The Myth of Reading the Room

You’re leading a meeting, scanning the room (or the Zoom grid). You notice someone with their arms crossed. Another person hasn’t looked up from their notes. Someone else hasn’t spoken in ten minutes.

Your gut reaction: They’re disengaged. Something’s wrong.

Here’s the truth: You can’t trust body language to tell you how people feel—especially when it comes to trust. Relying on it can lead to faulty assumptions, broken connections, and a team that feels misunderstood.

Let’s talk about why.

Why Assessing Body Language Isn't Assessing Trust

We’ve been taught that nonverbal cues are universal indicators of mood, trust, or engagement. Folded arms mean resistance. Limited eye contact means discomfort. Silence means disengagement.

But Interaction Adaptation Theory—and basic human diversity—tells us this is oversimplified. What you think you see often has nothing to do with trust or connection.

1. Body Language Isn’t Universal

People’s nonverbal behaviors are shaped by individual, cultural, and neurodivergent differences:

• Neurodivergence: Some individuals (e.g., autistic, ADHD, or anxious team members) may not make typical eye contact or might fidget when focused.
• Cultural Differences: In some cultures, direct eye contact can be seen as confrontational, not respectful.
• Individual Preferences: Folded arms might mean “I’m cold,” not “I’m closed off.”

Real World Example: A team member on Zoom looks away and doesn’t make eye contact. A facilitator assumes they’re uninterested. In reality, the person is neurodivergent and listening more deeply without the distraction of direct gaze.

The result? The facilitator’s incorrect assumption strains trust further.

2. Caution Is Still Movement In Your Direction

Crossed arms, quiet responses, or stillness don’t necessarily mean disengagement—they might mean caution. When people don’t yet feel psychologically safe, they’re often:

• Observing to understand the group dynamic.
• Self-monitoring to avoid mistakes or missteps.

The Problem: When facilitators treat these behaviors as evidence of resistance, they often double down—cold calling, pushing for participation, or trying to “break the ice.” This pressure creates more discomfort, not less.

3. Body Language Is Contextual

Context matters. Someone folding their arms in a freezing conference room is not signaling distrust. Someone staying quiet in a room where the loudest voices dominate may not feel safe speaking up—but it’s not their body language that’s the problem.

Interaction Adaptation Theory explains that behavior patterns (like matching tone or synchrony) happen within boundaries of trust and safety. Without psychological safety, people default to behaviors that protect them—like stillness, silence, or minimization.

If you misinterpret these protective actions as disengagement, you’re mistaking survival for resistance.

So, How Do You Assess Trust?

If you can’t rely on body language, how do you know if trust exists on your team? You look at observable patterns of behavior over time.

Here are three reliable indicators of trust:

1. Participation Patterns

   • Are team members contributing in ways that feel natural for them?
   • Low Trust Signal: People consistently defer to others, stay silent, or avoid risk-taking.
   • What to Do: Use low-risk, anonymous tools like Miro to invite contributions without spotlighting individuals.

   Example: In a meeting, instead of asking people to share verbally, ask them to post ideas on a Miro board. It reduces pressure and still gathers everyone’s voice.

2. Willingness to Ask for Help or Clarification

   • Are people admitting when they’re stuck or need more information?
   • Low Trust Signal: People remain silent or pretend to understand to avoid looking unprepared.
   • What to Do: Normalize asking questions by modeling it yourself. “I’m not clear on this part—can we walk through it together?”

3. Feedback Dynamics

   • Do team members give and receive feedback constructively?
   • Low Trust Signal: Feedback is avoided, overly formal, or met with defensiveness.
   • What to Do: Start small. Use structured, low-stakes prompts like:
     • “What’s one thing we could try to improve our meetings?”

Breaking the Body Language Trap

Instead of scanning for crossed arms or silence, focus on behaviors that truly reflect trust:

• Are people showing up and contributing in their own way?
• Are they engaging in shared goals, even quietly?
• Are you making it safe for them to be honest?

Stop interpreting body language as a signal of trust—or lack of it. By focusing on observable actions and creating low-risk opportunities for engagement, you build trust instead of breaking it.

Reading body language feels intuitive, but it’s often misleading. To build real trust, you need to look beyond physical cues and create spaces where people feel safe to contribute—however they choose to show up.

Because trust isn’t found in crossed arms or eye contact. It’s found in what people do when they know they’re safe.

This post is the first in a series about why traditional icebreakers often do more harm than good. In the next post, I’ll share practical strategies leaders and facilitators can use to ensure all team members—no matter their comfort level, communication style, or background—have meaningful ways to show up, contribute, and engage.