Achieving Goals

Clark and Delia (1979) contend that some aspect of all three goals is present in all communication encounters. Other researchers have supported this claim (e.g., Cody et al., 1994).

People can achieve their multiple goals either simultaneously or sequentially within a single interaction (Sanders, 1991). Instrumental goals have received the most attention from argument researchers investigating reasoning and logic, although relational and self-presentation goals affect the focus and processes of conflict interaction. For example, where self-presentation is paramount, admiring someone’s business card is important because their business cards represent who they are, their identity. Also, people may focus on their instrumental goals, but their arguments in pursuit of those goals may have unintentional consequences for the relationship. Likewise, identity management (self-presentation) goals may not begin as a focus of an argument, but they become increasingly important as people perceive that their partners are challenging their self-presentation person­ally (Hample & Cionea, 2010).

During interaction, people seek to achieve both their primary and secondary goals. More than 90% of participants in one study pursued two or more goals dur­ing an interaction (Ohbuchi & Tedeschi, 1997). In influence attempts, for exam­ple, people want to be effective by achieving their primary goal; at the same time, we want to be appropriate so that we can achieve our secondary goals (Dillard, Palmer, & Kinney, 1995).

Even in situations where an instrumental goal has no clear connection to secondary goals, relational and self-presentation goals still have influence on the choices people make about ways to achieve their primary goals (Clark & Delia, 1979; Hample & Dellinger, 1992). In fact, your first primary goal might be to know the other person better (relational goal) and then pursue the instru­mental goal. People also point their identity management/self-presentation goals as the reasons they would not use certain compliance-gaining strategies (those similar to direct fighting; Wilson, 2002). People want to present themselves consistently as competent and likeable—someone their colleagues, friends, and lovers would find interesting and enjoyable (Honeycutt, Cantrill, Kelly, & Lamb­kin, 1998).

Dillard and his colleagues (1989) categorize secondary goals as identity (related to self-concept), interaction (concerned with social appropriateness), relational resource (concerned with qualities of the relationship), personal resource (concerned with a person’s time and physical or even mental assets), and arousal management (concerned with maintaining a comfortable level of arousal). These goals “derive directly from more general motivations that are recurrent in a person’s life” (p. 20). In essence, primary goals “are secondary goals which have become tempo­rarily dominant” (Dillard et al., 1989, p.

Achieving multiple goals can be confusing and complex. Here is one reason why: Highly competent communicators tend to view the world using several dimensions that go beyond surface level explanations. Notice how the concept of of “right versus wrong” can refer only to one categorical dimension with no room in between. Competent communicators understand the concept of right versus wrong. Competent communicators might also believe that “right versus wrong” is multidimensional: in terms of shades of grey, in different cultures, in ethical dilemmas, and in the fact that people’s attitudes often do not correspond with their behaviors, in that people can simultaneously be right and wrong (e.g., “I was wrong to steal the milk but my baby needed food”). Highly competent communicators pursue multiple goals and integrate them so as to deal with them simultaneously (Cegala & Waldron, 1992).

In contrast, low-cognition people tend to view the world as a simple place where right and wrong are obvious. Low-cognition people typically focus on instrumental goals, which they see as separated from their relational and self­presentation goals. Low-competence people tend to be self-focused and less able to identify and adjust to their conversational partner’s goals (Cegala & Waldron, 1992; Lakey & Canary, 2002). After criticizing a co-worker’s ability to perform a task correctly, low-cognition people might not understand why their co-worker does not want to go out after work.

At times, the goals of two people are compatible, so achieving them is not unusually difficult; at other times the goals conflict and create a challenging situ­ation. For example, politeness theory, which focuses on face, the image people choose to present publicly, posits that people want to pursue their own goals; but at the same time, they want or need to consider the face needs of another person, both positive face and negative face.

face, negative face, and mutual face—than are people in western cultures (Oetzel et al., 2001; Ting-Toomey, 2010).

Brown and Levinson claim that because other actions and goals can threaten both types of face, people use politeness to achieve goals and protect both types of face for both people. Cupach and Metts (1994) explain that people use politeness to negotiate the difference between indirect statements that could be ineffec­tive and direct statements that could be offensive. Even when making direct and unreasonable requests, people are judged more positively if they communicate politeness (Ohbuchi, Chiba, & Fukushima, 1996). Choosing polite and indirect strategies serves to protect the face of the recipient of a seemingly face-threatening statement.

Politeness theory suggests that people attempt to fashion messages that allow them to achieve their multiple goals rather than pursuing their goals as they had intended and ending in conflict with the other person or their own goals (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Dillard (1997) adds that people want to achieve their instru­mental goal while minimizing any negative effects on their relational and self­presentation goals. Altering their approach and viewing the situation differently helps to reconcile the goals of the two people involved in an interaction. O’Keefe and Shepherd (1987) refer to this redefinition of the situation as integration. Inte­gration involves the creation of a new context in which the conflict among the goals has been eliminated. However, not all communicators choose this con­structive approach to dealing with their dilemma. People have two additional options: They can use selection, giving priority to one goal and ignoring others, or separation, dealing with the goals individually (O’Keefe & Shepherd). O’Keefe and Shepherd found that people who use integration strategies acquired more favorable ratings of interpersonal success.