"Communication is predominantly nonverbal. Whether we realize it or not, people assess our authority, competence, confidence, and trustworthiness through body language long before we speak." - Joe Navarro
Anna Cajot, Negotiation Conference Director at the Schranner Negotiation Institute, sits down with Joe Navarro, a leading expert in body language and nonverbal communication. Drawing from his 25-year career as an FBI agent specializing in counterintelligence and behavioral assessment, Joe was a founding member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Program and has conducted over 13,000 interviews.
Beyond his work in law enforcement, Joe’s expertise spans leadership, influence, and human behavior, which he now applies in consulting for global organizations. He is also a bestselling author, known for books such as What Every BODY is Saying and Be Exceptional. A highly sought-after speaker and educator, he has lectured at prestigious institutions, including Harvard Business School
In the world of high-stakes negotiations, power struggles and deadlocks are inevitable. The ability to navigate these moments effectively can determine success or failure. As we prepare for the Negotiation Conference 2025, which will focus on breaking deadlocks, we have the privilege of speaking with Joe Navarro, an expert in nonverbal communication and negotiation tactics. With his extensive experience, Joe shares valuable insights into leveraging nonverbal cues, managing power dynamics, rebuilding trust, and handling difficult personalities in negotiations.
Anna Cajot: Thank you for joining me, Joe. This is an exciting interview, and the topics we will discuss are particularly relevant as we prepare for the upcoming N-Conference. One of the core themes of the event is understanding and overcoming deadlocks in negotiations. In our framework, a deadlock is primarily seen as a power struggle, and as you know, in high-stakes negotiations, the way one projects power can shape the entire tone of the discussion. What advice would you give negotiators on leveraging nonverbal communication to assert or equalize power during negotiations?
Joe Navarro: The first and most important thing to recognize is that communication is predominantly nonverbal. Whether we realize it or not, people assess our authority, competence, confidence, and trustworthiness through body language long before we speak. Power in negotiations is often an interplay of subtle nonverbal cues: who enters the room first, where they sit, how many people they bring, and even the objects they carry. These elements all contribute to how power is perceived and felt.
Let me give you an example. I remember a negotiation I worked on years ago where the insurance company had sent six lawyers to meet with me and one attorney. Immediately, the sheer number of their team created a psychological imbalance. We were outnumbered, which was an intentional move to project dominance. However, we refused to be overwhelmed. I quickly approached the receptionist and asked her to assign us the smallest room available. The effect was immediate: the insurance company's team could not physically fit in the space, forcing them to reduce their presence to just two lawyers. In that moment, we subtly neutralized their power play without needing to argue about it.
Another thing many forget: “Whoever controls time, controls.” This is a quote from one of my books. A negotiator who dictates the timing of meetings, decides when breaks are taken, and forces the other party to wait is subtly asserting power. I have seen negotiating teams use this to their advantage by exhausting their opponents with prolonged questioning or delayed responses. These tactics are deliberate ways to manage perceptions of power, often without saying a single word.
In the negotiation room, simple body language adjustments can have profound effects. Maintaining eye contact, sitting upright, using expansive gestures, and even steepling (where the fingertips are brought together to form a shape like a church steeple) can project confidence and authority. Conversely, avoiding eye contact, slouching, or shifting uncomfortably, or self-touching to deal with stress can signal weakness. The key is awareness; negotiators must be mindful of how they present themselves and how their counterparts are positioning themselves in return.
Anna Cajot: What would you advise negotiators to do when both parties believe they are in a position of power and try to assert dominance over each other? How can such a power struggle be resolved?
Joe Navarro: That is where things can become challenging, but also where skilled negotiators can shine. Ina deadlock situation, both parties have tested each other’s limits, often aggressively, and there comes a point where the focus must shift from dominance to resolution. The key is to identify when the means of communication and strategies thus far used are no longer effective.
One of the best strategies is to de-escalate. When tension is high, a skilled negotiator will take a step back, literally and figuratively. This does not mean conceding power, but rather signaling a willingness to move forward. A simple shift in posture, such as angling your chair slightly or relaxing your facial expression, can signal a change in approach. Tilting the head or nodding in agreement as someone else speaks subtly communicates openness to dialogue. These are not random gestures; they are cues that the brain interprets as signs of cooperation.
Verbal strategies also play a role. Instead of continuing an aggressive back-and-forth, a negotiator might say, “Let’s focus on the numbers. What exactly are you willing to accept? Or What can you and your board live with?” This shifts the conversation from a power contest to a transactional discussion.
Another effective technique is to propose a short break or even suggest stepping outside for a walk. Physical movement disrupts the adversarial atmosphere and creates an opportunity for a reset. It also helps to change the dynamic especially if many people are involved in negotiations.
Another crucial element is recognizing and rewarding cooperative behaviors. Many people forget that nonverbal reinforcement is just as powerful as verbal affirmation. If the opposing party begins to relax their stance, it is important to respond in kind, mirroring their posture, softening their tone, and maintaining a neutral or pleasant facial expression. This fosters a psychological environment where both sides feel more comfortable moving towards agreement.
Anna Cajot: Your answer naturally leads us to another critical theme – trust. How do you see the relationship between power and trust? Do you believe that letting go of some power is essential for building a strong and trusting relationship?
Joe Navarro: That is a profound question. Trust is the foundation of any negotiation, and interestingly, the brain does not perceive power in the way we typically think. In biology, we talk about hierarchy rather than power. Some people are naturally granted authority based on intellect, experience, or other factors, while others attempt to assert dominance through force or manipulation.
Trust, however, is built through consistency and reliability. In some cultures, trust is based on pedigree or reputation, while in others, it is established through demonstrated competence. Studies have shown that even infants as young as eleven months old can assess trustworthiness based on observed behavior. The brain constantly evaluates trust, and it is not enough to simply claim it; it must be demonstrated.
One of the fastest ways to break trust in negotiations is to be perceived as deceptive or inconsistent. Once trust is lost, it is not easily regained, and in high-stakes negotiations, a lack of trust can derail even the most promising deals. This is why negotiators must be mindful not only of what they say but also of how they behave. Everything from punctuality to following through on commitments contributes to trustworthiness.
To build or rebuild trust, one must acknowledge concerns directly. A negotiator might say, “I understand something happened, and while you may not believe me right now, I had no part in that. However, I’m committed to doing whatever it takes to rebuild your trust.” More importantly, actions must reinforce these words. This means being transparent, delivering on promises, and consistently demonstrating integrity through both verbal and nonverbal behavior.
Anna Cajot: In deadlock situations, we often advise our clients to conduct two parallel negotiations: one formal and one informal, or backchannel. Trust plays a crucial role in backchannel negotiations. What is your perspective on this approach?
Joe Navarro: Backchannel negotiations are incredibly effective, and history is full of examples where they have played a crucial role in resolving high-stakes conflicts. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a perfect example. While the world watched the formal negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, a backchannel dialogue between Bobby Kennedy and the Russian Foreign Minister led to a solution.
In practice, backchannel negotiations allow for honest and less adversarial discussions. The key is to send individuals who already have an established relationship with the other side. We refer to these individuals as facilitators, and they play a crucial role while the rest of the team focuses on the formal negotiation process.
The backchannel typically becomes relevant after discussions in the main negotiation room have played out. It can be as simple as a private phone call between two individuals, asking, “How do we find a resolution to this?” However, it is critical to protect the information exchanged through the backchannel. In some cases, the methods and channels of communication need to be safeguarded. Additionally, understanding how to navigate these conversations effectively is key. One common agreement reached through the backchannel often revolves around the question: “How do we align our teams on this decision?”
I recall a challenging negotiation with a team from the Middle East that presented a particularly interesting dynamic. The CEO supported the deal, but his executive team opposed it. I remember speaking with his Chief of Staff and asking for her perspective on how to move forward. She advised me to call him on Sunday while he was at home, away from the influence of his team. During our conversation, we agreed that he would later announce, “I reflected on this over the weekend, and this is the decision I’ve made,” without disclosing that we had discussed it beforehand. He followed through exactly as planned. This is the essence of a backchannel agreement – figuring out how to bring a decision to light without exposing the behind-the-scenes discussions that led to it.
So, the backchannel proves to be a powerful tool. However, it’s equally important to ensure that nothing said or done during formal negotiations creates unnecessary hostility. A scorched-earth approach, where relationships are damaged beyond repair is counterproductive. One principle I always emphasize is to leave negotiations in a way that makes the other party willing to engage again in the future. Even if a negotiation is tough, it should conclude in a manner that both sides can ultimately accept.
Anna Cajot: Thank you for your time, Joe. It’s been a pleasure gaining insight into your work, and I truly appreciate you sharing your strategies and expertise.
We’re thrilled to have you join us at the Negotiation Conference 2025 and to lead a workshop as well as deliver a keynote. I'm confident it will be an incredible opportunity for our attendees to learn from you!
Find out more about the Negotiation Conference: https://www.n-conference.com/conference/zurich