2 pages paper

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

www.hbrreprints.org

The Making of an Expert

by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and

Edward T. Cokely

New research shows that

outstanding performance is

the product of years of

deliberate practice and

coaching, not of any innate

talent or skill.

Reprint R0707J

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and

Edward T. Cokely

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 1

C O

P Y

R IG

H T

© 2

0 0 7 H

A R

V A

R D

B U

S IN

E S

S S

C H

O O

L P

U B

L IS

H IN

G C

O R

P O

R A

T IO

N . A

L L

R IG

H T

S R

E S

E R

V E

D .

New research shows that outstanding performance is the product of

years of deliberate practice and coaching, not of any innate talent or

skill.

Thirty years ago, two Hungarian educators, László and Klara Polgár, decided to challenge the popular assumption that women don’t succeed in areas requiring spatial thinking, such as chess. They wanted to make a point about the power of education. The Polgárs ho- meschooled their three daughters, and as part of their education the girls started playing chess with their parents at a very young age. Their systematic training and daily practice paid off. By 2000, all three daughters had been ranked in the top ten female players in the world. The youngest, Judit, had become a grand master at age 15, breaking the previous record for the youngest person to earn that ti- tle, held by Bobby Fischer, by a month. Today Judit is one of the world’s top players and has defeated almost all the best male players.

It’s not only assumptions about gender dif- ferences in expertise that have started to crum- ble. Back in 1985, Benjamin Bloom, a professor of education at the University of Chicago, pub- lished a landmark book, Developing Talent in Young People, which examined the critical fac-

tors that contribute to talent. He took a deep retrospective look at the childhoods of 120 elite performers who had won international competitions or awards in fields ranging from music and the arts to mathematics and neurol- ogy. Surprisingly, Bloom’s work found no early indicators that could have predicted the virtuo- sos’ success. Subsequent research indicating that there is no correlation between IQ and ex- pert performance in fields such as chess, music, sports, and medicine has borne out his find- ings. The only innate differences that turn out to be significant—and they matter primarily in sports—are height and body size.

So what does correlate with success? One thing emerges very clearly from Bloom’s work: All the superb performers he investigated had practiced intensively, had studied with devoted teachers, and had been supported enthusiasti- cally by their families throughout their devel- oping years. Later research building on Bloom’s pioneering study revealed that the amount and quality of practice were key fac- tors in the level of expertise people achieved.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 2

Consistently and overwhelmingly, the evidence showed that

experts are always made, not born

. These conclusions are based on rigorous re- search that looked at exceptional performance using scientific methods that are verifiable and reproducible. Most of these studies were com- piled in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, published last year by Cambridge University Press and edited by K. Anders Ericsson, one of the authors of this arti- cle. The 900-page-plus handbook includes con- tributions from more than 100 leading scien- tists who have studied expertise and top performance in a wide variety of domains: sur- gery, acting, chess, writing, computer program- ming, ballet, music, aviation, firefighting, and many others.

The journey to truly superior performance is neither for the faint of heart nor for the impa- tient. The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts. It will take you at least a decade to achieve ex- pertise, and you will need to invest that time wisely, by engaging in “deliberate” practice— practice that focuses on tasks beyond your cur- rent level of competence and comfort. You will need a well-informed coach not only to guide you through deliberate practice but also to help you learn how to coach yourself. Above all, if you want to achieve top performance as a manager and a leader, you’ve got to forget the folklore about genius that makes many people think they cannot take a scientific ap- proach to developing expertise. We are here to help you explode those myths.

Let’s begin our story with a little wine.

What Is an Expert?

In 1976, a fascinating event referred to as the “Judgment of Paris” took place. An English- owned wineshop in Paris organized a blind tasting in which nine French wine experts rated French and California wines—ten whites and ten reds. The results shocked the wine world: California wines received the highest scores from the panel. Even more sur- prising, during the tasting the experts often mistook the American wines for French wines and vice versa.

Two assumptions were challenged that day. The first was the hitherto unquestioned superi- ority of French wines over American ones. But it was the challenge to the second—the as-

sumption that the judges genuinely possessed elite knowledge of wine—that was more inter- esting and revolutionary. The tasting suggested that the alleged wine experts were no more ac- curate in distinguishing wines under blind test conditions than regular wine drinkers—a fact later confirmed by our laboratory tests.

Current research has revealed many other fields where there is no scientific evidence that supposed expertise leads to superior perfor- mance. One study showed that psychothera- pists with advanced degrees and decades of ex- perience aren’t reliably more successful in their treatment of randomly assigned patients than novice therapists with just three months of training are. There are even examples of ex- pertise seeming to decline with experience. The longer physicians have been out of train- ing, for example, the less able they are to iden- tify unusual diseases of the lungs or heart. Be- cause they encounter these illnesses so rarely, doctors quickly forget their characteristic fea- tures and have difficulty diagnosing them. Per- formance picks up only after the doctors un- dergo a refresher course.

How, then, can you tell when you’re dealing with a genuine expert? Real expertise must pass three tests. First, it must lead to perfor- mance that is consistently superior to that of the expert’s peers. Second, real expertise pro- duces concrete results. Brain surgeons, for ex- ample, not only must be skillful with their scal- pels but also must have successful outcomes with their patients. A chess player must be able to win matches in tournaments. Finally, true expertise can be replicated and measured in the lab. As the British scientist Lord Kelvin stated, “If you can not measure it, you can not improve it.”

Skill in some fields, such as sports, is easy to measure. Competitions are standardized so that everyone competes in a similar environ- ment. All competitors have the same start and finish lines, so that everyone can agree on who came in first. That standardization permits comparisons among individuals over time, and it’s certainly possible in business as well. In the early days of Wal-Mart, for instance, Sam Wal- ton arranged competitions among store man- agers to identify those whose stores had the highest profitability. Each store in the Nord- strom clothing chain posts rankings of its sales- people, based on their sales per hour, for each pay period.

K. Anders Ericsson

([email protected] .edu) is the Conradi Eminent Scholar of Psychology at Florida State University, in Tallahassee. Michael J. Prietula ([email protected]) is a profes- sor at the Goizueta Business School at Emory University, in Atlanta, and visit- ing research scholar at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, in Pensacola, Florida. Edward T. Cokely ([email protected]) is a postdoctoral research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, in Berlin.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 3

Nonetheless, it often can be difficult to mea- sure expert performance—for example, in projects that take months or even years to complete and to which dozens of individuals may contribute. Expert leadership is similarly difficult to assess. Most leadership challenges are highly complex and specific to a given com- pany, which makes it hard to compare perfor- mance across companies and situations. That doesn’t mean, though, that scientists should throw up their hands and stop trying to mea- sure performance. One methodology we use to deal with these challenges is to take a repre- sentative situation and reproduce it in the lab- oratory. For example, we present emergency room nurses with scenarios that simulate life-

threatening situations. Afterward, we com- pare the nurses’ responses in the lab with ac- tual outcomes in the real world. We have found that performance in simulations in med- icine, chess, and sports closely correlates with objective measurements of expert perfor- mance, such as a chess player’s track record in winning matches.

Testing methodologies can be devised for creative professions such as art and writing, too. Researchers have studied differences among individual visual artists, for instance, by having them produce drawings of the same set of objects. With the artists’ identities con- cealed, these drawings were evaluated by art judges, whose ratings clearly agreed on the art- ists’ proficiency, especially in regard to techni- cal aspects of drawing. Other researchers have designed objective tasks to measure the supe- rior perceptual skills of artists without the help of judges.

Practice Deliberately

To people who have never reached a national or international level of competition, it may appear that excellence is simply the result of practicing daily for years or even decades. However, living in a cave does not make you a geologist. Not all practice makes perfect. You need a particular kind of practice—deliberate practice—to develop expertise. When most people practice, they focus on the things they already know how to do. Deliberate practice is different. It entails considerable, specific, and sustained efforts to do something you can’t do well—or even at all. Research across domains shows that it is only by working at what you can’t do that you turn into the expert you want to become.

To illustrate this point, let’s imagine you are learning to play golf for the first time. In the early phases, you try to understand the basic strokes and focus on avoiding gross mistakes (like driving the ball into another player). You practice on the putting green, hit balls at a driving range, and play rounds with others who are most likely novices like you. In a sur- prisingly short time (perhaps 50 hours), you will develop better control and your game will improve. From then on, you will work on your skills by driving and putting more balls and engaging in more games, until your strokes become automatic: You’ll think less about each shot and play more from intu-

Things to Look Out for When Judging Expertise

Individual accounts of expertise are

often unreliable.

Anecdotes, selective recall, and one-off events all can present insufficient, often misleading, examples of expertise. There is a huge body of lit- erature on false memories, self-serving biases, and recollections altered as a re- sult of current beliefs or the passage of time. Reporting is not the same thing as research.

Many people are wrongly believed to

possess expertise.

Bear in mind that true expertise is demonstrated by mea- surable, consistently superior perfor- mance. Some supposed experts are su- perior only when it comes to explaining why they made errors. After the 1976 Judgment of Paris, for example, when California wines bested French wines in a blind tasting, the French wine “ex- perts” argued that the results were an aberration and that the California reds in particular would never age as well as the famous French reds. (In 2006, the tasting of the reds was reenacted, and California came out on top again.) Had it not been for the objective results from the blind tastings, the French wine ex- perts may never have been convinced of the quality of the American wines.

Intuition can lead you down the gar-

den path.

The idea that you can improve your performance by relaxing and “just trusting your gut” is popular. While it may be true that intuition is valuable in routine or familiar situations, informed intuition is the result of deliberate prac- tice. You cannot consistently improve your ability to make decisions (or your intuition) without considerable practice, reflection, and analysis.

You don’t need a different putter.

Many managers hope that they will sud- denly improve performance by adopting new and better methods—just as golf players may think that they can lower their scores with a new and better club. But changing to a different putter may increase the variability of a golfer’s shot and thus hinder his or her ability to play well. In reality, the key to improving ex- pertise is consistency and carefully con- trolled efforts.

Expertise is not captured by knowl-

edge management systems.

Knowledge management systems rarely, if ever, deal with what psychologists call knowledge. They are repositories of images, docu- ments, and routines: external data that people can view and interpret as they try to solve a problem or make a decision. There are no shortcuts to gaining true expertise.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 4

ition. Your golf game now is a social outing, in which you occasionally concentrate on your shot. From this point on, additional time on the course will not substantially improve your performance, which may remain at the same level for decades.

Why does this happen? You don’t improve because when you are playing a game, you get only a single chance to make a shot from any given location. You don’t get to figure out how you can correct mistakes. If you were al- lowed to take five to ten shots from the exact same location on the course, you would get more feedback on your technique and start to adjust your playing style to improve your con- trol. In fact, professionals often take multiple shots from the same location when they train and when they check out a course before a tournament.

This kind of deliberate practice can be adapted to developing business and leadership expertise. The classic example is the case method taught by many business schools, which presents students with real-life situa- tions that require action. Because the eventual outcomes of those situations are known, the students can immediately judge the merits of their proposed solutions. In this way, they can practice making decisions ten to 20 times a week. War games serve a similar training func- tion at military academies. Officers can analyze the trainees’ responses in simulated combat and provide an instant evaluation. Such mock military operations sharpen leadership skills with deliberate practice that lets trainees ex- plore uncharted areas.

Let’s take a closer look at how deliberate practice might work for leadership. You often hear that a key element of leadership and management is charisma, which is true. Being a leader frequently requires standing in front of your employees, your peers, or your board of directors and attempting to convince them of one thing or another, especially in times of crisis. A surprising number of executives be- lieve that charisma is innate and cannot be learned. Yet if they were acting in a play with the help of a director and a coach, most of them would be able to come across as consid- erably more charismatic, especially over time. In fact, working with a leading drama school, we have developed a set of acting exercises for managers and leaders that are designed to in- crease their powers of charm and persuasion.

Executives who do these exercises have shown remarkable improvement. So charisma can be learned through deliberate practice. Bear in mind that even Winston Churchill, one of the most charismatic figures of the twentieth cen- tury, practiced his oratory style in front of a mirror.

Genuine experts not only practice deliber- ately but also think deliberately. The golfer Ben Hogan once explained, “While I am practicing I am also trying to develop my powers of con- centration. I never just walk up and hit the ball.” Hogan would decide in advance where he wanted the ball to go and how to get it there. We actually track this kind of thought process in our research. We present expert per- formers with a scenario and ask them to think aloud as they work their way through it. Chess players, for example, will describe how they spend five to ten minutes exploring all the pos- sibilities for their next move, thinking through the consequences of each and planning out the sequence of moves that might follow it. We’ve observed that when a course of action doesn’t work out as expected, the expert players will go back to their prior analysis to assess where they went wrong and how to avoid future er- rors. They continually work to eliminate their weaknesses.

Deliberate practice involves two kinds of learning: improving the skills you already have and extending the reach and range of your skills. The enormous concentration required to undertake these twin tasks limits the amount of time you can spend doing them. The famous violinist Nathan Milstein wrote: “Practice as much as you feel you can accomplish with con- centration. Once when I became concerned be- cause others around me practiced all day long, I asked [my mentor] Professor Auer how many hours I should practice, and he said, ‘It really doesn’t matter how long. If you practice with your fingers, no amount is enough. If you prac- tice with your head, two hours is plenty.’”

It is interesting to note that across a wide range of experts, including athletes, novelists, and musicians, very few appear to be able to engage in more than four or five hours of high concentration and deliberate practice at a time. In fact, most expert teachers and scien- tists set aside only a couple of hours a day, typi- cally in the morning, for their most demanding mental activities, such as writing about new ideas. While this may seem like a relatively

Consistently and

overwhelmingly, the

evidence showed that

experts are always made,

not born.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 5

small investment, it is two hours a day more than most executives and managers devote to building their skills, since the majority of their time is consumed by meetings and day-to-day concerns. This difference adds up to some 700 hours more a year, or about 7,000 hours more a decade. Think about what you could accom- plish if you devoted two hours a day to deliber- ate practice.

It’s very easy to neglect deliberate practice. Experts who reach a high level of performance often find themselves responding automati- cally to specific situations and may come to rely exclusively on their intuition. This leads to difficulties when they deal with atypical or rare cases, because they’ve lost the ability to ana- lyze a situation and work through the right re- sponse. Experts may not recognize this creep- ing intuition bias, of course, because there is no penalty until they encounter a situation in which a habitual response fails and maybe even causes damage. Older professionals with a great deal of experience are particularly prone to falling into this trap, but it’s certainly not in- evitable. Research has shown that musicians over 60 years old who continue deliberate practice for about ten hours a week can match the speed and technical skills of 20-year-old ex- pert musicians when tested on their ability to play a piece of unfamiliar music.

Moving outside your traditional comfort zone of achievement requires substantial mo- tivation and sacrifice, but it’s a necessary disci- pline. As the golf champion Sam Snead once put it, “It is only human nature to want to practice what you can already do well, since it’s a hell of a lot less work and a hell of a lot more fun.” Only when you can see that delib- erate practice is the most effective means to the desired end—becoming the best in your field—will you commit to excellence. Snead, who died in 2002, held the record for winning the most PGA Tour events and was famous for having one of the most beautiful swings in the sport. Deliberate practice was a key to his success. “Practice puts brains in your muscles,” he said.

Take the Time You Need

By now it will be clear that it takes time to be- come an expert. Our research shows that even the most gifted performers need a minimum of ten years (or 10,000 hours) of intense train- ing before they win international competi-

tions. In some fields the apprenticeship is longer: It now takes most elite musicians 15 to 25 years of steady practice, on average, before they succeed at the international level.

Though there are historical examples of peo- ple who attained an international level of ex- pertise at an early age, it’s also true that, in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, peo- ple could reach world-class levels more quickly. In most fields, the bar of performance has risen steadily since that time. For instance, amateur marathon runners and high school swimmers today frequently better the times of Olympic gold medalists from the early twentieth cen- tury. Increasingly stiff competition now makes it almost impossible to beat the ten-year rule. One notable exception, Bobby Fischer, did manage to become a chess grand master in just nine years, but it is likely that he did so by spending more time practicing each year.

Many people are naive about how long it takes to become an expert. Leo Tolstoy once observed that people often told him they didn’t know whether or not they could write a novel because they hadn’t tried—as if they only had to make a single attempt to discover their natural ability to write. Similarly, the au- thors of many self-help books appear to as- sume that their readers are essentially ready for success and simply need to take a few more easy steps to overcome great hurdles. Popular lore is full of stories about unknown athletes, writers, and artists who become famous over- night, seemingly because of innate talent— they’re “naturals,” people say. However, when examining the developmental histories of ex- perts, we unfailingly discover that they spent a lot of time in training and preparation. Sam Snead, who’d been called “the best natural player ever,” told Golf Digest, “People always said I had a natural swing. They thought I wasn’t a hard worker. But when I was young, I’d play and practice all day, then practice more at night by my car’s headlights. My hands bled. Nobody worked harder at golf than I did.”

Not only do you have to be prepared to in- vest time in becoming an expert, but you have to start early—at least in some fields. Your abil- ity to attain expert performance is clearly con- strained if you have fewer opportunities to en- gage in deliberate practice, and this is far from a trivial constraint. Once, after giving a talk, K. Anders Ericsson was asked by a member of the audience whether he or any other person

It takes time to become

an expert. Even the most

gifted performers need a

minimum of ten years of

intense training before

they win international

competitions.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 6

could win an Olympic medal if he began train- ing at a mature age. Nowadays, Ericsson re- plied, it would be virtually impossible for any- one to win an individual medal without a training history comparable with that of to- day’s elite performers, nearly all of whom started very early. Many children simply do not get the opportunity, for whatever reason, to work with the best teachers and to engage in the sort of deliberate practice that they need to reach the Olympic level in a sport.

Find Coaches and Mentors

Arguably the most famous violin teacher of all time, Ivan Galamian, made the point that bud- ding maestros do not engage in deliberate practice spontaneously: “If we analyze the de- velopment of the well-known artists, we see that in almost every case the success of their entire career was dependent on the quality of their practicing. In practically every case, the practicing was constantly supervised either by the teacher or an assistant to the teacher.”

Research on world-class performers has confirmed Galamian’s observation. It also has shown that future experts need different kinds of teachers at different stages of their development. In the beginning, most are coached by local teachers, people who can give generously of their time and praise. Later on, however, it is essential that performers seek out more-advanced teachers to keep im- proving their skills. Eventually, all top per- formers work closely with teachers who have themselves reached international levels of achievement.

Having expert coaches makes a difference in a variety of ways. To start with, they can help you accelerate your learning process. The thirteenth-century philosopher and sci- entist Roger Bacon argued that it would be impossible to master mathematics in less than 30 years. And yet today individuals can master frameworks as complex as calculus in their teens. The difference is that scholars have since organized the material in such a way that it is much more accessible. Students of mathematics no longer have to climb Ever- est by themselves; they can follow a guide up a well-trodden path.

The development of expertise requires coaches who are capable of giving construc- tive, even painful, feedback. Real experts are extremely motivated students who seek out

such feedback. They’re also skilled at under- standing when and if a coach’s advice doesn’t work for them. The elite performers we stud- ied knew what they were doing right and con- centrated on what they were doing wrong. They deliberately picked unsentimental coaches who would challenge them and drive them to higher levels of performance. The best coaches also identify aspects of your perfor- mance that will need to be improved at your next level of skill. If a coach pushes you too fast, too hard, you will only be frustrated and may even be tempted to give up trying to im- prove at all.

Relying on a coach has its limits, however. Statistics show that radiologists correctly diag- nose breast cancer from X-rays about 70% of the time. Typically, young radiologists learn the skill of interpreting X-rays by working alongside an “expert.” So it’s hardly surprising that the success rate has stuck at 70% for a long time. Imagine how much better radiology might get if radiologists practiced instead by making diagnostic judgments using X-rays in a library of old verified cases, where they could immediately determine their accuracy. We’re seeing these kinds of techniques used more often in training. There is an emerging market in elaborate simulations that can give profes- sionals, especially in medicine and aviation, a safe way to deliberately practice with appropri- ate feedback.

So what happens when you become an Olympic gold medalist, or an international chess master, or a CEO? Ideally, as your exper- tise increased, your coach will have helped you become more and more independent, so that you are able to set your own development plans. Like good parents who encourage their children to leave the nest, good coaches help their students learn how to rely on an “inner coach.” Self-coaching can be done in any field. Expert surgeons, for example, are not con- cerned with a patient’s postoperative status alone. They will study any unanticipated events that took place during the surgery, to try to figure out how mistakes or misjudg- ments can be avoided in the future.

Benjamin Franklin provides one of the best examples of motivated self-coaching. When he wanted to learn to write eloquently and per- suasively, he began to study his favorite articles from a popular British publication, the Specta- tor. Days after he’d read an article he particu-

Real experts seek out

constructive, even

painful feedback.

They’re also skilled at

understanding when and

if a coach’s advice doesn’t

work for them.

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

The Making of an Expert

harvard business review • managing for the long term • july–august 2007 page 7

larly enjoyed, he would try to reconstruct it from memory in his own words. Then he would compare it with the original, so he could discover and correct his faults. He also worked to improve his sense of language by translating the articles into rhyming verse and then from verse back into prose. Similarly, famous paint- ers sometimes attempt to reproduce the paint- ings of other masters.

Anyone can apply these same methods on the job. Say you have someone in your com- pany who is a masterly communicator, and you learn that he is going to give a talk to a unit that will be laying off workers. Sit down and write your own speech, and then compare his actual speech with what you wrote. Ob- serve the reactions to his talk and imagine what the reactions would be to yours. Each time you can generate by yourself decisions, in- teractions, or speeches that match those of people who excel, you move one step closer to reaching the level of an expert performer.

• • •

Before practice, opportunity, and luck can

combine to create expertise, the would-be ex- pert needs to demythologize the achievement of top-level performance, because the notion that genius is born, not made, is deeply in- grained. It’s perhaps most perfectly exempli- fied in the person of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, who is typically presented as a child prodigy with exceptional innate musical ge- nius. Nobody questions that Mozart’s achieve- ments were extraordinary compared with those of his contemporaries. What’s often for- gotten, however, is that his development was equally exceptional for his time. His musical tutelage started before he was four years old, and his father, also a skilled composer, was a famous music teacher and had written one of the first books on violin instruction. Like other world-class performers, Mozart was not born an expert—he became one.

Reprint R0707J

To order, see the next page or call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500 or go to www.hbrreprints.org

This article is made available to you by K. Anders Ericsson, Michael J. Prietula, and Edward T. Cokely. Further posting, copying or distributing is copyright infringement.

Further Reading

To Order

For

Harvard Business Review

reprints and subscriptions, call 800-988-0886 or 617-783-7500. Go to www.hbrreprints.org

For customized and quantity orders of Harvard Business Review article reprints, call 617-783-7626, or e-mai [email protected]

page 8

The

Harvard Business Review

Paperback Series

Here are the landmark ideas—both contemporary and classic—that have established Harvard Business Review as required reading for businesspeople around the globe. Each paperback includes eight of the leading articles on a particular business topic. The series includes over thirty titles, including the following best-sellers:

Harvard Business Review on Brand Management

Product no. 1445

Harvard Business Review on Change

Product no. 8842

Harvard Business Review on Leadership

Product no. 8834

Harvard Business Review on Managing People

Product no. 9075

Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance

Product no. 8826

For a complete list of the

Harvard Business Review paperback series, go to www.hbr.org.