But these descriptions are only the beginning of a broader analysis. One chapter shows how the employment institutions of the two countries fit into their political, family and educational institutions-an exercise in functionalist sociology without the functionalist's usual claim to be so different-dominates the later chapters and these make a major contribution to the discussion of development and of the 'convergence' of different systems.Are the Japanese being weaned from their 'pre-modern' practices and becoming more like us? On the contrary, Professor Dore finds more signs of our moving in a Japanese direction. The convergence theorists are wrong in taking the market-oriented employment systems created by the peculiarities of nineteenth-century capitalism as necessarily a permanent part of 'modern' industrial relations. This brings the author to the 'late-development' effect. From a wealth of historical evidence, he argues that Japan's organization-oriented system is not simply a manifestation of Japan's unique culture, nor a hang-over from pre-industrial relations. Late-developers can 'get ahead, ' adopting patterns of organization which in older industrial countries are still struggling to break through the crust of nineteenth-century institutions. He supports his thesis with evidence from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. If accepted, its importance for policy in these regions is obvious.

    

    Vroom and Yetton select a critical aspect of leadership style-the extent to which the leader encourages the participation of his subordinates in decision-making. They describe a normative model which shows the specific leadership style called for in different classes of situations. The model is expressed in terms of a “decision tree” and requires the leader to analyze the dimensions of the particular problem or decision with which he is confronted in order to determine how much and in what way to share his decision-making power with his subordinates.Other chapters discuss how leaders behave in different situations. They look at differences in leadership styles, and what situations induce people to display autocratic or participative behavior.