7/30/2019 Ommunication Competence Defined

1/4

OMMUNICATION COMPETENCE DEFINED!Dr. Lanes Perspective

Communication competence is the degree to which a communicatorsgoals are achieved through effective and appropriate interaction.

What is communication?For most people communication is simply talk. It is a natural event. Studentsenrolling in an introductory undergraduate communication course will quicklyreference a convenient and aging dictionary when asked to definecommunication and provide the following:

Communication is a process by which information is exchanged betweenindividuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior (Webster,

1983, p. 266).

The fundamental problem with defining communication as nothing more thaninformation exchange is that information exchange is only a necessary but not asufficient condition for understanding the complex process ofcommunication. The naive perspective which allows one to definecommunication as simple information exchange suggests that one can simplydefine engineering as the art of managing engines a definition unlikely toresonate with most professionals who study mechanical, electrical, chemical,civil, or biological engineering.

The field of communication focuses on how PEOPLE use MESSAGE to

generate MEANINGS within and across various CONTEXTS, CULTURES,CHANNELS, and MEDIA.When we communicate we transmit (as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior)information (thoughts and emotions) so that it is satisfactorily received andunderstood. Human beings do not exchange datawe understandinformation. Communication researchers refer to the process as sharingmeaning and prefer to define communication asthe management ofmessages for the purpose of creating meaning.In other words, the goal of communication is shared meaning and the primaryfunction of communication research is to generate new knowledge about howbest to maximize the achievement of goals.

A goal is nothing more than something you want to achieve. Communicationgoals are linked to another persons thoughts and feelings. There are at leastthree general types of communication goals:

1) Self Presentation Goals (who we are and how we want to be perceived),

2) Relational Goals (how we develop, maintain, and terminate relationships),and

3) Instrumental Goals (how we manipulate others, gain compliance, manageinterpersonal conflict, use and recognize interpersonal influence strategies(anchoring and contrast effects, reciprocity, commitment, liking, social proof,

7/30/2019 Ommunication Competence Defined

2/4

authority, and scarcity), etc.)It would be a gross misinterpretation of this goals-based perspective (oftenreferred to as functional or strategic) to assume that goal achievement is insome way synonymous with the darkside and should, therefore, be criticizedand abandoned because it has an evil connotation. It may be more comforting

for some people to substitute needs for goals as did psychologist Schutz(1966) when he identified three unique interpersonal needs that all of ushave:

A. affection (a desire to express and to receive love),

B. inclusion (a desire to be in the company of other people) and

C. control (a desire to influence the events and people around us).

Additionally, goals need not be explicit or premeditated. The conversation wehave with a stranger on an airplane may not be the result of a premeditatedexplicit goalbut nonetheless serve to fulfill an implicit need for inclusion and

thus, be purposeful.

Communication is, therefore, strategic in as much as it is goal-driven. Craig(1986) writes, "it would be pointless not to assume that discourse is in somesense and to some degree intentionally directed toward goals" (p.272). This perspective is shared by many prominent communicationresearchers (Berger 1994, Canary & Cody, 2000; Kellermann, 1992; Roloff &

Berger, 199x).The primary goal of small group communication is to share meaning whichleads to effective decision-making and problem-solving. But how does onedetermine the effectiveness and appropriateness of any given interaction? Andeven more important, how do we know if communication is competent?What is communication competence?Initially, Spitzberg (1988) defined communication competence as "the ability tointeract well with others" (p.68). He explains, "the term 'well' refers toaccuracy, clarity, comprehensibility, coherence, expertise, effectiveness andappropriateness" (p. 68). A much more complete operationalization is providedby Friedrich (1994) when he suggests that communication competence is bestunderstood as "a situational ability to set realistic and appropriate goals and tomaximize their achievement by using knowledge of self, other, context, andcommunication theory to generate adaptive communication performances."

Communicative competence is measured by determining if, and to what degree,the goals of interaction are achieved. As stated earlier, the function ofcommunication is to maximize the achievement of shared meaning. Parks(1985) emphasizes three interdependent themes: control, responsibility, andforesight; and argues that to be competent, we must "not only 'know' and 'knowhow,' we must also 'do' and 'know that we did'" (p. 174). He defines

communicative competence as "the degree to which individuals perceive theyhave satisfied their goals in a given social situation without jeopardizing theirability or opportunity to pursue their other subjectively more importantgoals" (p. 175). This combination of cognitive and behavioral perspectives isconsistent with Wiemann and Backlunds (1980) argument that communicationcompetence is:

The ability of an interactant to choose among available communicativebehaviors in order that he (sic) may successfully accomplish his (sic) owninterpersonal goals during an encounter while maintaining the face and line of

7/30/2019 Ommunication Competence Defined

3/4

his (sic) fellow interactants within the constraints of the situation. (p. 188)A useful framework for understanding communication competence wasdesigned by Spitzberg & Cupach (1984) and is known as the component modelof competence because it is comprised of three specific dimensions: motivation(an individuals approach or avoidance orientation in various social situations),

knowledge (plans of action; knowledge of how to act; procedural knowledge), andskill (behaviors actually performed).The component model asserts that communication competence is mutuallydefined by by the interdependency of the cognitive component (concerned with

knowledge and understanding), the behavioral component (concerned withbehavioral skills), and the affective component (concerned with attitudes andfeelings about the knowledge and behaviors) by interactants in an interpersonalencounter within a specific context. Rubin (1985) explains that communicationcompetence is an impression formed about the appropriateness of another'scommunicative behavior and that one goal of the communication scholar is tounderstand how impressions about communication competence are formed, andto determine how knowledge, skill and motivation lead to perceptions of

competence within various contexts (p. 173).

When applying the component model to organizational communication contexts,Shockley-Zalabak (1988) divides motivation into two separate (though related)elements: sensitivity (the ability to show concern and respect for others) andcommitment (the desire to avoid previous mistakes and find better ways ofcommunicating through the process of self-monitoring). This revised modelconsisting of four dimensions (knowledge, skill, sensitivity, and commitment) isused by Rothwell (1998) to study communication competence in small groupinteraction.

Note that communicative competence is dependent on the context in which the

interaction takes place (Cody and McLaughlin, 1985; Applegate and Leichty,1984; Rubin, 1985). Communication which is successful with one group in onesituation, may not be perceived as competent with a different group in anothersituation. McCroskey (1982) attempts to clarify the importance of competencewhen he writes, The domain of communicative competence includes learningwhat are the available means (available strategies), how they have beenemployed in various situations in the past, and being able to determine whichones have the highest probability of success in a given situation (p. 5).

Canary and Cody (2000) provide six criteria for assessing competence whichinclude, but are not limited to, perceived appropriateness and effectiveness. Thecriteria include adaptability, conversational involvement, conversationalmanagement, empathy, effectiveness, and appropriateness. They are explained

in more detail below:SIX CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING COMMUNICATION COMPETENCE1. Adaptability (flexibility)

a. The ability to change behaviors and goals to meet the needs

of interactionb. Comprised of six factors

1. Social experience - participation in various social interactions2. Social composure - refers to keeping calm through accurate

perception3. Social confirmation - refers to acknowledgment of partners

7/30/2019 Ommunication Competence Defined

4/4

goals4. Appropriate disclosure - being sensitive to amount and type of

info5. Articulation - ability to express ideas through language6. Wit - ability to use humor in adapting to social situations;

ease tensions2. Conversational Involvement

a. Behavioral and cognitive activityb. Cognitive involvement demonstrated through interaction

behaviorsc. Assessed according to three factors

1. Responsiveness - knowing what to say, know roles, interact2. Perceptiveness - be aware of how others perceive you3. Attentiveness - listen, dont be pre-occupied

3. Conversational Managementa. How communicators regulate their interactionsb. Adaptation and control of social situationsc. Who controls the interaction ebb and flow and how smoothly the

interaction proceedsd. How topics proceed and change

4. Empathya. The ability to demonstrate understanding and share emotional

reactions to the situationb. Need not lead to helping the other personc. Cognitive understandingd. Parallel emotions

5. Effectivenessa. Achieving the objectives of the conversationb. Achieving personal goalsc. A fundamental criteria for determining competence

6. Appropriatenessa. Upholding the expectations for a given situationb. A fundamental criteria for determining competence