Different things.
Imagine you go see a movie which costs $10 for a ticket. When you open your wallet or purse you realize you’ve lost a $10 bill. Would you still buy a ticket? You probably would, right?
Now, imagine you go to see the movie and pay $10 for a ticket, but right before you hand it over to get inside you realize you’ve lost it. Would you go back and buy another ticket? Maybe, but it would hurt a lot more. The situation is the exact same. You lose $10 and then must pay $10 to see the movie, but the second scenario feels different. It seems as if the money was assigned to a specific purpose and then lost, and loss sucks.
It's called sunk cost fallacy. It prevents you from realizing the best choice is to do whatever promises the better experience in the future, not which negates the feeling of loss in the past. It's not "investment"
But anyhow - this is going off the rails, so I'll just stop it there before the original point (CM team "restructuring") gets derailed.
- - - Updated - - -
Right - and they fail the expectations because our brains are wired to fall into sunk cost fallacies. They should know better.
But then again, so should we.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_c...k_cost_fallacy