More than eighty years ago, the philosopher Alfred Korzybski observed that the map is not the territory. The phrase has since become one of the most enduring metaphors for how human beings understand the world—and perhaps one of the most relevant for the age we live in.

The distinction seems obvious. A map is only a representation of reality, never reality itself. It simplifies, highlights and omits. It helps us navigate, but it is not the landscape we are actually walking through.

Yet in practice, we frequently confuse the two. We assume that the way we see a situation is the way it actually is. We treat our interpretations as facts, our assumptions as evidence and our conclusions as objective reality. As a result, we often respond not to the world as it exists, but to the version of the world constructed by our own minds.

This matters because every significant decision begins long before we evaluate alternatives or weigh evidence. It begins with sensemaking—the process through which we interpret what is happening, decide what it means and determine what deserves our attention. If our understanding of the situation is incomplete or distorted, even the most rigorous decision-making process is unlikely to produce a wise outcome.

Better decisions, therefore, do not begin with better analysis. They begin with better sensemaking.

We Respond to Meaning, Not Events

Think about the last time someone sent you a brief message saying, “Can we talk tomorrow?”

Before the conversation has even taken place, different people begin constructing entirely different stories. One spends the evening worrying that something must have gone wrong. Another assumes they are about to receive a new opportunity. A third barely gives it a second thought.

The message is identical.

The meaning is not.

This simple thought experiment captures one of the central ideas behind sensemaking. We do not respond directly to events; we respond to the meaning we construct about those events. Karl Weick, one of the pioneers of organisational sensemaking, argued that before we make decisions, we first have to answer a more fundamental question:

What is the situation I believe I am in?

That answer is rarely dictated by the facts alone. It is shaped by the mental maps we already carry.

Sensemaking is therefore not simply about gathering more information. It is the ongoing process through which we notice cues, connect them with past experiences and construct a plausible explanation for what is happening. That interpretation becomes the foundation for every decision that follows.

This helps explain why two people can experience the same event and respond in completely different ways. Imagine two leaders receiving identical feedback from their CEO that a strategic proposal requires significant rework. One interprets the feedback as evidence that she has failed. The other sees it as an invitation to think more creatively. The observable event is exactly the same. The meaning each leader constructs is entirely different.

The territory has not changed.

Only the map has.

Where Do Our Maps Come From?

If our mental maps shape the meaning we make, an obvious question follows:

Where do these maps come from?

Some continue to evolve throughout our lives through education, work and culture. Others are drawn much earlier—long before we are capable of questioning them.

Transactional Analysis, developed by psychiatrist Eric Berne and later expanded by Bob and Mary Goulding through Redecision Therapy, offers one of the most compelling explanations. Berne proposed that each of us develops what he called a life script—an unconscious life plan that begins taking shape in early childhood.

As children, we are constantly trying to make sense of the world around us. We notice what earns approval, what attracts criticism, what feels safe and what threatens our sense of belonging. Because we are so dependent on the adults around us for survival, and because we lack the emotional maturity to interpret our experiences fully, the conclusions we reach are often simple, absolute and deeply personal.

Think about siblings who grow up in the same family. They share the same parents, the same home and many of the same experiences, yet years later they often tell remarkably different stories about their childhood. One remembers feeling encouraged to be independent. Another remembers feeling that nothing they did was ever good enough.

Neither account is necessarily wrong. Each reflects the meaning that child constructed from their experiences.

Over time, those early conclusions become beliefs about ourselves, other people and the world.

“I have to be perfect to be accepted.”

“People can’t be trusted.”

“It’s safer not to speak up.”

These rarely remain as conscious thoughts. Instead, they become organising principles—deeply held assumptions through which future experiences are interpreted. They shape what we notice, how we explain events and the choices that feel available to us.

In other words, they become our maps.

When Yesterday’s Maps Shape Today’s Decisions

Maps are useful because they simplify reality. Without them, navigating an increasingly complex world would be impossible. Every day we are confronted with thousands of pieces of information, countless decisions and an overwhelming number of possible interpretations. If we consciously analysed every situation from first principles, we would quickly become paralysed by the sheer cognitive effort required.

The human brain has therefore evolved to conserve energy. This isn’t a flaw in human thinking; it is one of its greatest strengths. Rather than evaluating every situation as though it were entirely new, the brain looks for familiar patterns, drawing on past experience to make rapid judgements about what is happening and how we should respond. If we had to consciously analyse every conversation, every facial expression or every routine decision from first principles, we would never get through the day.

Daniel Kahneman describes this as the distinction between System 1 and System 2 thinking. System 1 operates quickly, intuitively and with little conscious effort, relying on heuristics—mental shortcuts that allow us to navigate everyday life efficiently. System 2 is slower, more deliberate and analytical, but because it demands considerably more cognitive effort, we engage it far less often.

Our mental maps are part of this remarkable efficiency. They allow us to interpret situations rapidly without having to reconstruct meaning from scratch each time. Most of the time, this serves us remarkably well. We would not want to stop and analyse every traffic light, every facial expression or every routine decision. Experience allows us to move through the world with confidence because we recognise familiar patterns and respond almost automatically.

The difficulty is that the same mechanism that makes us efficient can also make us blind. Once a mental map has been established, System 1 naturally seeks interpretations that fit what it already expects to see. We rely on familiar heuristics, fill in missing information and often mistake our interpretation for reality itself.

As the world changes, our maps do not always keep pace.

Yesterday’s assumptions continue to shape today’s decisions, even when the territory has fundamentally changed.

Awareness Creates Agency

This is where sensemaking becomes more than an intellectual exercise.

It becomes a developmental practice.

Reflection is often misunderstood as looking back at what happened. Genuine reflection goes further. It asks what assumptions we were making that led us to interpret the situation in that particular way. Which cues did we notice? Which possibilities did we overlook? What beliefs made our interpretation feel so obvious that we never stopped to question it?

In other words, reflection is not simply about understanding our experiences. It is about understanding how we came to understand them in the first place.

Transactional Analysis offers a hopeful answer through the concept of redecision. Berne believed that although life scripts are formed early, they need not determine our future indefinitely. The goal is not simply behavioural change but greater autonomy—the freedom to respond to the present rather than automatically replaying decisions made in the past. Bob and Mary Goulding developed this idea further by showing that people can revisit the unconscious decisions made in childhood and consciously choose different ways of interpreting themselves and their circumstances.

Imagine our leader deciding, for the first time, to delegate an important project despite her discomfort.

Her team delivers good work. Not identical to how she would have done it, but good enough. Nothing catastrophic happens. Her credibility remains intact. In fact, her team feels more trusted, more capable and more engaged.

One experience does not erase decades of conditioning. But it introduces something her old map cannot easily explain. Perhaps being valued does not require doing everything herself. That single experience becomes new evidence. The next experiment becomes a little easier. Gradually, the map begins to change.

This mirrors Weick’s understanding of sensemaking remarkably well. Meaning is never finished. We interpret a situation, act on that interpretation and observe what happens. Those new experiences generate new information, which in turn reshapes our understanding. Sensemaking is not a one-time event but a continuous cycle of interpretation, action and revision.

What is striking is how naturally these ideas complement one another. Weick explains how we continually make sense of an unfolding world. Berne explains why certain interpretations feel so compelling in the first place. Together, they remind us that the stories we tell ourselves are neither fixed nor inevitable. They can be examined, challenged and revised.

That is where awareness becomes agency.

Not because the world has changed. But because our relationship with it has.

Better Leadership Begins with Better Maps

Leadership development often focuses on improving judgement, strengthening decision-making frameworks or teaching strategic thinking. These are valuable capabilities, but they all operate downstream of sensemaking.

Before leaders can make better decisions, they must first make better sense of the situations they face.

That requires more than analytical skill. It requires the humility to recognise that our first interpretation may not be the only—or even the best—interpretation available. It requires curiosity strong enough to replace certainty with exploration. Most importantly, it requires recognising that our interpretations are not facts. They are working hypotheses, shaped by the maps we carry and constantly tested against reality.

This is becoming increasingly important in a world characterised by uncertainty, complexity and rapid change. The maps that served us well yesterday may not be sufficient tomorrow. The assumptions that once helped us navigate our careers, relationships or organisations can quietly become constraints when the territory changes around us.

The challenge is not that we have mental maps. The challenge is forgetting that they are maps.

Perhaps that is the real work of leadership. Not simply solving problems. But continually improving the maps from which those problems are first defined.

The same is true of life more broadly.

Much of our suffering comes not only from difficult circumstances but from the interpretations we attach to those circumstances. Likewise, many of our breakthroughs begin not with changing the world around us, but with seeing it differently.

In a world that is changing faster than ever, our greatest advantage may not be having the right answers.

It may be our willingness to keep revising the maps through which we understand ourselves, our work and the world.

Experience shapes us far less than the meaning we make of our experiences.

An Invitation to Reflect

Where in your life might you be relying on a map that no longer reflects the territory?