THE ADOPTION OF SYSTEMIC THINKING IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: A PARADIGM SHIFT

Given the current Brazilian political scenario and the changes in the panorama of public management in the 21ST century, this article aims to present the reflections of the adoption of systemic thinking by the public manager evidencing the influence that this thought Decision-making. It is inferred from a research of applied nature, of an exploratory objective, with the adoption of bibliographic research. This is an important issue, due to the difficulty of the public manager to achieve efficiency in the execution of administrative activities. With the research it was possible to observe that the systemic thinking of the manager influences the direction of public management, the benefits of this posture can be visible in the services provided to society and internal actions of the institution. Nowadays, it is observed the personality in decision-making, due to the political influence of the state and because it is a highly competitive scenario, where personal vanity and the culture of immediacy prevail. Systemic thinking contributes to new emerging visions becoming shared and collaborative. Public

With the theme outlined, it is proposed to demonstrate the reflections of the adoption of systemic thinking and the influences that this posture can generate in people's lives, answering the following question: it will be possible to achieve efficiency with the adoption of systemic thinking by Public manager?
To achieve the proposed objective, the descriptive method will be used through bibliographic research.
For Fonseca (2002), the bibliographic research is made from the survey of theoretical references already analyzed, and published by written and electronic means, such as books, scientific articles and Web sites pages.
In the next chapter will be presented the concept of public management and, in specific item, the manager. The principle of efficiency will then be addressed in a perfunctory manner. And finally, we will present the systemic thinking and reflections on this look in the construction of a new paradigm of public management.

PUBLIC MANAGEMENT
In the last 30 years the term "public management" has been used in substitution to public administration and, for this reason, has been considered a polysemic term, since part of the doctrine understands that the two terms are mistaken. Others argue that there was a disruption of the traditional concept, because it encompasses management tools of the business world and, therefore, a broader concept.
Henri Fayol (1950), already in the decade of 50, defined management as administrative functions of predicting, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. Since the decade of 80, the governments of several countries have undertaken efforts to modernize public administration in order to reduce the government's reach and make it work better in the pursuit of agility. The evaluation of the public administration itself changes, and is then balized by criteria close to those used by the private administration.
As a result of this posture arises the New Public Manegement (NPM), associated with the context of a specific reform of the State, whose model is opposed to the conventional public administration, based on the weberianeinjured bureaucracy model consists of conferring a Managerial approach, inspired by the methods of private business management, to the public administration (HOOD, 1995;HERNES, 2005), in order to ensure greater responsiveness and better performance in the provision of public services to the population (MANNING et al., 2009). Perry and Kraemer (1983) Consider that public management is a merger of the normative orientation of the traditional public administration and the instrumental guidance of management, in a generic sense. In other words, in the first aspect, public management incorporates themes such as democracy and accountability, and values such as equity, equality and probity. And in the second, an instrumental orientation, with the idea that the public sector shares with the private the need to achieve its goals in a more economical and efficient way.
For Druker (1993) management does not refer to the organizational hierarchy of a classical administration, but the ability to promote systematic innovation of knowledge and to take from it the maximum yield in its application to production.
Unlike private management, public management must be guided by social values. It is assumed here, the conception that management is a complex act that brings us closer to the world of politics (BRUGUÉ; SUBIRATS, 1996).
Thinking about the historical evolution of public management, prospectively, refers to a reflection on the true role of the state nowadays. Managing what is public is a complex and challenging act because the scenario is highly competitive. The personal https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br RC: 37709 Disponível em: https://www.nucleodoconhecimento.com.br/business-administration/thoughtsystemic vanity and the culture of immediacy prevail in this midst. Each legislature the dynamics of the administration is altered. There is no continuity of actions due to the personality in decision-making, in view of the political influence that ravels the country.
People are terrified by the news of barbaric crimes that are conveed in the media. However, they do not realize that an overpriced or unfinished work, due to mismanagement, may have contributed to the chaos in the education and health of a particular region.
Cardoso Jr (2001) argues that the state's responsibility is not only to do things better and more efficiently. More than this, it is the task of inducing, fostering or even producing the conditions for transforming the economic and social structures of the country. The process involves the redesign of the structure, procedures and practices of the public sector, incorporating changes of great magnitude in the institutional dimension, which include issues related to the principles and values that inform the relationship of such organizations With society and the market (FERLIE et al., 1999;ORMOND LOFFLER, 1999;HERNES, 2005).
In this sense, public management lacks systemic innovation to meet social needs and achieve efficiency. The adoption of systemic thinking by the manager may contribute to new emerging visions becoming shared and collaborative visions. The vision of the whole is fundamental for decision-making.
For Abrúcio (2007), public management has a number of peculiarities that relate to the need to have managerial and democratic instruments to combat the problems that the state faces in the contemporary world. In this context, formalism and bureaucratic rigidity should be attacked as evils, and meritocracy can promote modernization.
Shared vision is the first step in getting people who don't trust each other to start working together. Creates a common identity. (SENGE,2009). Through a culture of feedback, the relationship of trust in the team and the recognition of the effort contribute to the efficiency of public management, as it achieves the aspect related to motivation. The manager can transform the concepts (pre) established throughout history. In spite of being tied to the principle of legality, you can make a difference. For this, it must assume a new posture, the systemic look in the pursuit of efficiency, whose concepts and aspects will be discussed below.

PUBLIC MANAGER
According to the classic concept developed by Henri Fayol (1950), the manager is defined by his functions in the organization. It is the person who is responsible for interpreting the objectives proposed by the institution and acts through planning in order to achieve the goals and objectives.
It can then be said that the manager is someone who develops the strategic and operational plan, judges the effective means, conceives the structures and establishes the most appropriate policy rules and procedures and ultimately implements and coordinates the implementation of projects by The middle of a particular type of command (or leadership).
For Chiavenato (2004) to be a manager or leader is to have a global vision, a relationship between man and his work environment. Moreover, it is learning to teach and learn, being the latter of vital importance. Starting for a more subjective premise, Peter Drucker (1993) states that it is through the character that is exercised the leadership. In the same line of thought, Havard (2011) defines that virtue, in addition to being an intrinsic value of the human being, is a dynamic force that increases the capacity for action, a characteristic that is so necessary to the leader. Virtue creates trust, and without trust it becomes impossible to lead.
Being a public manager is a challenge, because managing something that is public is a complex act because of the highly competitive political landscape. In view of the frequent headlines conveed in the media of corruption, deviations from public funds, a paradigm has been established that public services do not serve society efficiently.
Systemic thinking does not deny scientific rationality, but believes that it does not provide sufficient parameters for human development and for the description of the material universe. For this reason, it seeks to look in the opposite direction of reductionism, giving greater emphasis to the whole than apart.
It presupposes a methodology of thinking processes, which configure the existence of the whole. That is, it is necessary to study the systems globally, in order to involve all Capra (1996) argues that fragmented thinking is not capable of addressing the interconnectedness of global problems, both at the higher levels of society and at the individual level. In this sense, the essence of systemic thinking is in the change of mentality, which means seeing interrelationships instead of cause-effect linear chains and seeing processes of change rather than snapshots (Senge, 2009). In this gathering, changes should not be thought of as isolated actions, but as a set of interdependent measures that are part of the planning of improvements of the organization.
It is a way of analyzing and thinking the knowledge about the world, through systems.
A systemic view or "systemic thinking" means to keep in mind what one wants to solve, choosing the right or the most appropriate way. It can be said that this is a skill that an individual acquires to analyze the events and their possible consequences, with the aim of creating a unique solution that contemplates the expectations of all the parties involved.
In both private and public management, there is no uniformity in the adoption of systemic thinking by managers. Most public agents don't even know the concept. It can be reaffirmed the importance of systemic thinking in management through Zanelli's words: The action of administering is linked to the practice of systemic thinking and strategic leverage. The characteristics of leadership, in the context of human interaction that privileges the processes of optimization of learning, are geared towards the exercise of participation at all levels and for the construction of teams (ZANELLI,2008, p. 13).
In 2008, the National Quality Foundation (FNQ), present in the most prestigious world models of excellence, conducted a virtual survey with 196 Brazilian executives. The It takes innovation in public management. The manager has to take the role and stops acting as mere supporting, performing the tasks with courage. To think systematically for the sake of social welfare.
It is a complex theme, because the change of posture of the manager, in adopting systemic thinking in the exercise of management, is related to subjective criteria, such as character, whose virtue is not measured or assessed when the entry of this Professional in public activity, irrespective of whether it was by public tender or nomination by nomination.
However, as presented in the research, public management is in increasing progress, expanding the political capacity of the state to "do well the policy" to better serve the society and therefore achieve efficiency. More and more authors advocate the The research allowed us to infer that the application of the concepts of systemic thinking can add significant value to several areas of research and in sectors in organizations. In this sense, the use of the systemic approach in other areas can be revealed as a relevant academic contribution.
Thus, it is valid to affirm that the objective of this study was achieved, and it is possible to affirm that the adoption of systemic thinking by the manager is directly related to the principle of efficiency.
For future studies, it is proposed to conduct researches in public administration organs, with the objective of verifying the systemic behavioral characteristics of managers, suggesting practices to systemic management with a focus on people's behavior .

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
After analyzing the documents found in the literature, it was possible to identify that the adoption of systemic thinking by the manager can influence the direction of public management of the country. This is a skill that an individual acquires to analyze the events and their possible consequences, with the aim of creating a unique solution that contemplates the expectations of all the parties involved. The benefits of this new vision/posture may be visible in the services rendered to society and internal actions of the institution, because it is directly related to decision-making.
To this end, the public manager, in the same way as in private initiative, needs the characteristics and qualities that enable him to promote the changes that are proposed.
As the leaders of the public sector, managers need to be endowed with knowledge, skills and attitudes, as well as a strong vocation to deal with the various forms and sources of power that permeate the public sector (MORGAN, 1996).