Knowledge & practice
Thinking on your feet: responding confidently and standing your ground
Thinking on your feet means being able to respond quickly and appropriately to an unexpected remark. In a professional conversation, however, the fastest answer is not automatically the most helpful. What matters is making your position clear, setting boundaries and keeping the purpose of the conversation in mind.
What do you want your response to achieve?
Before looking for a witty reply, ask a simpler question: what should my response make possible? You may want to understand an objection, stop a personal put-down or return to the subject. These goals call for different responses.
An unexpected comment may be a factual question, clumsy criticism or a deliberate attack. You do not have to guess the intention immediately. Start by responding to what was actually said, and ask for clarification if necessary. It is fine to pause briefly. You are not obliged to counter every remark with a comeback.
Three ways to respond in difficult moments
Ask for specifics: if criticism remains vague, ask for an identifiable point. “Which part of the proposal do you think is unworkable?” This gives you a question you can address on its merits.
State a boundary: when a remark becomes personal, you can address the way the discussion is being conducted. “I’m happy to discuss the proposal. Personal judgements won’t help us resolve this question.” Setting a boundary does not require a loud voice or a humorous line.
Return to the issue: briefly summarise the valid objection and identify the next step. “The time required is an important point. Let’s check which tasks would actually be additional.” This directs attention to a question that can be examined.
Exercise: one comment, three possible responses
Illustrative example, not a client case: during a meeting, someone says of your proposal, “That’s completely unrealistic.” Write down three responses. One should ask a question, one should explain your position and one should clarify what happens next.
Possible responses include: “Which prerequisite do you think is missing?”—“My proposal assumes that we prioritise task A. We should test that assumption.”—“Let’s compare the effort and the benefits before deciding.”
Read your answers aloud. Which suits your role and your natural way of speaking? Which allows the conversation to continue constructively? Then practise with another person who adds a specific objection. The aim is an appropriate response, not a memorised punchline.
Thinking on your feet and argumentation go together
A quick response can give you space to speak again. To continue the discussion, you need a position others can understand. Explain not just what you want, but why: a claim, a reason and an example provide a simple framework for practice.
Changing perspectives helps you understand objections more precisely. First, try to summarise the other position fairly. This does not mean agreeing with it. It creates a better basis for your response. The guide to the Debating Method and the collection of debate topics explore this approach further.
Frequently asked questions about thinking on your feet
Can I practise thinking on my feet? You can prepare for common situations, try out different responses and seek feedback on clarity, voice and impact. This cannot guarantee an appropriate response to every situation under pressure.
What if I cannot think of anything to say? You can ask for clarification or say that you would like a moment to think the point through. If someone crosses a boundary, you can also pause the conversation.
Do I have to respond with humour? No. Humour may suit the situation, but it can also be misunderstood or make a conflict worse. A calm question or a clearly stated boundary may serve the purpose of the conversation better.
In practice: responding confidently in university life
On LinkedIn, Marietta describes a workshop at Hochschule Kaiserslautern on derogatory and sexist remarks. She emphasises awareness, clarity about one’s own position and boundaries as the basis for an appropriate response.
In her own account, Marietta explains her approach to these challenging conversations.
Work on your own conversation challenge
Marietta Gädeke’s work combines debating experience, argumentation and strategic empathy. Her book “Pro und Kontra – Die Debating-Methode” and her articles on the professional application of debating provide insight into this background.
For individual preparation, your specific situation is the starting point: who is involved, what is at stake and what effect do you want to achieve? Briefly describe your needs when you get in touch. This helps establish whether individual coaching or training for your team is a suitable option.