Background. The functioning of contemporary business often undermines management paradigms, regarded as leading so far. Some paradigms are replaced with new dimensions of company management, more appropriate to the new reality. The background for the discussion is related to defining the fundamental determinants of the use of the systemic and network approach in the processes of company value management.
Research aims. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the place and role of the systemic and network paradigm in the processes of company value creation and destruction.
Method. Using a dialectical approach, the author proposes a thesis that the skilful use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm has a positive impact on the company’s ability to create company value. The author proposes an antithesis that an incompetent use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm has an influence on the company’s ability to destroy value. Consequently, the author defines a synthesis that the proper / improper use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm impacts the company’s ability / inability to create/destroy company’s value.
Key findings. In view of the continuous market changes occurring in the business environment, it is important to skilfully use theoretical presentations of management sciences, considered in the form of existing paradigms. Multi-paradigmness in management results in different approaches to the contextual look at the company. Such a situation occurs when the systemic and network paradigms are used in the processes of creation and destruction of company value. Both the systemic and network approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Managers are required to possess knowledge of this issue, important in management. It is particularly important to use these approaches to create value in the long and short term. It seems that the systemic approach will be more effective in the long-term, value-based management processes, while the network approach would be better in the short-term processes of company value creation.

Background. The functioning of contemporary business often undermines management paradigms, regarded as leading so far. Some paradigms are replaced with new dimensions of company management, more appropriate to the new reality. The background for the discussion is related to defining the fundamental determinants of the use of the systemic and network approach in the processes of company value management.
Research aims. The purpose of the paper is to discuss the place and role of the systemic and network paradigm in the processes of company value creation and destruction.
Method. Using a dialectical approach, the author proposes a thesis that the skilful use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm has a positive impact on the company’s ability to create company value. The author proposes an antithesis that an incompetent use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm has an influence on the company’s ability to destroy value. Consequently, the author defines a synthesis that the proper / improper use of premises of the systemic and network paradigm impacts the company’s ability / inability to create/destroy company’s value.
Key findings. In view of the continuous market changes occurring in the business environment, it is important to skilfully use theoretical presentations of management sciences, considered in the form of existing paradigms. Multi-paradigmness in management results in different approaches to the contextual look at the company. Such a situation occurs when the systemic and network paradigms are used in the processes of creation and destruction of company value. Both the systemic and network approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. Managers are required to possess knowledge of this issue, important in management. It is particularly important to use these approaches to create value in the long and short term. It seems that the systemic approach will be more effective in the long-term, value-based management processes, while the network approach would be better in the short-term processes of company value creation.