For successful results and lasting resolution, a mediation must achieve three types of fairness -- Procedural, Psychological and Substantive.  

Procedural fairness requires the mediator to manage the dispute in an impartial, neutral and transparent manner.  Procedural fairness also requires that the parties have a true opportunity to be heard and understood and are encouraged to directly participate in the process. Procedural fairness allows parties to "have their day in court" (without actually having the case decided by a jury or judge) and to play an active role in problem solving, decision making and negotiating. 

Psychological fairness involves exploring and addressing the parties' emotional and relational needs. Determining the emotional drivers of a dispute and the emotional barriers to objective analysis helps uncover a party's 
true psychological interests.  A mediation that allows for emotional expression and validation helps meet a party's emotional needs and ensures a sense of psychological fairness.

Substantive fairness relates to the content of the parties' substantive interests (e.g. the amount of money they intend to pay or receive) and the outcome of the mediation.  Substantive fairness addresses how the parties judge the settlement terms.  In the context of mediation, procedural and psychological fairness often overlap and determine the parties' sense of substantive fairness. In other words, parties are more willing to judge final settlement terms as fair if the mediation has provided them a sense of procedural and psychological fairness. 

In many mediations, parties ultimately settle on terms that they did not anticipate at the start of the process when only their substantive interests were paramount. This is because the process itself provides a sense of fairness -- procedural and psychological -- and consequently a shift in their substantive interests.  In a recent mediation, a plaintiff arrived at the mediation with the singular goal to be reinstated to the position she'd held prior to her termination. Prior to the mediation, the defendant made clear they would not reinstate.  The issue was asserted as a deal breaker for each side.  The plaintiff actively participated in the process, she challenged the multiple reasons provided to not reinstate her, expressed her emotions attached to the loss of her job and to the risks of litigation, and, in the end, felt heard and understood. She ultimately settled on terms that provided for 36 months of severance, early retirement, a retirement party and a six-figure lump sum payment.  The only way that major shift occurred for this plaintiff was that she had a sense of procedural and psychological fairness in the process. Although the defendant agreed to more than they planned at the start of the mediation, the same process provided them with a sense of procedural and psychological fairness that allowed for such a shift.