You can attend mediation feeling angry, disappointed or worried. You do not have to become completely calm first or accept that the other party is right. What matters is whether the meeting allows you to listen, understand proposals and make your own decisions. Recognising tension helps you choose the pace and format of the discussion. This applies to meetings in Kraków just as it does to mediation conducted online.
Key points before you start
- Feelings can be named without insulting or judging the other person.
- A break or individual meeting may help restore the conditions needed for an informed decision.
- Pressure, fatigue and fear of the other person’s reaction should be raised with the mediator.
Notice the emotion and how it connects to the issue
Jerzy Plis describes how previous experiences and mutual reactions affect discussions. The same proposal may be heard as an attempt to solve a problem or as another promise that will not be kept. Clarify what specifically creates tension: an uncertain deadline, a missing document, the way someone speaks or a feeling of being overlooked.
There is no need to diagnose yourself or the other person. You can say, “This issue is difficult for me; I need a moment before returning to the figures.” That communicates what you need to continue participating. Tears, silence or nervousness do not by themselves prove bad faith or a weak argument. It is better to ask about a reaction than guess its meaning.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 147–150]
Expressing emotion need not mean escalation
You can separate describing your experience from judging the other person’s character. In practice, “I am worried about another delay” opens a different discussion from accusing someone of never keeping their word. The first statement allows questions about making the deadline reliable and sharing updates. It does not require you to hide difficult feelings.
The literature stresses that freely expressing tension does not always improve the situation. A joint meeting can escalate when statements become attacks. Agree on rules about interruptions, insulting remarks and returning to a specific topic. The mediator can help find a form of expression that the other person will be able to hear.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 151–152]
When can a break or separate meeting help?
Speak up if you stop understanding the options, respond automatically or want to agree solely to end the tension. A break separates the need for rest from a decision about settlement. Plis also describes individual discussions and communication through the mediator as possible ways to reduce the mutual escalation of emotions.
Changing the format does not automatically solve every problem. Agree on the length of the break, how discussions will resume and the rules for passing messages between parties. In an online session, do not assume why someone turned off their camera or became silent. First check the connection and ask whether they need a short rest.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 150–152]
Protect your freedom to decide
Strong pressure can make assessing a proposal difficult. If you fear the other party’s reaction, struggle to say no or do not understand a document’s consequences, tell the mediator as early as possible. Equal treatment and a calm tone do not replace checking whether participation is truly voluntary. A shorter meeting cannot solve every difficulty.
Civil mediation is voluntary under Article 183¹ KPC. Participation does not oblige you to sign a settlement. You can request time to consult your own lawyer about a draft. Separate three questions: do I want to continue talking, do I understand the proposal, and do I accept it? An answer to one does not answer the others.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 149–152] [2]
Return to the decision that is needed
After a break, start with one issue that needs a decision instead of reconstructing the whole history of the conflict. It may help to ask what should change to make the next stage more predictable. This could mean notice of a delay, confirmation that a task is completed or a way to raise concerns without another argument.
The author notes that difficult emotions cannot simply be removed, but the way they are expressed can be worked on. Complete sympathy or reconciliation is therefore not a prerequisite for considering a specific arrangement. At the same time, mediation should not promise to heal suffering. Its purpose is to create conditions for discussing the dispute and possible decisions.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 151–153]
Educational scenario — a fictional example, not a case handled by the Foundation.
A break before discussing the timetable
In a fictional dispute about ending a working relationship, a reference to earlier delays triggers a heated exchange. One person says they can no longer assess the proposed dates. The participants take a break, and the mediator agrees with them where the discussion will resume.
Afterwards, they address only the order for handing over documents and how receipt will be confirmed. They do not have to settle all financial issues or sign an agreement immediately. The example illustrates changing the pace and scope of discussion without promising a particular outcome.
Questions about this topic
Does anger rule out participation in mediation?
Anger alone does not determine whether discussion is possible. Safety, how feelings are expressed and the ability to participate freely matter. Discuss any concerns individually with the mediator before a joint meeting.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 147–152] [2]
Does asking for a break end mediation?
Not necessarily. Participants can agree to resume after a break, change the pace or arrange another meeting. If conditions do not support informed decisions, participation needs reassessment rather than a rush to sign an agreement.
Sources for this section: [1, pp. 150–152] [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: 147–153.
- 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.