The most important consequence of the introduction of this concept into organizational theory is the change of view concerning communication in organizations. Whereas up to this point it was accepted that organizations exist and develop by communication, it is now to be seen. that organizations exist in communication (Taylor & Lerner, 1996: 260). It is quite acceptable to believe that managers discuss organizational topics and, in these discussions, find the rules and structures of organizations that make sense and utilize them. They interpret and modify those rules and structures, and produce organizational changes of the unplanned type in the continuous process (Staehle, 1994: 849). The new view of organizational communication enhances this position and proceeds towards a concept in which the communication of managers is the organization. In this view communication includes the unsaid, but obvious, which is the most important aspect. Those items and relations which are so obvious that nobody mentions them but everybody is taking them for granted as necessary. Underlying assumptions of own decisions and actions are the core assumptions and values of an organization. These basic values and assumptions have been addressed
as the basis of organizational culture (Schein. 1997: 16). The shared values and views of a group (of managers) need not be expressed explicitly, because they are known, believed and used by everybody.
They are only discussed if and when there are differences about the implications of a value or a rule in a specific situation. The values and norms mostly are numerous and make a complex system. The explanations
of the rules and values caused by such a doubt about implications and consequences of certain rules and values modify and re-interpret the rules and values, sometimes even the basic assumptions. There is
normally no doubt in the validity of the values and rules, but a possible difference about the point, which rule or value is concerned in a certain situation and how conflicting prescriptions of different rules are solved.
In a firm whieh is part of the tourism industry the managers will have an organizational cognitive map of the industry and their field of action, but with the increasing amount of new and partially contradictive information
there will be much discussion about the interpretation of these information and the ways of action.

In the discussion of knowledge transfer the concept of cognitive maps plays an itnportant role. We believe that the processes of construction or re-construction of reality in the individual mind and within
organizations-where we have difficulties to localize physically the place of the tnind-<:an be described and represented with the concept of cognitive maps or cause maps. Both words and concepts have been in
use for more than twenty years (Taylor & Lerner, 1996: 260). This concept is used in different relations and levels of analysis, so we have to refer to four different concepts or views of cognitive maps.
In the first view-and il was the only one in the beginning and it is the basic view for all the other concepts-”cognitive map” is a metaphoric description of all the processes involved in obtaining, storing, retrieving
and adapting knowledge and of the structure of knowledge, which is emerging and continuously varying. These processes and structures contain models of description, models of explication and decision models
which initiate action (Kahle, 2001: 18). The analogy of “map” is quite limited, because the cognitive map contains much more than a nornial map. Il contains rttles of observation, interpretation and action and often gives explanations. These mental processes and structures are the “real” or “original” cognitive map.