Kennan doesn't improvise. Every prompt traces back to a named framework — peer-reviewed research or established practice — so you know why the move works. Nine domains, 63 entries, every one anchored so the in-app assistant can cite it directly.
What the room is grading is whether you can describe what you did in a way the room can use. Structure is what makes that possible.
A behavioral-interview scaffold that pushes the speaker from anecdote into evidence the interviewer can grade. The Action step carries about sixty percent of the answer.
DDI (1974) · Janz, J. Applied Psychology (1982) · McDaniel et al. meta-analysis (1994)
When the prompt collapses Situation and Task, or asks explicitly about a problem, an obstacle, or what you would do differently, the variant fits the question better than the parent.
Practitioner extensions of the structured-behavioral-interview literature.
Used in government, NHS, and large corporate hiring. The candidate's job is to read the published framework, build a STAR bank around each named competency, and mirror the keyword in the opening sentence.
McClelland, American Psychologist (1973) · Campion, Palmer & Campion (1997)
Twenty seconds on the current role, twenty-five on how you got here, twenty on why this role next. First impressions stick across the rest of the interview.
Lily Zhang (2015) · Dougherty, Turban & Callender (1994) · Barrick, Swider & Stewart, JAP (2010)
When the question touches age, family, religion, citizenship, or salary history in a ban state, restate it as the lawful concern underneath and answer that.
Title VII, ADEA, ADA, PDA, GINA, USERRA · state ban-the-box and salary-history laws
Reporting your thoughts out loud while you solve does not slow you down and makes chunking visible. Interviewers grade the chunking as much as the answer.
Ericsson & Simon, Protocol Analysis (1980) · Berardi-Coletta et al., JEP (1995) · Chase & Simon (1973)
First offers capture fifty to eighty-five percent of final-outcome variance. Precise numbers outperform round ones; ranges that bolster upward outperform points.
Galinsky & Mussweiler, JPSP (2001) · Mason et al. (2013) · Ames & Mason (2015)
Self-promotion outperforms ingratiation in interviews; the pattern reverses once you are in the seat. Narcissistic self-promotion is detected and discounted.
Stevens & Kristof (1995) · Barrick, Shaffer & DeGrassi, JAP (2009) · Higgins, Judge & Ferris (2003)
Acknowledging a real negative before a genuine strength increases the credibility of the strength. The humble-brag is detected as a strategic weakness and discounted.
Ward & Brenner, Psych Sci (2006) · Aronson, Willerman & Floyd (1966) · Paulhus et al. (2013)
Hard conversations don't get easier, they get more legible. These are the moves that keep the conversation in the room rather than in the corridor.
A way to surface what you actually want from a hard conversation without escalating it. Observation has to be factual; the feeling has to be a feeling, not a label of the other person.
Rosenberg, Nonviolent Communication (1999, 3rd ed. 2015)
When stakes are high, opinions differ, and emotions are strong. Watch for the speaker moving into silence (masking, avoiding, withdrawing) or violence (controlling, labeling, attacking).
Patterson, Grenny, McMillan & Switzler, Crucial Conversations (2002, 3rd ed. 2021)
Persistent disagreement that won't yield to facts is usually two of these three layers underneath. The And Stance lets the speaker hold competence and a mistake at the same time.
Stone, Patton & Heen, Harvard Negotiation Project (1999, 3rd ed. 2023)
Two axes of assertiveness and cooperativeness. No mode wins universally; fit to the situation matters more than the choice itself.
Thomas & Kilmann, Ed. Psych. Measurement (1974, 1977)
The behaviors most predictive of relationships ending. Useful for spotting the failure mode in real time and reaching for the matched antidote.
Gottman & Levenson · Gottman & Silver (1999) · Gottman, Coan, Carrère & Swanson (1998)
When you have a clear request or refusal but feel anxious, passive, or people-pleasing. Pairs with GIVE for the relationship and FAST for self-respect.
Linehan, DBT Skills Training Manual (1993, 2nd ed. 2015)
Any complaint, grievance, or boundary-setting moment. Watch for the pseudo-I-statement that smuggles a judgment in: 'I feel that you are X.'
Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training (1970) · Kubany et al. (1992, 1995)
When the speaker is emotional or feels unheard. People do not accept solutions until they feel understood; this is the gating move before any problem-solving.
Rogers & Farson (1957) · Weger et al., IJL (2014)
Most negotiation losses aren't to the counterpart, they're to the urge to get it over with. These are the moves that buy you the next minute.
Positional bargaining deadlock or relationship-critical multi-issue deals. Carries BATNA, ZOPA, and WATNA as its working vocabulary.
Fisher, Ury & Patton, Getting to Yes (1981, 3rd ed. 2011)
The alternative that decides whether you stay at the table. If your BATNA is stronger than the offer, the offer is the wrong one.
Fisher & Ury, Getting to Yes (1981)
When the counterpart is emotional, irrational, or in a stronger position. Aim for 'that's right,' not 'you're right.'
Voss, Never Split the Difference (2016)
Move first when you have ZOPA information and a strong BATNA. Move second when the information asymmetry is against you.
Tversky & Kahneman, Science (1974) · Galinsky & Mussweiler, JPSP (2001) · Janiszewski & Uy (2008)
Multi-issue deals with different priorities and an ongoing relationship. Logrolling is the move; perspective-taking finds the trades.
Walton & McKersie (1965) · Thompson, Psych Bulletin (1990) · Galinsky et al., Psych Sci (2008)
When you need a meaningful concession from a counterpart who is not going to grant the first ask. Pair every concession of yours with a request for theirs.
Cialdini et al., JPSP (1975) · Feeley, Anker & Aloe (2012) · Genschow et al., JPSP (2021)
Multi-issue deals with an uncooperative counterpart. Two or three packages of equal value to you reveal the counterpart's priorities through their preference.
Leonardelli, Gu, McRuer, Medvec & Galinsky, OBHDP (2019)
When the disagreement is about what will happen, not about what each side wants. Surfaces bluffing and reduces the need for trust.
Bazerman & Gillespie, HBR (1999) · Malhotra & Bazerman, Negotiation Genius (2007)
A complex sale is a long conversation about whether the buyer can describe the problem to themselves. Help them do that, and the sale tends to take care of itself.
The question sequence that moves a buyer from acknowledging a pain to wanting the thing that addresses it. Implication is the differentiator between top and average performers.
Rackham, SPIN Selling (1988), from a 35,000-call Huthwaite study
Complex B2B with an entrenched status quo or commoditization risk. Used at the top of the conversation, before discovery, to reframe how the buyer sees the problem.
Dixon & Adamson, The Challenger Sale (2011), from a CEB study of 6,000 reps
Whenever the prospect tries to seize control by asking price early or requesting a proposal ahead of qualification. The prospect should be talking seventy percent of the time.
Sandler (1967) · Sandler & Mattson (2017)
Enterprise qualification across the life of a complex deal. MEDDPICC adds Paper Process and Competition; both treat 'do nothing' as a real competitor.
Dunkel, Napoli & McMahon at PTC (1996) · MEDDIC Academy
Low self-orientation is the biggest lever. The seller who tells a buyer they are not the right fit usually earns more trust, and often more business, than the seller who pushes.
Maister, Green & Galford, The Trusted Advisor (2000)
Any objection. The Explore step is what separates a real response from a trained one; without it, you are answering the wrong question.
Carew, You'll Never Get No for an Answer (1987)
Transactional and mid-market triage. Increasingly weak in enterprise SaaS, where budgets are created mid-cycle and buying committees average more than six stakeholders.
IBM (1950s–60s) · Gartner (modern critique)
When the buyer cannot describe the cost of the status quo. The bigger the gap you can help them see, the bigger the sale that can land in it.
Keenan, Gap Selling (2018)
Persuasion is mostly the geometry of attention: who is listening, how hard, with what stake. Pick the right route and the same argument lands twice.
The standard taxonomy of compliance moves, with decades of replication behind each principle. Unity, the seventh, is shared identity rather than mere similarity.
Cialdini, Influence (1984, updated 2021) · Pre-Suasion (2016)
Pathos outperforms pure statistics on intention change; logos dominates under high elaboration; ethos sets the ceiling on either. Best work balances all three.
Aristotle, Rhetoric · Green & Brock, JPSP (2000) · Petty & Wegener (1998)
High motivation and ability route the audience through argument quality; low motivation routes them through cues. The route the audience is on decides the kind of argument that lands.
Petty & Cacioppo (1986) · Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann (1983)
Loss aversion runs at roughly 2.25 to 1. Use loss frames to drive action, gain frames to encourage conservative choices, and watch the reference point.
Tversky & Kahneman, Science (1981) · McNeil et al. (1982) · Rothman & Salovey (1997)
Competence has to be established first. Off-domain, low-stakes flaws raise likability; the pattern reverses for low-competence speakers.
Aronson, Willerman & Floyd (1966)
FITD goes small to big and works through self-perception. DITF goes big to moderate and works through reciprocal concession. Same direction of escalation, different mechanism.
Freedman & Fraser (1966) · Cialdini et al. (1975) · Burger (1999)
Feedback that sticks is feedback the recipient can act on. The frameworks below all converge on the same instruction: aim at the work, not at the person.
When the feedback has to land as observable rather than evaluative. Intent inquiry stops the message from collapsing into accusation.
Center for Creative Leadership
Map yourself on the 2x2 before the conversation. Solicit before you give; criticize in private; never deliver corrective feedback over email.
Scott, Radical Candor (2017)
Especially useful with successful executives who resist negative feedback. The instruction is to thank, not to defend, the suggestion.
Goldsmith (early 2000s)
Use when the conversation needs visible scaffolding. Pendleton's strict order can feel formulaic; in clinical contexts it evolved into ALOBA.
Various practitioner sources · Carroll (2014) · Pendleton et al. (1984)
When you cannot hear feedback, one of these three is in the way. Switchtracking onto the messenger is the most common failure; separating the two is the move.
Stone & Heen, Thanks for the Feedback (2014)
The empirical spine under nearly every framework on this page. About thirty-eight percent of feedback interventions decrease performance, and the predictor of decrease is direction of attention.
Kluger & DeNisi, Psych Bulletin (1996), 607 effects · Mueller & Dweck, JPSP (1998)
Steel-manning, then disagreeing, is more useful than winning. These are the moves for taking criticism in stride and pushing back without escalating.
Before you rebut, restate the strongest version of their claim, list points of agreement, and name what you learned. Then disagree.
Wilson (1959) · Davidson (1973) · Dennett, Intuition Pumps (2013) · Caplan ITT (2011)
Brainstorming and early-stage ideation, where reflexive 'no, but' kills the room. Moves the conversation toward construction without forcing literal agreement.
Spolin · Leonard & Yorton, Yes, And (2015) · Felsman et al., Thinking Skills & Creativity (2020)
When the counterpart is ambivalent and the righting reflex is pulling you to fix or persuade. The autonomy-emphasizing reframe usually outperforms the argument.
Miller & Rollnick, Motivational Interviewing (4th ed. 2023), 200+ RCTs
When the disagreement sits below the level of the argument. Paul Graham's hierarchy is a useful ladder for diagnosing how high or low the conversation is currently aimed.
Beck & Ellis (CBT lineage) · Paul & Elder · Graham, How to Disagree (2008)
Words that quietly cost you the room. The research is mostly about the discount they apply to your credibility before you've made your point.
Flag when the speaker is asserting expertise or presenting owned data. Preserve during face-threatening acts and genuine epistemic uncertainty.
Lakoff (1975) · Erickson et al. (1978) · Durik et al. (2008) · Carli (1990)
Six markers that compound. Powerless-style speakers are rated lower on credibility, attractiveness, and acceptance; powerless forms also impair message memory.
Erickson, Lind, Johnson & O'Barr, JESP (1978) · Hosman & Siltanen (2006)
Increases liking and interaction smoothness; in negotiation, instructed mimics secured higher individual and joint outcomes. Do not mirror fillers, accents, or aggression.
Chartrand & Bargh, JPSP (1999) · Maddux, Mullen & Galinsky, JESP (2008) · Ireland et al., Psych Sci (2011)
Higher status uses less 'I,' more 'we' and 'you.' Excessive 'I' in leadership contexts is worth flagging; 'we' for collective framing, 'you' for engagement.
Pennebaker, Secret Life of Pronouns (2011) · Kacewicz, Pennebaker et al., JLSP (2014)
Below 110 wpm reads as less credible; fast speech can hurt strong arguments under high involvement; falling intonation signals confidence, rising undermines it.
Miller, Maruyama, Beaber & Valone, JPSP (1976) · Smith & Shaffer (1991, 1995) · Duvall et al. (2014)
Effect is strongest in the first two weeks of a relationship and near-zero once expectations are established. Trained Pygmalion is weaker than natural; do not over-trust it.
Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968) · Eden & Shani (1982) · Kierein & Gold (2000)
Safe ground: mimicry, speaking rate, pronouns, expectation language. Do not build confident recommendations on single social-priming findings.
Meyer & Schvaneveldt · Fazio · Doyen et al. (2012) · Shanks et al. (2013)
Replace 'just' with the request, 'sorry to bother you' with 'thanks for your patience,' and 'actually' with the actual fact, when the speaker has standing.
Leanse (2015) · Schumann & Ross, Psych Sci (2010) · Schumann, Ritchie & Forest, PSPB (2023)
Most presentation failures are structural, not delivery failures. These are the structures that hold up under load.
Working-memory chunk capacity sits around three to four. Use for opens, closes, taglines, and key-point structures.
Aristotle · Cicero · Cowan (2001) · Carlson & Shu (2014)
Persuasive speeches asking for specific behavior change. Audiences rate it as more organized, and organized messages are perceived as more credible.
Monroe, Principles of Speech (1935) · McCroskey & Mehrley (1969)
Executive communication and time-constrained audiences. Think bottom-up; present top-down. Every slide headline states the conclusion, not the topic.
Minto, The Minto Pyramid Principle (1987)
Primacy dominates with delay before decision; recency dominates with delay between messages and decision after the second. Sequence is a weapon either way.
Hovland (1957) · Miller & Campbell, JASP (1959)
Story exposure shifts beliefs (r = .17), attitudes (r = .19), intentions (r = .17), and behaviors (r = .23). Holds across fiction and non-fiction.
Green & Brock, JPSP (2000) · Braddock & Dillard meta-analysis (2016)
Eighteen-minute talks with a single Big Idea. No single RCT validates the structure; it integrates several elements that are individually well-supported.
Duarte, Resonate (2010)