ing assistance. The Paige volume is a necessary, but not a sufficient step in the scientific study of political leadership. the other hand, comes from dependence — a function of the importance of a resource to the organizatio and the extent to which its control is concentrated or diffused. Having argued for and described, in the first third of the book, this resource dependence perspective, the authors present, in the second third, a set of posible organizational responses to the demanding environment it confronts. One response is to comply. Another is to avoid compliance; for example, by avoiding the conditions which demand compliance. Examples range from controlling the formation of demands (self-regulation, advertising) to maintaining a low profile. Given demands, compliance can be avoided by reducing organizational dependency — by finding substitutes for critical resources or reducing overreliance on single resources or markets. Organizations can also seek to control the context of control. Vertical mergers can reduce the critical resource or market problem. Horizontal merger can increase the organization's power visa-vis sources or markets. Diversification is a strategy for avoiding interdependence by reducing the' relative importance of a critical market or source. A different approach to controlling the context is negotiating with the environment. Such behaviors as joint ventures, interlocking directorates, professional and trade associations, and cartels are viewed as strategies for environmental control and reduction of uncertainty through cooperation, coop-. tation, or a combination of both. Finally, organizations can use the social power of government to favorably influence their environment. Regulation and government-granted social legitimacy are often enacted for the benefit of organizations, largely because of their own endeavors in dealing with otherwise unmanageable environments. In general, the authors present their case in an admirable fashion. The book is well conceived and organized. In particular, concepts are well documented by reference to empirical research. Abstractions are made clearer by numerous illustrations from contemporary organizational life. My one real problem with the book is with an early chapter on the organizational environment and how it is known. According to the authors, it is not the environment per se which affects the organization. James S. Bowman University of Wyoming Jeffrey Pfeffer and Gerald R. Salancik. The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 300 pp., $15.95. Reviewing a book on organization theory is not my idea of a good time. However, the title hinted at perhaps a different perspective in OT, and I had read enough of the authors' research to be mildly hopeful. The book lives up to its title. Its central thesis is that the behavior of an organization is best understood by analyzing the environmental context of that behavior. The theoretical perspective focuses on the effect of environment on organizations and, in turn, on how organizations respond to external constraints. This perspective was particularly intriguing because I lean more toward behavioral than cognitive approaches in organizational behavior. Basically, the organization is viewed as a coalition of resources with the chief objective of survival in a competitive environment. This is a far different perspective from the typical description of a complex social unit deliberately designed to achieve specific goals. In the tradition of Parsons, Perrow, Cyert, March, and Simon, the organization is viewed as responding to a complex and changing set of environmental demands. Management, from this perspective, becomes a task of deciding which demands to accede to and which to ignore, which coalitions to join and which to avoid. Considerable effort is expended in laying the foundation for a political view of organizations — a resource dependence perspective in the authors' terms. Control over resources is described as coming from possession, access to, or determining usage of such resources. Any of these provides power or the means to influence. Influencibility, on 309 but its "enacted" environment. "Enacted" for the organization has the same meaning as Weick's enacted environment for the individual. The organization reacts to its own interpretation and perception of the environment, which it creates. Further, its attention is not toward the environment as it is, but toward that which has already occurred. No doubt this is a perspective which many will find intuitively appealing, given the relative popularity of cognitive models in the field. However, I do not think that anthropomorphizing the organization in this way provides insights sufficient to overcome its attendant difficulties. Consider, for example, measurement. If one focuses on the "representation of the environment" rather than the directly observable environment, one is faced with problems such as: Whose perceptions do I measure? Those who gather the information (i.e., market researchers), those who have the authority to make decisions (i.e., product managers), or those with real power (i.e., chief executives)? Once we have selected our population, how does one measure their perceptions? Attitude questionnaires? In fact, when the authors describe measurement, they often revert to measurement of the environment per se. Variables such as economic concentration, reliance on defense contracts, proportions of budget obtained from various outside sources, degrees of regulation, and extent of intra-industry interdependence are all evaluated by "hard" economic data, rather than organizational perceptions of them. Further, if we focus on the enacted environment, the question becomes: What causes the enacted environment? According to the theory, behavior is influenced by the environment created (perceived) by the actor. Creating or enacting an environment is, however, a behavior. Can it be explained as being a product of the enacted environment, caused by its own product? Or influenced by an homunculus? Where does it all stop? It leads to the same general state we find ourselves in regarding cognitive explanations of behavior in organizations — increasingly complex, fraught with measurement problems, intuitively appealing, but lacking in predictive ability. Given the magnitude of the complexity of modern organiza- tion, a cognitive representation of them can on lead to theories that far outstrip our ability to under stand, manipulate, or test. H. Joseph Reitz University of Fioridi Stahrl W. Edmunds. Basics of Private an Public Management (Lexington, Mass. D C. Heath and Company, 1978), 304 DD $18.95. ^^ As explained by its author, this book conoerr itself with a "humanistic approach to change management," and it seems valuable on two different levels. It provides beginning students of management a comprehensive (though brief) survey of the territory before them. Discussion includes both the types of organizations in which they are likely to work and many of the decision criteria and techniques they are likely to use. On a more philosophical (and sometimes rather grandiose) plane, the book offers some provocative interpretations regarding the successes and failures of management in the United States. After diagnosing these, Edmunds goes on to offer prescriptions for future managers. This book would be particularly appropriate as an introductory text for students contemplating careers in management because it offers some useful insights into major types of organizations and the functions. It also deals with several of the broader issues confronting management today. As a oonsequence, it may help students identify a more satisfying approach to management or their career path. The book should also be of interest t teachers of management because it offers son^ thoughtful reflections about what skills and analyt cal techniques are needed for the future. Utilizing a systems approach to management. Edmunds prefaces his discussion of management principles with an overview of human needs, the social process, how a management function originates, and how authority is delegated to make the management function operative. He says the ultimate purpose of the social process is to "enable individuals to fulfill their needs for individuation and maturation" and the purpose of management is to help fulfill these human needs and ends. Three 310