Your org chart says decisions are collaborative. But every major decision waits for one person’s approval.

Your mission statement says you value transparency. But tough conversations happen in parking lots, not meetings.

Your policy manual outlines a streamlined approval process. But everyone routes around it because it takes too long.

The map is not the territory. And in organizations, the gap between how you say you work and how you actually work is costing you more than you realize.

Where “The Map Is Not the Territory” Comes From

In the 1930s, a Polish-American philosopher named Alfred Korzybski introduced a concept that would become foundational to systems thinking: “The map is not the territory.”

His point was elegantly simple: A map of Chicago is useful. It helps you navigate. But it’s not the same thing as actually walking through Chicago. The map is an abstraction, a representation of reality, not reality itself.

Maps leave things out. They simplify. They show what the cartographer thought was important at the time the map was drawn. And if the territory changes but the map doesn’t get updated, the map becomes worse than useless. It becomes misleading.

The same is true in organizations.

Your Organizational Maps

Every organization has maps representing how things are supposed to work:

  • Org charts show reporting lines and decision-making authority
  • Mission statements and values declare what you stand for
  • Policy manuals and documented processes outline how work should flow
  • Strategic plans describe where you’re headed

These maps are useful. They create clarity. They set expectations. They help new people understand how things work.

But here’s what I’ve learned after fifteen years as a startup founder, nonprofit executive director, and now fractional COO: The map is never the territory.

The territory—the actual, lived experience of working in your organization—is messier, more complex, and more interesting than any map can capture.

Three Places Misalignment Shows Up

In my work as a fractional chief of staff and COO, I’ve learned that organizational misalignment typically shows up in three domains:

1. Structure: Where Authority Actually Lives

The Map Says: Org chart, reporting lines, official decision-making authority

The Territory Shows:

  • Who actually has influence over key decisions (regardless of title)
  • Where decisions get bottlenecked or stuck
  • Whose opinion people seek before moving forward
  • Where the real power dynamics exist

Signs of Misalignment:

  • Decisions take longer than they should
  • People are unclear about who has final say
  • The same person becomes a bottleneck repeatedly
  • New employees struggle to understand “how things really work”
  • You hear phrases like “just check with [person]” constantly
  • Staff, management, and leadership’s understanding of strategic goals varies widely

2. Communication: What You Actually Value

The Map Says: mission statement, values, official cultural messaging

The Territory Shows:

  • What language dominates team conversations
  • What actually gets celebrated in meetings
  • What behaviors get rewarded or promoted
  • What topics are avoided or handled carefully
  • What people complain about (even jokingly)

Signs of Misalignment:

  • Eye rolls when official values are mentioned
  • Gap between what leadership says and what staff experiences
  • Tough conversations happen in parking lots, not meetings
  • People feel unsafe sharing bad news or concerns
  • Cynicism about “corporate speak” or official messaging

3. Systems: How Work Actually Flows

The Map Says: official policies, processes, and workflows

The Territory Shows:

  • How work actually flows day to day
  • What shortcuts or workarounds people have created
  • What systems people route around
  • What “shadow processes” exist alongside official ones

Signs of Misalignment:

  • People don’t follow documented processes
  • New staff struggle because “the way we really do it” differs from training
  • Inconsistency across teams or departments
  • Frequent questions about “the right way” to do things
  • Unofficial processes are more efficient than official ones