According to the theory of relative deprivation, a sense of injustice is aroused when individuals come to believe that their outcome is not in balance with the outcomes received by people like them in similar situations. When people have a sense that they are at an unfair disadvantage relative to others, or that they have not received their fair share, they may wish to challenge the system that has given rise to this state of affairs. This is especially likely to happen if a person or groups’ fundamental needs are not being met, or if there are large discrepancies between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”
Procedural justice is the way in which people are promoted and receive awards within an organization. This type of justice deals with determining the integrity of the human resource functions in order to justify their outcomes. Procedural justice is present within an organization when the processes, by which organizational subjects are; hired, paid, and promoted are perceived to be fair.
Interpersonal justice deals with the social relationships within an organization. This type of justice is more qualitative, and difficult to quantify. Justice is determined upon the presence of healthy and positive relationships within an organization. Interpersonal aspects of justice are quintessential due to the critical role relationships play in managing work and life outside of work. Most people find relationships to be what matters most in life and what gives life its fullest purpose as they fulfill our need to belong and help us to define ourselves. Relationships have also been explored as a source of social support in managing work-nonworking demands and are implicitly the source of role demands “both directly affecting work-nonworking conflicts.
Centrality of relationships in the work-nonworking arena also suggests the importance of understanding the interpersonal aspects of distributive and procedural justice. Namely, even if decision makers make their decisions affecting others’ workplace flexibility as representatives of an organization (and even more so if they make those decisions on their own behalf in informal interactions), the judgment is likely made about their fairness and the fairness of the relationship with them, not just the fairness of the organization or the policies they are applying. Similarly, those using workplace flexibility are targets of fairness assessments. People are motivated to act fairly, either in order to avoid negative feelings such as anger and distress or to preserve foundations on which they can count to be treated fairly themselves. Thus, if people are perceived as unfair when using formal policies or when enacting informal flexibility, they are going to be reluctant to do so in the future.
Overall, fairness is essential for maintaining satisfying relationships within which enactment of workplace flexibility takes place. It is therefore important to understand what shapes fairness judgments within relationships and how these judgments affect interpersonal dynamics, which in turn shape further enactment of workplace flexibility and experience of work-nonworking conflict.
根据相对剥夺理论，不公平感是当一个人开始相信，他们的结果是不平衡的类似情况，像他们这样的人得到的结果。当人们有一种感觉，他们处于十分不利的地位相对于其他人，或者说他们还没有收到他们的公平份额，他们可能要面临的挑战，导致了这种状况的系统。这是特别可能如果一个人或群体的基本需求没有得到满足的发生，或如果有很大的差异之间的“有”和“没有”。
程序公正的方式，促进人和接收在组织奖。这种类型的公正处理确定人力资源职能的完整性，为了证明自己的结局。程序正义在一个组织的过程时，由组织主体；聘请，支付，并促进了被认为是公平的。
人际公正对组织内的社会关系。这种类型的正义是定性的，难以量化。正义是确定时存在的健康和积极的关系在一个组织。正义的人际交往方面是典型的由于关键的角色关系管理工作和工作之外的生活。大多数人觉得是生命中最重要的事情是什么给生活的最大目的他们满足我们的需要归属和帮助我们确定我们的关系。的关系，还探讨了作为管理工作的非工作需要社会支持源和隐式的角色要求的“直接影响工作非工作冲突的来源。
在工作舞台中心工作关系也表明对分配正义与程序正义的人际关系方面的重要性。即，如果决策者作出决定，影响他人工作场所作为一个组织的代表（甚至更多，所以如果他们作出这些决定，以自己的名义在非正式的相互作用），判断可能是对他们的公正性和公平性与他们的关系，不只是他们正在申请的组织或政策的公平性。同样，那些使用工作场所的灵活性是公平的评估目标。人的动机是行为相当，是为了避免负面情绪，如愤怒和痛苦或保护的基础上，他们能被公平对待自己。因此，如果人们感到不公平，当使用正式的政策或制定非正式的灵活性，他们将不愿意这样做在未来。
总的来说，公平是必不可少的维持令人满意的关系在工作场所制定发生。因此，了解什么形状的公平判断的关系和如何在这些判断影响人际关系的重要，这反过来形状的工作场所和工作经验进一步制定非工作冲突。
