Chad_11_Q

With the final chapter, I might finally get it. By the fact Simmons defines "traditional wisdom" as the opposite of storytelling, it becomes clear who she's writing for, and who she's trying to win over, in each of her gigs.

Sure, I knew all along she was writing for the corporate audience, but Chapter 11 is where she most lucidly defines them. To her (and to me), they are people who value visible results. That is, facts, figures, ink on paper, charts and this kind of thing. Approach a corporate guy with a story in your hand and risk coming back with a bloody stump.

By the end of Chapter 11 I get a better understanding that Simmons' work is an uphill battle. The people who come to her sessions don't necessarily want to be there. Some of them might actively resist her appeals, in fact. So it's necessary for her get her point across the way she has done in this book: with repetition; with simple, clear ideas; and with endless stories, all of which could be considered one more visible result for the corporate listener.

We grad students might come from different stock. It could be safe to say we value open-mindedness, and progressive thinking. What Simmons has to say could have been written for the grad student audience in 50 pages.

Yet, hasn't this book presented us with a unique challenge? And haven't we, in our own ways, presented Simmons with a different type of uphill battle? One in which she doesn't have to pound her ideas into our heads, but in which she must be careful not to lose us in the first hundred words?