tech-company, co-founder, young-entrepreneursI am currently building a tech-startup with my co-founder. During the conversation, he mentioned the “No harm in meeting, but it is opportunity cost for my time”
I am just wondering, networking is important element for building a startup then why compare “Meeting someone” with a “Opportunity Cost”
I do know “opportunity cost” as in a general. i.e. the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen, from google.
It’s hard to say without more context, but in a nutshell your partner told you that he’ll be at the meeting as a courtesy but doesn’t think it’s the most productive thing he could do.
Three possible reasons off the bat:
His presence at the meeting isn’t useful, so he really will be wasting his time.
His presence at the meeting is useful but he doesn’t understand why, so he thinks he’ll be wasting his time.
He’s not fully committed to the startup (e.g. he’s involved in multiple projects).
There could of course be other explanations - ask him.
Either way the point he’s might be trying to communicate is that not all things require a meeting.
A good meeting has:
As a rule of thumb you’re wasting your time if you don’t tick the four boxes. During the meeting itself, there will be discussions, exchanges of opinions, and objections, but never lose sight of what should come out of a good meeting:
If you’re meeting for the sake of meeting or if your meetings tend to drag on forever while getting nowhere then you’re indeed wasting your time and that of your partner.
The sentence would seem to be contradictory because losing an opportunity is understood as a form of “harm”.
It’s possible you’re partner simply doesn’t want to attend the meeting, but is using what may be understood as a “passive aggressive” strategy, which is to say an indirect approach.
I personally don’t like this use of “opportunity cost”.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.