It is difficult to critique CPM Theory at this stage in its development. It hasn't been in use long enough to attract legions of adherents or detractors. Yet, it has been utilized as a framework in a variety of situations, including child sexual abuse (Petronio, Reeder, Hecht, & Ros-Mendoza, 1996), disclosure of HIV or AIDS status (Cline & McKenzie, 2000), and medical mistakes (Allman, 1998).

One criticism of the theory that Petronio (2002) has discussed relates to its claim to be a dialectical theory. Petronio notes that some researchers have questioned whether CPM Theory truly is dialectical in nature. The basis for the criticism stems from Baxter and Montgomery's (1996) distinctions among monologic, dualistic, and dialectic approaches (see Chapter 12). Using these distinctions, Baxter and Montgomery have argued that CPM takes a dualistic approach, treating privacy and disclosure as independent of one another and able to coexist in tandem rather than in the dynamic interplay characteristic of dialectics.

Petronio (2002) responds to this criticism by noting that perhaps the accusation of dualistic thinking comes from the use of the terms balance and equilibrium in the early versions of CPM Theory. Petronio argues that CPM is not focused on balance in the psychological sense. "Instead, [CPM] argues for coordination with others that does not advocate an optimum balance between disclosure and privacy. As an alternative, the theory claims there are shifting forces with a range of privacy and disclosure that people handle by making judgments about the degrees [emphasis in original] of privacy and publicness they wish to experience in any given interaction" (pp. 12–13). Thus, Petronio argues that it is legitimate to call CPM Theory dialectical in nature.

Finally, we conclude that Communication Privacy Management Theory has an internal consistency, it is testable, and it has much promise of utility. It offers an explanation for the delicate process of coordination disclosing and concealing that people perform continually in their relationships with others. Further, CPM may provide insights as that process of coordination becomes even more complex. CPM is needed to explain those daily intrusions into our lives due to technological advances. As technology moves more and more of what we have considered private information into the public realm, we will need to understand the rule-based management system underlying this trend. All these reasons argue well for CPM Theory's future in communication studies.