Is there a global convergence paradigm in the modernization of public management？ The answer to this question is important for China in order to clarify the future direction of its reform of public management. Hood’s conclusion is very clear： from the perspective of the combination of culture and history， the view that public management tends to converge in a “modern” paradigm remains debatable， and a diverse paradigm is more credible. By introducing grid-group theory， the author divides the form of public management organization into four types： hierarchical， fatalist， egalitarian， and individualist. At the same time， through the lens of history， the author finds that these four forms of organization have appeared in alternation： the development of public management does not follow a linear substitution logic； rather it follows the logic of a pendulum movement， revealing a cyclical upward trend. The rational thinking about modernization in this study and the study’s in-depth discussion of the art of the state make the book a milestone in public management research. Nevertheless， this study allows room for future discussions， which are presented in this article. In addition， the article explores the implications of the book for China.