Probably. it would be an action - or you could run it as a separate conflict going on simultaneously...whatever you think fits the scenario.
Or a single roll is fine too. Just remember that maneuvers are transient.
If doing a maneuver would take an enemy out of the combat permanently, then it probably shouldn't be a maneuver. It should be an attack.
To relate it to pathfinder, if convincing a cowardly minion to flee or turn on his boss might be a single roll then it could be done as a maneuver or 'consequential contest' (YS pg. 193).
But There will be situations where you just can`t convince a minion to help you and, just because your bard has +20 to diplomacy, it doesn`t mean he can `defeat' every encounter with a skill check. In that situation, you may have to do an extended social conflict or just say it won't work.
Convincing the boss to surrender might require more than one roll. It might be the whole social encounter. Or maybe you have to fight him first and, when he`s losing, use diplomacy or intimidation to get him to surrender.
Note: sometimes, with especially powerful maneuvers - usually done by a wizard - I might allow a maneuver to take out an enemy.
One example is putting Power 10 'collapsed roof' on a scene and invoking it for effect. If a Power 10 evocation attack would automatically take out an enemy, it's probably fair to say that the roof has collapsed and crushed or pinned that same enemy. But this is GM discretion. NPCs can concede at any time.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the many options available in any given encounter.
Yeah, there's no right or best way. Do what flows best and what your table thinks is cool and fun. And not every action will work in a given situation but, often, trying but failing an action can be fun too.
