Body Language Expert: 6 Psychological Tricks to Turn Awkwardness into Confidence

Mel reintroduces Vanessa Van Edwards, a behavioral researcher, bestselling author, founder of Science of People, and teacher in Harvard University’s Professional and Executive Development Program. Vanessa says high achievers share behavioral and communication patterns that function as “communication shortcuts”: they can say no to difficult people, reach goals while enjoying the process, and understand who they are well enough to communicate it clearly. She draws a sharp distinction between achievement and burnout. Burnout is not evidence of success; it usually means someone is saying yes to too much. High performers stretch their comfort zones, not their schedules. Vanessa divides daily energy into work energy—the energy used for tasks and goals—and social energy—the energy used for conversations, conflict, presenting ideas, and getting things done with other people. She urges listeners to identify what replenishes and drains each type. For Vanessa, one-to-one conversations and teaching are energizing, while small talk, including chatting with an Uber driver about the weather, is exhausting. The most draining relationships and tasks are not always openly toxic. Vanessa calls ambivalence—being unsure whether something is enjoyable or worthwhile—an “app running in the background.” She recommends listing people in three categories: stars for people you would rearrange your schedule to see, minus signs for people you dread seeing, and question marks for people you could forget to contact. She advises pausing the question-mark relationships and using the reclaimed time for people and activities that genuinely energize you.

Vanessa identifies three habits of effective people: they plan around both kinds of energy, use the Pygmalion effect, and actively cultivate liking. The Pygmalion effect comes from the story of Pygmalion bringing his statue to life; in research, positive expectations can become self-fulfilling. Vanessa says labels such as “You are a magician with presentations” or “You are so good at cooking dinner” give other people an expectation to live up to and can improve their behavior. She then describes research by Van Sloan on popularity among high-school students. Athletic ability, grades, attractiveness, and humor did not explain popularity as well as one pattern: the most-liked students had the longest lists of people they liked. They did not necessarily have long conversations with everyone; they acknowledged people in small moments, often by name. Vanessa’s conclusion is that likability is partly under our control. Instead of acting too cool to show affection, she recommends being a “first liker”—inviting people in, asking the first question, and telling people directly, “I like you.” The host and guest stress that this must be authentic. Research by Dr. Barbara Wild and colleagues found that people exposed to genuinely happy smiles experienced an improved mood, while people shown fake smiles experienced no mood change. Vanessa says faking it is not harmful in the short term, but it is less influential. She also cites Richard Wiseman’s smoothie demonstration: an actress who spilled a smoothie was rated more likable than when she performed perfectly. Small mistakes signal humanity, and admitting awkwardness or discomfort can make real connection easier.

Vanessa explains that people unconsciously angle their bodies toward whoever matters most to them, so she often identifies a room’s boss or a hidden crush by following people’s toes. Toes pointing toward the exit may instead reveal someone looking for an escape. Influential people also tend to claim physical space. Research on athletes across genders and races found that winners adopt an expansive pride pose after victory, but Vanessa focuses on subtler cues that listeners can use in ordinary situations. Her first key measurement is the distance between the earlobe and shoulder. Hunching the shoulders upward and turtling the neck protects the throat but also makes people feel less confident, reduces vocal power, and can produce vocal fry. Mel demonstrates the posture and describes feeling short of breath and defeated. Vanessa says the posture creates a feedback loop: the body signals danger to the brain, increasing cortisol and making dry mouth, blushing, reduced oxygen, and other awkwardness cues more likely. The practical correction is to pull the shoulders down and back, hold the head higher, and expose the jugular. Vanessa says this tells the brain, “We’re safe.” She recommends changing the way people use their phones, especially before a date, presentation, or meeting. Instead of bending over with the chin tucked and arms closed, hold the phone “up and out,” possibly resting an elbow on a table. This keeps the chest open and lets people rehearse a more confident state rather than accidentally practicing defeat and shame body language.

Vanessa’s second physical cue concerns the distance between the torso and the arms. Pinning the arms to the sides, rounding the chest, or crossing the arms creates a protective posture associated with anxiety and makes people more likely to speak in shorter sentences and say no. The evolutionary explanation is that the body is protecting vital organs and reducing its visible size. In contrast, a chair with armrests helps people broaden the chest and claim space. Vanessa favors swivel chairs because turning fully toward a speaker communicates respect and creates physical alignment. For the hands, Vanessa recommends a relaxed “steeple”: touch the fingertips together while keeping space between the palms. Leaders in videotaped studies were rated as more charismatic when they used this gesture. She cautions against drumming the fingers, which Mel jokes resembles Mr. Burns. A second gesture is rubbing the hands together before sharing something exciting; Vanessa says it can cue anticipation and conversational “heat.” The broader rule is to keep hands visible and use them to underline meaning. Vanessa says gestures are difficult to fake, which is why people often believe them more than words. Saying “three” while holding up five feels obviously wrong, whereas words alone can be manipulated more easily. She advises matching the gesture to the claim—showing a “big idea” with broad hands—and trying any new cue in three settings before deciding whether it feels natural. She also recommends speaking louder if vocal fry appears, since increased volume can interrupt the low, creaky pattern.

Vanessa says influence comes from three channels: nonverbal behavior, voice, and language. She describes a study in which participants played identical games, but one group was told it was the “community game” and another was told it was the “Wall Street game.” The Wall Street group shared about one-third of its profits, while the community group shared about two-thirds. Her conclusion is that a single word can prime different behavior. She applies this to calendar invitations. Generic labels such as “meeting,” “one-on-one,” “video call,” and especially “follow-up” leave people on autopilot. More purposeful labels—“collaborative session,” “goal meeting,” “mastery meeting,” “team collaboration,” “creative hour,” or “power-through day”—tell people how to approach the interaction. Another study used achievement words such as “master,” “success,” “win,” and “achieve” in task instructions. Participants who saw those words performed better, worked for twice as long, and enjoyed the task more. The same strategy applies to self-talk. Vanessa labels her own calendar blocks “Vanessa winning morning” and uses motivational language in her alarms rather than bland descriptions such as “writing block.” For conversation, she recommends replacing autopilot questions. Instead of “How are you?” ask “What’s good?” or “What’s been the highlight of your week?” Instead of “What do you do?” ask “Are you working on anything exciting?” She warns against “What’s your story?” with introverts and ambiverts because it can feel like an unexpected therapy session. Her research found “What personal passion project are you working on?” and “What was the highlight of your week?” among the highest-rated conversation starters.

Vanessa cites research covering 58,000 working hours across 11 companies: sitting within 25 feet of a high performer was associated with a 15% performance improvement, while sitting next to a low performer reduced performance by 30%. She says performance and confidence can be contagious. A separate sweat study supports the broader point: participants who smelled sweat from first-time skydivers showed fear-center activity in fMRI scans, even though they did not know what they were smelling. Vanessa’s recommendation is to manage both the people and the signals around you, beginning with your own emotional state so fear does not leak through micro-cues. She gives specific advice for networking events. The entrance, check-in table, coat area, and other “starting zones” are poor places to stand because newcomers are still orienting themselves, finding the bathroom, getting food, and surveying the room. Conversations there tend to be short and automatic. The best location is near the point where people exit the bar or drink line. Once someone has obtained a drink and turned back toward the room, they are psychologically anchored and ready to connect; a simple question such as “What kind of wine did you get?” can save them from standing alone. If attending alone, Vanessa recommends standing within the host’s eyeline so the host can introduce you to others, or near the most socially connected extrovert, who is likely to enjoy making introductions. Mel adds her own wedding strategy: standing near the door where caterers bring out food, joking that she befriends other people who are hungry. The location advice is ultimately about meeting people when they are ready, rather than pouncing on them while they are still orienting themselves.

Vanessa’s productivity exercise asks listeners to create four columns labeled A, B, C, and D. A work consists of tasks they perform better than most people, where they enter flow, feel energized, or are known for excellence. They should also list A people and social activities that make them feel authentic and replenished. B work includes tasks they can do adequately but are not exceptional at; Vanessa calls this the hardest category because capable people can spend a long time doing B work without recognizing that it is not their best use of energy. C work is average, somewhat clunky, or mildly embarrassing. D work is work they are worse at than most people, perform slowly, or make frequent mistakes doing. D people are those who drain energy, push boundaries, or create dread. Vanessa says the goal is not to pretend C and D work do not exist, but to give away as much B, C, and D work as possible and protect time for A work. Teams should also be built around complementary strengths rather than people who all have the same talents. Mel identifies her A work as ideation, motivation, content creation, recording, coaching on the fly, and business-development meetings, where she says she has a 100% close rate. Her C and D work includes organizing, punctuality, and spreadsheets. Vanessa warns that successful people can accidentally delegate their best work when they become busy, so Mel should preserve time for ideation and difficult closes. For unavoidable D work, Vanessa recommends acknowledging it and doing it together, such as a team “D work day” with music, food, and shared effort. The exercise also applies to goals. Vanessa says people should examine every project’s tasks rather than merely admiring its outcome. Someone may want to write a book because they want the identity of being an author, but not actually enjoy writing alone for months or marketing the book for years. Effective goals include enjoyable means as well as desirable ends. She closes by encouraging listeners to maintain a meaningful quest, avoid “if-then” happiness, and remember that burnout often means they need a different strategy—not that they are failing or not trying hard enough.