I am reading a book Blue Ocean Strategy. There was this sentence in the book:

Placing the kingpins in a fishbowl greatly raises the stakes of inaction.

The problem with sentence is that everywhere in the book it is mentioned that it is a positive activity. But this particular sentence is completely opposite. What I have understood from the sentence is that placing the important people (kingpins) in a fishbowl (transparent meetings) increases the chances of inactivity. Help me if my interpreting it correctly. Below is the link to the paragraph.

link to the paragraph


No, you are reading this the wrong way around.

"Raising the stakes" means making (something) riskier, and therefore in this case the assumption is that it will consequently make (that thing: inactivity) less frequent.

| improve this answer | |
  • This would not be my interpretation. But that may depend on context. – pboss3010 Sep 12 '19 at 12:01

I was unable to see the entire context of your sentence. However, my interpretation is that inaction is undesirable, and the risk of continuing inaction increases if the "kingpins in a fishbowl" strategy fails to produce results. This makes sense, as positions may harden or lines drawn as a result of a failed meeting where the leaders would look appear weak to reverse their position. Which is why typically, you don't have leaders meet until a framework of a deal is hashed out by negotiators.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.