Many of the theories share a common thread.

Whether that be features that exemplify the

message delivered or the external results that result from the theory in practice, all these theories

in some shape or fashion share a lot of stark similarities. With communication however comes

the inevitable time for change, adaptation if you will. These theories come with questions on

how to deliver the most efficient message. As I look through all the theories, one stands out for

not being a concept as easily accessible as the others. The theory I’m going to be talking about

here is Dietz critical theory of communication in organization. The primary basis on the theory is

that to suppress conflict, you must do it through discursive closure rather than addressing

disagreements. I believe this is a theory, while useful in some capacity, it doesn’t exactly fit into

the thread of other theories talked about in this book. It is with this belief that I think that conflict

cannot be suppressed unless legitimate disagreements are addressed through dialogue and

symbolic convergence.

One of the most important theories to talk about when addressing conflict is Baxter's

second generation of relational dialectics theory. The theory describes dialogue as an aesthetic

accomplishment that produces fleeting moments of unity through a profound respect for

disparate voices (Griffin, 472). The purpose of dialogue is to create a bridge of communication

between two or more parties. That steady flow of communication is important in creating a sense

of openness within the parties involved. This is how we get ideas together. Part of the process is

bouncing off and interacting with these different ideas. According to the textbook, “The central

concept of relational dialectics theory is discourse, or “a set of propo-sitions that cohere around a

given object of meaning” (Griffin,132). Therefore part of the process is unraveling several

aspects of communication that we need to share. If we’re talking about the point of conflict itself,

we need to navigate through dialogue in order to find sufficient information to share our thoughts
and feelings, even if they’re deemed unconventional or controversial. If we’re talking about the

point of conflict itself, we need to navigate through dialogue in order to find sufficient

information to share our thoughts and feelings, even if they’re deemed unconventional or

controversial.

A lot of the time, discourse actually provides a plethora of benefits. Healthy dialogue can

yield mutual respect between two parties. Baxter believes good things come from competing

discourses because she also believes we can’t avoid relational dialectics no matter how hard we

try (Griffin,132). In other words, we eventually find some if not many commonalities with the

other party despite differences. This leads to the symbolic convergence theory by Ernest

Bourmann. The main principle of this theory is that sharing group fantasies creates symbolic

convergence (Griffin, 223). This is important because symbolic convergence calls for the need of

dramatization. As we interpret group members' imagery or “Fantasies “, we paint a picture that

later on converges with other members. According to the textbook, “Notice first that a group

member’s words must paint a picture or call to mind an image in order to be labeled a

dramatizing message. A comment that groups need conflict in order to make good decisions

might stimulate discussion among members” (Griffin, 224). The dramatizing message is what

leads to deep and constructive discussion. The dramatizing message is what yields deep and

constructive discussion.

If the main goal or common thread with all the theories is to figure out how to create

productivity with conflicting thoughts between group members, then why suppress the main idea

of the discourse. Stanley Deetz who came up with the critical theory of communication in

organization states that “language does not represent things that already exist. In fact, language is

a part of the production of the thing that we treat as being self-evident and natural within the
society.” (Griffin, 259). It is understandable why Stanley looks at language as a social construct.

However, there’s an oversight in treating conflict like it's also constructed. Deetz considers

communication the ongo-ing social construction of meaning. But his critical theory differs in that

he believes the issue of power runs through all language and communication. He also believes

managerial control often takes precedence over representation of con-flicting interests and long-

term company and community health (Griffin, 261). While his theory does provide possible

context as to how a conflict could arise, control is not the only precedence that takes over the

discourse. Deetz says that the world is fundamentally based on conflict and tension rather than

consensus and order as well as power as an ever-present part of our relationships—certainly so in

our organizational lives (Griffin 261). As such, this theory dilutes the root of any topical issues

through dismissal. To simply imply that power is the main motivator in a discussion of discourse

negates how members of a group sacrifice individual autonomy to maintain a relationship. The

common thread with this theory is that it asks how to define these relationships. This constitutive

approach “asks how communication defines or constructs the social world, including ourselves

and our personal relationships (Griffin, 140). While this theory shares similarities in terms of

navigating potential relationships, it doesn’t tackle the process of discourse and what to take into

consideration.

In conclusion, several of the other theories support the thesis that dialogue is one of the

most efficient communication techniques and that conflict directly addressed leads to better

understanding. The symbolic convergence theory bridges the discourse within a group.

According to the textbook, “ No relationship can exist by definition unless the parties sacrifice

some individual autonomy. However, too much connection paradoxically destroys the

relationship because the individual identities become lost” (Griffin, 261). Individual autonomy is
important to the larger picture because individual autonomy is indicative of a pre-existing notion.

At the same time, the need for Individual autonomy is important to the larger picture because

individual autonomy is indicative of a pre-existing notion while also the need to open the lines of

ideas close the gap. In other words, these individual ideas must come together to effectively

reach mutual consensus. The belief that conflict will arise only because of power dilutes the

process of how discourse works. It is with the sharing of ideas, regardless if they’re viewed

favorably or not, that no amount of conflict ignores the common thread that can be found in any

topics of discussion. There will never be a moment without reflection from other group

members.
 Works Cited

A First Look at Communication Theory 10E 10th Edition. https://www.amazon.com/FIRST-

LOOK-COMMUNICATION-THEORY-10E/dp/1259913783.