Four ears – one message. What are we talking about?

Anna and Peter are going through a presentation together. Looking at a slide that is still empty, Anna says:

1. A

   Anna

   “The figures for our meeting are not in the presentation yet.”

2. P

   Peter

   “I cannot do everything at once. I only received the figures this morning.”

Perhaps Anna wanted to know when she could send out the documents. What seems to reach Peter, however, is: “I have to keep chasing you.” While she may be thinking about the next step, he feels pushed to justify his work.

That is one way the conversation could unfold. Of course, she might genuinely be unhappy with him. But the sentence alone does not tell us that.

I have seen situations like this quite often. I find it interesting that people can talk about the same thing while addressing very different concerns. In the example above, one conversation is about timing and the other about reliability.

One sentence, four sides

Friedemann Schulz von Thun’s four-sides model, also known as the four-ears model or communication square, offers one possible explanation.

It describes four sides that are present in a message at the same time:

• Factual information (what I am informing you about)
• Self-revelation (what I reveal about myself)
• Relationship message (what I think of you and how I relate to you)
• Appeal (what I want to prompt you to do)

On the receiving side, these correspond to the four ears. The individual messages do not all have to be consciously intended. When listening, we are not always aware of which side we are responding to either.

Applied to our example, the four sides could look like this:

• Factual information: The figures are missing from the presentation.
• Self-revelation: “I am getting anxious because our meeting is approaching.” This would reveal something about Anna and her concern.
• Relationship message: “I do not trust you to take care of this in time.” This would express her view of Peter’s reliability.
• Appeal: “Please add the figures.” This would be something she wants to achieve with her sentence.

These are possible messages that could be conveyed in Anna’s remark. Her tone and the way she addresses him are also part of it.

In this example, Peter is listening primarily with his relationship ear. His reply fits what he has “heard.” If Anna is mainly concerned about sending the documents, her concern remains unresolved. She might follow up, and he might feel even more closely monitored. Suddenly, the conversation is about more than the missing figures.

What I am responding to

When I put myself in Peter’s position, I can understand his reaction. Perhaps he has spent the whole morning working on the presentation. Perhaps his work has been questioned several times recently. In that case, even a brief remark can sound like another criticism. The same sentence might carry much less weight coming from a colleague he has an easy working relationship with.

To me, this is no reason to accuse someone of having an “overly sensitive ear.” The history between people is part of the conversation. I would hardly feel understood myself if someone told me, in a moment like that, that I had simply listened incorrectly.

The first article was about gaining some distance before reacting quickly. Here, another question comes into play: Which concern am I responding to?

Peter may want to be seen as reliable. Anna may want to send out the documents on time. There could be room for both concerns in the conversation if they were voiced.

His question and a possible reply from Anna could look like this:

1. P

   Peter

   “I am not quite sure how you mean that. What do you need from me?”

2. A

   Anna

   “I want to send out the documents at noon. Can you finish by then, or should I send them later?”

That would give them a concrete point to work through together. If her tone still bothers him, he can return to that as well:

“That came across as a criticism to me. Are you unhappy with how I am handling this?”

That takes courage. After all, the answer could be “Yes.” Then the dissatisfaction would be out in the open, and they could discuss what each had expected and what had been missing.

What I communicate

The scene can also be considered from Anna’s perspective. If I were in her position and preparing to send out the documents, I could state what I need straight away:

“I want to send out the presentation at noon. Can you add the figures by then?”

But perhaps I would genuinely be annoyed because we had agreed on an earlier time. Then asking about sending the presentation would express only part of my concern. I might also want to say:

“We agreed that it would be ready yesterday. I would have liked to know it was going to be late so that I could adjust my plans.”

This change of perspective helps me pause before speaking: What do I actually want to say to the other person? And does my wording make that clear?

The Schulz von Thun Institute addresses this idea in communication myth #1 (in German): the belief that clear, unambiguous wording is all it takes for communication to succeed. What this overlooks is that mutual understanding also depends on how the other person listens and interprets the message. Even an explicit request still has a relationship side. A clearer sentence can therefore help, but it does not rule out every possible misunderstanding or irritation.

And sometimes the irritation really does come from how people treat each other. I would want to address a belittling remark even if time pressure were behind it. Another possible reading does not undo it.

What I would like to take from the model is one question that has a place in everyday work: What are we talking about? The missing figures, the worry about the meeting, or whether we can rely on each other?

The four ears do not answer that question yet. But they can give me an idea of what I might want to ask next.