This theoretical paper presents the results of an investigation on some peculiarities or premises of the rationale that is prevalent in Administration, and particularly in so-called strategic administration: modern rationality. This investigation is prompted by the problems and limits that this rationale brings to science, as well as the consequences that its adversary, identified with the post-modern proposal, also brings, starting with a questioning of the statute of knowledge itself. The first, by conceiving knowledge as a representation, makes an arbitrary distinction between the world and language, in which on one side we have the world as it is, and on the other, its image, captured by thought and expressed through language. The second, less affected by any certainty, casts in doubt concepts like reality, objectivity and totality by stating that they are the result of an historical and socially localized discourse and, as such, are precarious. This is a criticism that puts under suspicion, through powerful arguments, a whole modern theoretical tradition that is over-confident in itself, but that ends up proving to be timid in indicating new paths. Thus, an unpleasant and disturbing void appears, for we have on one side a now debilitated modern discourse, and on the other, a post-modern option taking refuge in silence or in the polyphony that ends up being just as inconvenient. These are alternatives that do not satisfy the demands of scientific knowledge, and in particular, knowledge of organizations, demanding from those that act in this field that they face this issue. It is a battle that is taken up in this paper, as it defends as the more appropriate a pragmatic concept of rationality that sees meaning as coming from the use of the language, thereby avoiding both modern dogmatism and post-modern relativism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]