Identifying Competence

Some researchers consider competence as the ability a person has to enact goal-directed behavior. However, other researchers view competence as a quality, an attributional judgment (Spitzberg, 1993).

Two primary criteria of interpersonal communication competence, as defined by Spitzberg and Cupach (1989), are appropri­ateness (i.e., following relational and social “norms, rules and expectations” [p. 7]) and effectiveness (i.e., successfully achieving one’s goals). Spitzberg and Cupach noted that most current views of competence recognize the importance of these two criteria, but this was not always the case. Some early conceptu­alizations of competence equated it to only effectiveness. Rubin (1990) stated that both effectiveness and appropriateness are now generally accepted as central to the concept. Although other dimensions for competence exist, the dual criteria of appropriateness and effectiveness appear to be robust for examin­ing not only relationships but cultures as well (e.g., Ting-Toomey, 2010; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

Including both effectiveness and appropri­ateness affects understandings of interpersonal communication competence in two ways. First, it emphasizes that communication can be judged as competent only within the context of a relationship or situation because the context determines the standards of appropriateness that must be met (Canary & Cupach, 1988; Price & Bouffard, 1974; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984, 1989). Second, as Spitzberg and Cupach (1984) noted, the inclusion of both concepts is central to the definition of interpersonal com­petence because communication can be appro­priate without being effective and effective without being appropriate.

The moment-by-moment production of communication behavior challenges one assumption of the competence-based approach—namely, the extent to which social actors are aware of their repertoire of behav­iors and can rationally use them. People make decisions about messages anywhere from a deliberately conscious choice about a means to an end to an intuition about what to say at the other end (Andersen, 1986; Howell, 1982; Sanders, 1991). Conflict interactions in particular work against a rational, skills- based approach for several reasons (e.g., the structure of conflict communication is often ambiguous; see Sillars & Weisberg, 1987). Despite the fact that conflict taxes people’s ability to edit their communication behavior (Zillmann, 1990), we believe that social actors can improve the ways in which they interact with each other. We concur with Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2001; Ting-Toomey, 2009, 2010) that being mindful of one’s actions during conflict is necessary for competent conflict management.