On Investment, Inertia, And Leaving

One of the readily recurring points of discussion that Uisdean Ruadh and I have during our monthly dinners and post-dinner walks is fraternal organizations - specifically, the Catholic fraternal organization to which he has belonged for many years.  It is fascinating for me to hear as an outsider and probably allows him to talk about it to someone that has not "heard it already".

Among the many things we cover in our conversations - nothing secret or classified or course, just general  operational issues - is the involvement of men, or the lack thereof.  It is a thing that he has definitely noticed, and which, at least in our small town, is not just isolated to his group.  All of the "standard" fraternal orders that I knew growing up - the Masonic Lodge, the Odd Fellows, the Catholic Orders, this sort of thing -  are apparently suffering from membership declines.

Why is this, I asked him?  We talked through various issues - one thing that I found both telling and fascinating was that the family events are usually the best attended and with that younger crowd that is the needed demographic; no surprise in an age when we are trying to emphasize families and so many never seem to have enough time with them.  But at least one cause we came down to was simply the fact that men (in this case) are not as invested in the concept of a fraternal order as they used to be.

I use the word "investment" consciously, as it to me represents the core of the issue.  One can be interested in something or perhaps engaged by it, but interest and engagement pass with time.  Only investment - that we are sink time and energy (and possibly money) into something - is a true sign that something is actually important to someone.  Investment inherently drives interest levels and engagement, but it does not require either.  Investment gives one a stake in the thing at hand; it means we have decided that personally, this thing meets some need in our soul.  We have a stake in its success because at some level, it feeds or calls to something deep inside of us.

It is true in lots of things, of course.  In my own life, I can clearly see the difference between friendships I am invested in - like The Director and Uisdean Ruadh over forty years, for example - versus those that were only for a season and then vanished. I have seen in the marriages of others that have fallen apart because at some point the spouses became less invested in each other and the relationship than in other things or people - the comment "He/She does not understand me and is not in my world" is not just a tired cliché, it is actually based on the way these things often work.  Businesses are no better of course - the company that has employees invested in its outcome and the company that has employees as time markers is worlds apart (I have worked in both).

The difficulty is not for those that have lost their investment.  It is for those that are not conscious that others have lost the investment, that rely on the the inertia of the past and the presumed importance of the thing to carry it on.

There is a certain assumption that once something exists, it almost by default will exist for a very long time.  Some of that is human nature of course - we all like to believe we are building for the future, not just for a short period of time.  But another part of it is that because we see the importance of it, others will equally see the importance of it as well, that they will become "invested" and so perpetuate the thing.  Organizations, relationships, individuals, businesses - all come to rely on this almost instinctive and unquestioning "this really is the best thing" motif.  And thus, they are suddenly surprised when others are not willing to make the same investment that they are.  

But inertia and "because" are not reasons to continue a thing.

In thinking this through with Uisdean Ruadh, the one useful thing I could come up with is regularly asking the questions "Is this still worth investing in?"

It is a hard question of course, because it means that we as organizations or as individuals have to put off our assumptions and understandings and even views of the world and look at things critically. In a way, it is a form of zero sum budgeting:  "Knowing what I know now, would I invest in/do/create this thing now?"  If the answer is "No", why not?  Is it something that we can rectify or change?  

It is not harmful to suggest the same question for us as individuals as well.  The questions "Am I the sort of person that someone would want to invest in (in terms of friendship)?  Am I the sort of person my spouse would want to be with now because of choice, not inertia?" are not simply fear producing or ego-supporting questions, they reflect the desire for an accurate assessment of the relationship as it is, not as it was in the beginning or long ago.

These are hard questions.  Businesses in theory regularly ask them of themselves - the dreaded "employment survey" with the admonition "Be 100% totally honest", and the often resulting silence when the results come in because they do not conform with what the assumed vision is.

Am I suggesting that we as individuals or as organizations should be 100% guided by the opinions of others?  Of course not.  That would make us the equivalent of ships driven before a storm without sail or rudder.  There are founding and guiding principles that cannot and should not change.

But it is also a fair observation to note that people, even if they weigh otherwise, will always end up voting with their feet and their presence and their investment of time and talents.  In the end, the ones that are gob-smacked by this are not the ones who have done the leaving.  It is the ones remaining who are somehow "shocked" by this seemingly immediate abandonment.

If one looked more closely, one would see the seeds of the abandonment - the lack of investment - were there long before.  It was just that it chosen, by either willful looking away or unawareness, to be ignored or disregarded.