In management, as in football, politics or small, the whole Romanian is good. What's more, with this management, a western dracovenie that is by no means tailored to the mioritic soul ... If money comes out, it means that the management "goes like the world"! I recently met a former colleague from a previous job, who when asked about how things were going there, replied with naive serenity that "... everything is great, only the management is poor. all". But I don't have to get out of the way of my compatriots for the superficial understanding and application of the management concept by ear. After all, superficiality, improvisation and lack of rigor are the basic ingredients of the Balkan spirit, which makes us so beautiful and unrepeatable as a nation. Let's be honest - the confusion that persists about what management is and what it really has to deal with is largely due to the management itself. So far, management, as a theoretical discipline and practical area, has failed to successfully overcome the huge identity gaps and to win a solid epistemological consistency, legitimizing itself as a well-defined field, built on its own paradigms and having its own object. This explains why most of the public, but also many practitioners, view management as a kind of applied economics or sociology. For many people, management is presented as a vast collection of concepts, methods and tools borrowed, as a rule, from neighboring fields. However, this complex collection lacks overall scientific coherence. More precisely, this coherence exists, but it is very unstable, hesitant and "porous", hence the extraordinary appetite of practitioners for adopting different "fashion trends", presented by various "gurus" as universal managerial panacea: if you introduce as soon as Six Sigma (or TQM or "organizational excellence" etc. etc. etc. etc.) you will get rid of all problems and live profitably, competitively and happily into old age. Therefore, modern management is seen by many as a kind of "medicine cabinet" from which you choose the right remedy for the problems you face, without knowing for sure how to properly administer that doctorate and not even if it is indicated for your suffering. This is why some acid spirits among intellectuals suggest that management is a pseudoscience. This criticism is very well argued, harsh, deserved and ... ultimately fundamentally wrong. Management simply lacks a unifying field for the time being - that clear conceptual positioning on the foundations of an original, own theoretical discourse. Here it is necessary to recognize that, during its almost 150-year existence as a discipline purported to be scientific, management has repeatedly missed the chance to rigorously delimit its unifying conceptual field, although it has had several opportunities. In this regard. During all this time, the evolution of management was characterized by the juxtaposition of successive, opposing and hermetically "schools" from a paradigmatic point of view: the classical school, the school of human relations, the situational school, the political school, the cultural school, etc. Strong but dissonant voices that failed to harmonize in a choir. It is one of the main reasons that management has often been treated only as one of the many economic disciplines, such as, for example, financial analysis or management accounting. Of course, this view has been maintained by the fact that the vast majority of theoretical and practical innovations in management have appeared in economic business. The huge business interest for management is perfectly explainable by the perpetual pressure coming from the imperatives to face the competition and to always increase the economic efficiency. In this intellectual context, which marked the evolution of management, the systemic approach was seen as one of the many currents of competing managerial thinking and nothing more. Outlined between the 40s and 70s of the century. XX, especially through the works of Russel L. Ackoff, A. Stanfford Beer, Jay W. Forrester, Peter F. Drucker, Chris Argyris and Peter M. Senge, but prefaced a little earlier by the revolutionary ideas of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (Father general systems theory), Alexandr Bogdanov (author of the general theory of organization - tectonics) and Chester Barnard (who first described organizations as "cooperating human systems"), the systemic approach of management presents it as the activity of regulating open systems and dynamic in order to achieve well-defined objectives ”. The mission of the management consists in ensuring the viability of the system by permanently achieving its objectives. Defining the boundaries of the system by identifying the reverse connection loops that support its operation, specifying the objectives to be achieved, correctly understanding how the system interacts with the environment and making the necessary regulatory decisions are essential tasks of management. Simple, clear and elegant. From here to the incorporation of cognitive and behavioral perspectives on management is nothing, given the spectacular advances in psychology and neuroscience. The explanation of this epistemological symbiosis is elementary: that regulatory activity that is the essence of management applies not to any type of system, but only to systems with human participation, respectively to systems whose main ingredient is people - groups, companies, public organizations, private institutions non‑ lucrative, cities, local communities in general, etc. and so on The cognitive activities of the human components of these systems (the way they acquire knowledge, evaluate and classify it, analyze and capitalize on it, ie the way they think, make predictions, plan and make decisions), as well as the individual and group behaviors of people like members of the collective action systems represent the main forces that set those systems in motion, being responsible, in the last resort, for their performances. After all, managers themselves are human beings and nothing human is foreign to them. It is very obvious that people are those who, alone or most frequently in cooperation with others, in the work processes, use and value the physical and financial resources of organizations. Without people, tangible assets are "death." In all this phenomenology, not only rational and objective factors intervene. On the contrary, these factors are in the minority, the organizational behaviors being fed mainly from non-rational and subjective sources.
I tried, very briefly, to justify the subtitle of this paper - systemic paradigm, cognitive approach, behavioral perspective, explaining how I intend to present the fundamentals of organizational management. Although I wanted this book to be a university textbook first of all, I couldn't help but give it a popularization note, which explains the massive recourse to examples and analogies in many other areas and sometimes ironic accents, the latter having to be seen especially as a self-persiflage - finally, after so many years of preoccupation in this area, I also began to understand how things are, in fact.