This read more like an article than a book (and its font is large with double spaces and small pages to stretch it it to 190 pages). Also, the study itself had some shortcomings. For example, the total sample size is a tad small at 860 which is particularly evident when only 18 are determined to be "alphas". These 18 alphas are then discussed throughout the entire book with comparisons to non-alphas. Also, the definition of "alpha" is pretty arbitrary, based on the composite score of all stakeholders on a survey and some arbitrary cutoff of the top 2% scores. We don't know whether something is significantly different between the top 2% and the top 10%, for example. And since survey respondents provided scores on a range of 1 - 100, there is a lot of room for stakeholders to have different ideas about what an average or above average score is. Also, I noticed a few times that the author made useless conclusions, noting that the alpha project managers received significantly higher scores from stakeholders than non-alphas on several criteria - no surprise there, an alpha is DEFINED as someone in the top 2% of all scores. Still, I found it useful to compare and contrast the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders (including customers, senior management and team members) against those of the project managers. It got me thinking about what misconceptions I may have within my team.