The Face Doesn't Tell You the Answer, It Tells You Where to Look
Written by Milos Rakic, Behaviour & Credibility Analyst
Milos Rakic specializes in Behaviour & Credibility Analysis in HR contexts. He helps organizations reduce bias and costly hiring mistakes by analyzing behavioural patterns, improving structured interviews, and enabling more evidence-based assessments of candidates and employees.
In negotiations, people carefully choose their words. Their behaviour is not always as carefully controlled. But noticing that something has changed is only the beginning. The real skill is knowing what to do next.
I remember sitting across from a member of a Chinese delegation during a negotiation when one tiny moment changed the direction of the conversation.
We had been discussing the terms of an agreement. The atmosphere was controlled, professional, and relatively restrained. Nothing unusual. Then came one particular point.
My counterpart responded with a short word: “Bù” (Chinese for “no”). At almost exactly the same moment, his nostrils visibly flared. I mean visibly. For a fraction of a second, the movement was so pronounced that it almost looked cartoonish.
That was interesting. Not because flared nostrils mean “no”. Not because they mean deception. Not because they prove anger, rejection, or disagreement. But because something had changed. In a negotiation, behavioural change deserves attention.
The words said “no”. The face told me to keep looking. This is where behavioural analysis is frequently misunderstood. People often want a translation manual.
If someone does X, it means Y. Touching the nose means lying. Crossed arms mean resistance. Looking away means insecurity. Flared nostrils mean anger.
Unfortunately, human behaviour does not work like that. What I observed during that negotiation was not an answer. It was information.
There was a verbal response and, at approximately the same moment, a noticeable physiological and facial change. That gave me a reason to become curious. It did not give me permission to become certain. This distinction is essential. The face does not tell you the answer. It tells you where to look.
Suppressed emotion is still behaviour
Negotiations are particularly interesting environments for behavioural observation because participants often have strong reasons to regulate what they show. The more consequential the negotiation, the more carefully words, tone and visible reactions may be controlled.
This can become especially pronounced in contexts where hierarchy, status, professionalism, cultural expectations or generational norms favour emotional restraint. Someone may have spent decades learning not to show irritation openly. That does not mean there is no emotional or physiological response. It means the response may be regulated.
Regulation itself can become interesting. A person may control their words while their breathing changes. They may maintain a neutral expression while tension appears elsewhere. Their response latency may increase. Speech may suddenly become more formal. The level of detail may change. A movement may become more pronounced. The interaction itself may shift.
But there is an important trap here. Seeing signs consistent with increased stress or emotional activation does not tell you what caused them. That is precisely where inexperienced observers can get themselves into trouble.
Stress is not a confession
Suppose you ask a difficult question during a negotiation and observe an immediate change. Your counterpart becomes tense. What does that mean?
Perhaps your proposal crossed a red line. Perhaps the person strongly disagrees. Perhaps they are worried about losing the deal. Perhaps they need approval from someone who is not in the room. Perhaps the financial terms create a problem. Perhaps they are frustrated with their own negotiating team. Perhaps your question inadvertently challenged status or face. Perhaps they simply need time to think.
The behavioural response alone cannot decide between those explanations. This principle extends far beyond negotiations. A nervous job candidate is not necessarily hiding something. A stressed employee is not necessarily resistant. An uncomfortable interviewee is not necessarily deceptive. A calm person is not necessarily telling the truth.
Arousal is information. It is not a verdict. That distinction can determine whether behavioural observation improves a conversation or destroys it.
What do you do when something doesn't fit?
Back in that negotiation, I had a choice. I could have interpreted the reaction internally: He doesn't like this. Or worse: I've caught something.
Neither would have been particularly useful. Instead, the behavioural change became a working hypothesis. Something about that moment appeared significant.
So the next task was not interpretation. It was verification. This is where behavioural analysis and interviewing become inseparable. If I observe something meaningful but do not know how to adapt my communication afterward, the observation has limited practical value.
I need another question. Perhaps a different formulation. Perhaps I need to revisit the subject indirectly. Perhaps I need to change the sequence. Perhaps I should reduce pressure. Perhaps I should increase specificity. Perhaps I need to offer an alternative and observe what changes.
In other words, I need to adapt the interview or negotiation strategy and test my hypothesis. That is where people-reading becomes professionally useful.
Don't confront the behaviour, test the hypothesis
One of the biggest mistakes after noticing a behavioural change would be to announce it.
“I can see that made you uncomfortable.”
“You became nervous when I mentioned the price.”
“Your face tells me you don't agree.”
Congratulations. You have just contaminated your own observation. The person is now aware that they are being analysed. Their subsequent behaviour may reflect that awareness rather than the original issue. Worse, you may have been wrong.
A more sophisticated approach is usually less theatrical. Continue the conversation. Change one variable. Explore the topic differently. Ask for clarification. Introduce another option. Return to the issue later. Then observe again.
Does a similar response occur around the same subject?
Does the behaviour disappear when one component of the proposal changes?
Does another topic produce the same reaction?
Does verbal information begin to support or contradict your hypothesis?
Now you are no longer “reading body language”. You are testing information. That distinction matters enormously.
The communication channel most people underuse
When people think about communication, they tend to focus primarily on words. What was said? Which argument was used? What information was disclosed?
But communication operates across several channels simultaneously. Words are one. Voice is another. Facial behaviour is another. Body movement provides additional information. Timing matters. Interaction style matters. Perhaps most interestingly, these channels do not always change together.
Someone can say, “That's fine,” while their facial behaviour changes. They can say, “I have no problem with that,” while their response timing suddenly increases. They can agree verbally while becoming noticeably less engaged in the interaction.
Again, none of those observations prove what the person thinks. But when one communication channel changes while another remains stable, I become interested.
Incongruence is not proof of deception. It is an invitation to investigate. That is a far more useful principle.
Negotiations are not won by spotting microexpressions
There is a seductive fantasy surrounding behavioural analysis: the expert notices a tiny facial movement, instantly understands the opponent's secret position and wins the negotiation. It makes excellent television. Real negotiations are more complicated.
The objective is not to collect behavioural “tells”. It is to integrate behavioural information into the broader interaction.
What was being discussed when the change occurred?
What happened immediately before it?
Was the reaction unique?
Can it be reproduced?
Does verbal information support the hypothesis? What alternative explanations remain?
Most importantly, what should I do differently because I observed it?
Without that final question, behavioural observation becomes little more than an interesting party trick.
What happened in the negotiation?
I did not confront my counterpart about his face. I did not tell the delegation that I had “detected” disagreement. I certainly did not assume that one visible reaction had revealed their negotiating position.
I adapted. I explored. I changed how I approached the relevant issue and continued testing whether my interpretation made sense within the wider conversation. Gradually, the information became clearer.
The initial behavioural change had pointed me towards an area that required more attention, but it was the subsequent communication that allowed the negotiation to move forward. Eventually, we found common ground.
The agreement was reached, and the contract was concluded. Would that have happened without noticing the facial behaviour? Perhaps. That is impossible to know.
But noticing it gave me information that I could use to make a better decision about what to explore next. That is the real value of behavioural analysis in negotiation. Not knowing what another person thinks. Knowing where to become curious.
The skill is not seeing more, it is testing better
This is also why I spend so much time working with video analysis and practical exercises when training behavioural observation. Seeing facial behaviour is only the first level. The harder questions come afterward.
What exactly did you see?
When did it occur?
What happened immediately beforehand?
Which communication channel changed?
What are you interpreting?
What alternative explanations exist?
How could you test them without contaminating the interaction?
Those questions transform observation into a professional skill.
With video, we can stop at a fraction of a second that would normally disappear in conversation. We can replay it, compare what happened before and afterward, and separate observation from interpretation.
Then we have to take that skill back into live interaction. Because during a real negotiation, nobody presses pause. You still need to listen, think, observe, respond, manage the relationship, and decide what to ask next.
That is why recognising facial behaviour alone is never enough. Observation without communication strategy is incomplete.
What should you look for in your next negotiation?
Ironically, I would not recommend entering your next meeting searching for flared nostrils, microexpressions, or any other specific behaviour. You will probably find what you are looking for, and that is exactly the problem.
Instead, establish what normal interaction looks like for the person in front of you. Then pay attention to change.
When does their communication become different? Which topic preceded the change? Did only one channel change, or several? Does it happen again?
Most importantly, resist the temptation to immediately explain what you have observed.
Replace:
“I know what that means.”
With:
“That’s interesting. How could I test it?”
That one question can fundamentally change how you conduct a negotiation. Because the most valuable moment may not be when someone says something revealing. It may be the moment when one communication channel quietly tells you something that deserves another question. Sometimes, that additional question is where the real negotiation begins.
Read more from Milos Rakic
Milos Rakic, Behaviour & Credibility Analyst
Milos Rakic specializes in Behaviour & Credibility Analysis, with a focus on HR, structured interviews, and high-stakes interpersonal decisions. His work addresses a common challenge in organizations: people are often assessed through intuition, first impressions, and assumptions rather than systematic evidence. Drawing on his background in human resources, psychological counselling, and behavioural analysis, he helps professionals recognize behavioural patterns, reduce bias, and ask better questions when credibility matters. His approach combines behavioural observation, interview methodology, and credibility assessment to support more reliable decisions.
