Sometimes parties repeat the same arguments but leave a meeting with different understandings of what was agreed. The difficulty may lie in the meaning of words, the order of topics or how people listen. In mediation, communication can be organised before settlement proposals are compared. This does not require conceding that the other party is right. It requires checking whether both people are discussing the same issue and understand what they would be agreeing to.
Key points before you start
- Restating a message in your own words checks understanding; it does not concede the argument.
- Asking about a specific fact is more useful than guessing someone’s intentions.
- Arrangements should identify the action, responsible person, deadline and way of confirming completion.
Why can the same message mean different things?
Jerzy Plis describes barriers connected with language, emotions, mistrust and the communication channel. Words such as “quickly”, “the complete documents” or “finished design” may mean something different to each party. Assumptions, technical terms and previous experiences add further complications. Repeating the same sentence more loudly does not remove these differences.
Separating observation from judgment can help. You might say, “I have not received the attachment mentioned in your message,” rather than start by accusing someone of being dismissive. This does not determine who is right in the dispute. It creates a point that can be clarified and checked. When there is extensive data, ask whether a short written overview would help more than listing details aloud.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 137–140]
Paraphrasing: checking instead of assuming
Paraphrasing means briefly stating what you heard in your own words and checking that you understood correctly. You could say, “I understand that the problem is the delivery date for the documents rather than their scope. Have I understood you correctly?” The other person can then correct you. This is useful even when you disagree with their proposal.
The book links this technique with plain language and feedback. Avoid adding a concealed judgment to a paraphrase, such as implying that the other person is “changing their mind again”. If a statement is lengthy, check one important point first. The purpose is accurate understanding, not mechanically repeating every sentence.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 141–144]
Questions that help organise a discussion
Open questions reveal information that a simple yes or no cannot provide. You can ask what makes meeting a deadline difficult, how a participant understands fulfilment of a commitment and what materials would help them assess a proposal. Plis connects such questions with active listening and the mediator’s role in organising information.
Listen to the answer before asking the next question. If several people speak at once, agree on turns and return to any point that was missed. You do not need to respond immediately to every judgment. Ask for a specific example or clarification of a word that triggered disagreement. The mediator helps maintain focus and summarise the differences.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 143–145]
Match the format to the information, including online
A complicated financial calculation is easier to discuss when participants see the same table and know which items are disputed. A sensitive issue may instead require advance agreement about how and when it will be raised. The literature highlights the importance of place, timing and communication channel. Everything need not be addressed in one long joint discussion.
In online mediation, agree on a way to indicate questions, display documents and pause if the connection fails. These are organisational examples, not technical guarantees of confidentiality. Before individual meetings, clarify the rules for passing information to the other party. Statutory confidentiality in Polish civil mediation is governed by Article 183⁴ KPC.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 144–146] [2]
Check your shared understanding of arrangements
At the end of a topic, try answering four questions: what is to happen, who will do it, when, and how will the other party know it is completed? Then ask each participant to describe the same point in their own words. This applies feedback in practice; discovering a difference now may prevent another misunderstanding.
If the conversation goes round in circles again, ask for a brief summary of what is settled and what still needs a decision. You can change the order of topics or take a break. Better communication does not guarantee a settlement, but it helps reveal the actual extent of disagreement. In civil mediation, accepting a solution remains the participants’ voluntary decision.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 141–145] [2]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
What exactly does “deliver by Friday” mean?
In a fictional dispute about graphic design work, the designer understands delivery to mean sending a draft file. The customer expects a complete set of ready-to-use materials. When both explain the same word, it becomes clear that some tension concerns different understandings of the work stage.
The mediator helps distinguish the draft version, submission of comments and delivery of final files. The participants still have to agree on dates and payment. The example illustrates clarification of a message; it does not determine the contract’s meaning or either party’s liability.
Questions about this topic
Does paraphrasing mean admitting that the other party is right?
No. You can understand someone accurately and still disagree. Make clear that you are checking the meaning of their words and will assess the proposal later.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 141–144]
What if I do not understand the terms being used?
Ask for an explanation in plain language and a concrete example. You can also ask for time to read the material. Do not confirm an arrangement whose meaning you do not yet understand.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 141–144] [2]
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: 137–146.
- 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.