The chapter has three basic goals. First, it shows why the Kotarbińskian praxiology – despite its terminological connotations, which locate it close to its Misesian analogue – should be understood as an example of the analytic action theory, and not as a "science" (as it is sometimes read). The chapter initially gives reasons for this interpretation and outlines the virtues of the theory drawn in Kotarbiński's Treatise on A Good Job. Praxiology occurs to be an action theory that is consistently developed under the sign of agential effectiveness. Second, it focuses on the problem of why praxiology (called also by Kotarbiński "the grammar of action") has not been, so far, recognized as a serious party in the mainstream action theory. It gives two main answers which are responsible for this fact: that there were socio-cultural factors that blocked a wider reception of this book, and that the ontological background of praxiology (the so-called reism or concretism) obfuscated it to the extent that such a reception was extremely difficult. In the fourth step, it proposes a therapy that is able to revitalize praxiology and show its true potential. It occurs that praxiology needs an explicitly intentionalistic conceptual framework to show its true value. The chapter also sketches the most important domains of contemporary action-theoretical investigations in which the reinterpreted Kotarbińskian philosophy of agency can have something interesting to say. These domains are explored in the next five chapters.