An unanswered call may be read as disrespect, a request for a document as an attack, and a request for time as deliberate delay. In conflict, it is easy to attach a ready assessment of the other person to an observed event. Jerzy Plis’s chapter on barriers in negotiation helps explain how these shortcuts narrow a discussion. Below we show a way to prepare for mediation that lets you describe a problem firmly while leaving room to check your interpretation.
Key points before you start
- Separate the event, your interpretation and the consequence you want to discuss.
- Ask what the other party means by an unclear word or expectation.
- Checking assumptions does not require overlooking harm or accepting every proposal.
An event and the intention attributed to it are different information
Plis describes stereotypes as simplified, enduring images of people or situations that influence how facts are interpreted. He explains that they can produce unfair assessments and obstruct agreement. In a dispute, this also includes personal labels such as “always manipulates”, “never listens” or “will reject every suggestion”.
A practical exercise is to write three sentences. First: “I have not received an answer to the message sent on Monday.” Second: “I read this as avoiding the conversation.” Third: “As a result, I do not know whether to reserve a date.” The first describes an event, the second an interpretation and the third a consequence. This gives the other party a specific point to clarify.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 156–157]
Check what words mean before judging the response
The book notes that parties may use different terms for the same issue, or understand similar expressions differently. An original example is “urgent”: one person expects an answer today, while another thinks it means within a few days. A mismatch in expectations can then easily be mistaken for disrespect.
Instead of asking “Why are you ignoring me again?”, try “What response deadline can you meet?” For money, clarify what an amount includes; for work, clarify how completion will be recognised. In online mediation, agreeing how arrangements will be communicated also matters, so that different message versions do not become another source of assumptions.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 158]
A question should allow explanation, rather than impose blame
When discussing perceptual barriers, the author points to listening, asking questions and taking an interest in the other party’s needs. Apply this by asking for missing information: what prevented completion, how the person understood the arrangement or which document they need to respond. Allow time to hear the whole explanation.
A question mark alone does not turn an accusation into an open question. “Will you finally admit you are acting out of spite?” already contains a verdict. A more neutral form does not remove your ability to identify consequences. You can state the cost you incurred or the deadline that passed, then ask about ways to resolve the particular problem.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 157–158]
Define a problem that can be worked on
Plis suggests finding shared language and framing the conflict as a problem needing a solution. Instead of arguing over who is “irresponsible”, define a task: how to confirm collection times, divide disputed costs or identify who provides documents. That description does not decide which proposal should be accepted.
The author also notes that cooperation is not always possible and should not be assumed to help in every situation. A shared goal may therefore be limited to organising a business separation or rules for future contact. Courteous language and respect help a conversation, but do not require friendship or continuing cooperation after the dispute ends.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 158–159]
The mediator helps examine assessments, rather than choose the “better” person
Article 183³ of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure requires mediator impartiality. Speaking style, fluency or ease in describing emotions should not determine whose proposal receives a careful hearing. Prepare specifics even if stress makes speaking difficult. You can write down the main issues beforehand and ask for an unclear expression to be explained.
Examining stereotypes does not mean treating every concern as unfounded. Separating facts from assessments also helps describe actual harm more precisely. Before a meeting in Kraków or online, identify what you know, which events remain disputed and what needs clarification. Hearing a different interpretation does not itself require you to change your view.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 156–159] [2]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
Neighbours and access to a shared courtyard
In this fictional example, two neighbours in Kraków disagree about when a delivery vehicle may enter a shared courtyard. One interprets the lack of a reply as deliberate obstruction of renovation work. The other feels presented with a decision already made. Both use the word “agreed”, but one means sending a message while the other means receiving express confirmation.
In the hypothetical discussion, they separate the date the message was sent, its contents and what each expected afterwards. They then consider a simple rule for confirming future dates. The scenario shows how different meanings can be examined; it does not determine rights to the courtyard or responsibility for previous events. The outcome of a similar discussion would depend on its circumstances and the participants’ decisions.
Questions about this topic
Should I pretend earlier bad behaviour never happened?
No. Describe the specific behaviour, its context and its effect. You can check your interpretation of intentions while maintaining your position on what actually happened. The aim is a more accurate description of the problem, rather than excusing the other person.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 156–159]
Must I change my opinion of the other party before we can talk?
You do not have to start with a positive assessment of the whole person. You can examine one disputed fact, clarify a word or agree how information will be exchanged. Even a limited task needs conditions in which both parties can explain their positions.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 157–158]
Sources and further reading
- Jerzy Plis, „Bariery w negocjacjach i mediacji. Sposoby przeciwdziałania”, rozdz. VII, w: Aneta M. Arkuszewska, Jerzy Plis (red. nauk.), Zarys metodyki pracy mediatora w sprawach cywilnych, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa 2014, s. 137–159, ISBN 978-83-264-3282-8.
Pages cited from this edition: 156–159.
- 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.
An original discussion based on Jerzy Plis’s chapter in the 2014 edition, pp. 156–159. References identify printed pages; the examples and reader guidance are original practical developments. The cited Polish legal provisions were checked separately as at 23 October 2026.
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.