Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Paper - 203
Final Paper - 203
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
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
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
LOOK-COMMUNICATION-THEORY-10E/dp/1259913783.