPC permits a mediator to suggest non-binding ways of resolving a dispute at the parties’ joint request. It does not make the mediator a judge. If you need independent advice about a claim, arrange a consultation with a lawyer. Hearing a proposal does not oblige you to accept it.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 64] [2]
A demand and an interest convey different information
A demand describes the desired outcome, such as payment of the full amount by a particular date. An interest explains why that matters: cash flow, predictability or an end to uncertainty. Plis explains that working with interests helps participants move from stated positions to the issues that need resolving. This does not mean giving up rights or conceding that the other party is correct.
Before the meeting, write down what you need, what could be arranged differently and how you will check that commitments are fulfilled. Also ask what the other person needs in order to consider changing their proposal. Their answer may reveal alternatives, although not every combination of needs can be reconciled. Mediation does not guarantee a shared solution.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 64–65] [2]
When does the future relationship also matter?
The transformative approach described in the book gives attention to participants’ agency and a better understanding of one another’s circumstances. A worthwhile change does not always consist of immediately agreeing on an amount. Parties may also organise how they communicate, define boundaries for contact or understand why earlier attempts produced misunderstandings.
Plis also presents narrative and humanistic approaches, which consider the account of the conflict and the conditions for dialogue. For a participant, a question about the goal is more useful than memorising labels: do we want to end our working relationship, or establish terms for continuing it? Mediation should not be assumed to require reconciliation or a renewed close relationship.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 65–67]
How can you agree on the approach before meeting?
Ask the mediator how they normally conduct discussions, when they suggest individual meetings and how they respond when parties become stuck on one solution. Explain whether you mainly expect help organising dialogue or also wish to consider non-binding options together. Agree on time for reviewing documents and the role of legal representatives. This is more concrete than simply choosing “the best method”.
The author emphasises that styles do not always appear in a pure form. The approach may adapt to the needs of the discussion while respecting the agreed ground rules. Meeting online is an organisational format, not a separate set of powers for the mediator. Before the session, confirm how proposals will be presented and who will attend.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 67] [2]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
A financial settlement and continued cooperation
In a fictional example, two Kraków businesses disagree over payment for a project. Initially, each names a single amount. When they clarify their needs, the handover date for materials and permission to continue using some of the work also emerge as important issues.
The participants develop several options and agree to assess them with their own advisers. They also establish a single communication channel. This combination of work on solutions and communication illustrates procedural flexibility; it is not a promise of settlement or an account of an actual case.
Questions about this topic
Do I need to know the name of a style before making an enquiry?
No. Describe the problem and what you hope to achieve through discussion. Ask the mediator to explain how they will support the participants and which decisions will remain theirs.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 63–67]
Can the way discussions are conducted change?
You can discuss a change if the current approach is not helping. Suggestions of non-binding solutions under Article 183³ᵃ KPC require the parties’ joint request; they should not arrive as a surprise.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 64, 67] [2]
Sources and further reading
- Jerzy Plis, „Rodzaje mediacji”, rozdz. III, w: Aneta M. Arkuszewska, Jerzy Plis (red. nauk.), Zarys metodyki pracy mediatora w sprawach cywilnych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014, s. 62–67, ISBN 978-83-264-3282-8.
Pages cited from this edition: 63–67.
- Ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. – Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, tekst jednolity Dz.U. z 2026 r. poz. 468, ze zmianami; w szczególności art. 183¹–183¹⁵, art. 259¹, art. 436 i art. 445².
Original editorial content referring to the specified chapter of the 2014 book, with original educational examples. Page references indicate printed pages. Legal information was updated as of 23 October 2026; legislation is cited separately from the literature.
Educational material based on sources checked on 23 October 2026. It does not replace an individual legal assessment of a particular case. The scenarios are fictional and do not describe clients’ experiences or outcomes achieved by the Foundation. Legislation, judgments and research publications are cited alongside the relevant topics; DOIs are provided only for publications that have such an identifier.