A few months ago, I got to see Malcolm Gladwell speak at a local theater. The subject matter was about what you would expect: a few narratives weaved together in such a way that their endings were all tied together into one tidy takeaway for the audience to reflect on, as is so typical of his effective writing style.

What really interested me happened during the audience Q&A after his speech. The third question came from a gentleman who was clearly brimming with hostility. He asked something like: "Don't you feel, sir, that since the whole history of Keynesian economics doesn't work, that the current administration in Washington D.C. is making a huge mistake?"

Honestly, I don't remember the question, since it had nothing to do with Gladwell's speech or anything I'd ever read in his books. But the man was clearly angry, and trying to pick a bone.

What amazed me was Gladwell's response to the question. He proceeded to tell a story that had nothing to do with politics, but business. "I've spoken with a lot of CEO's on Wall Street, and I hear a similar complaint from a lot of them. They all wish that their performances as CEO's would be judged in a term longer than a quarter, since it's almost impossible to plan and execute a strategy in the space of three months. I would say we should give the current Presidential administration a couple more years to see what they can accomplish before we call their efforts into question."

There are political implications here, but that's not what I'm driving at. There's no higher tact this the approach he took in answering the question. If Malcolm had simply replied, "No, jackass", then the audience would have some away from the conversation with a different impression.

Using narrative to answer these kinds of difficult, no-win questions is great strategy, because it gets you out of the corner and lets you do so without insulting the other person's intelligence.