Philosophy of Management

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 107–112 | Cite as

How to Avoid Mistaking the Map for the Territory

Book Review of Pragmatism and Organization Studies (Philippe Lorino, 2018, Oxford University Press)
  • Régis MartineauEmail author

Managers and academics frequently use models to represent real-life practices. Models and related discussions about the validity of variables, robustness tests, or the pertinence of samples flourish in peer-reviewed management journals. In the same vein, within organizations, employees’ activities and practices are now routinely represented by numbers, diagrams, charts, and figures.

As sophisticated as they may be, models nevertheless fail to represent the actual situated activity. It is an old semiotic principle that “the map is not the territory”. As Jorge Luis Borges, Umberto Eco, and Lewis Carroll have observed with humor, the only perfect map would be life-sized and would completely cover the land in question. Yet, designing and implementing such a map would evidently cause countless logistical and technical problems.

Managers and academics often seem to forget this semiotic principle, however, with models being taken so seriously that they sometimes appear to be more important...



  1. Adler, Paul S., Linda C. Forbes, and Hugh Willmott. 2007. Critical management studies. The Academy of Management Annals 1 (1): 119–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bereson, Ruth, and Pierre Guillet de Monthoux. 2017. Special issue editorial: Poetic pragmatism and artful management. Philosophy of Management 16 (3): 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chia, Robert. 2002. Essai: Time, duration and simultaneity: Rethinking process and change in organizational analysis. Organization Studies 23 (6): 863–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooper, Robert. 2007. Organs of process: Rethinking human organization. Organization Studies 28 (10): 1547–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clot, Yves. 2010. Le travail à cœur, pour en finir avec les risques psychosociaux. Paris: la Découverte.Google Scholar
  6. Dujarier, Marie-Anne. 2015. Le management désincarné. la Découverte.Google Scholar
  7. de Gaulejac, Vincent. 2009. La société malade de la gestion: idéologie gestionnaire, pouvoir managérial et harcèlement social. Seuil.Google Scholar
  8. Leonardi, Paul M. 2011. When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly 35 (1): 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lorino, Philippe. 2018. Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Maugeri, Salvatore. 2001. Délit de gestion. Paris: La dispute.Google Scholar
  11. Orlikowski, Wanda J., and Susan V. Scott. 2008. Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. The Academy of Management Annals 2 (1): 433–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Weick, Karl E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousands Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.South Champagne Business SchoolTroyes CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations