Most arguments about whether NPS works rely on the one or two studies that support whichever side is making the argument. Here's the full reading list — for and against, primary research only — in one place, so you can read both sides and make your own call.
There's a recurring critique that NPS doesn't actually measure anything real. It's a fair question, and it deserves a proper answer rather than a defensive one. Here's a pragmatic case for using a methodology that works, even when no one can fully explain why.
Academic critiques of NPS keep arriving, and a couple of them are worth taking seriously. Most aren't. Here's a walk through one widely-cited paper that gets the logic — and the methodology — backwards, and what it tells us about the wider debate.
A widely-shared ClickZ piece called out NPS for being statistically broken, methodologically arbitrary, and fundamentally wrong. It misses on all three. Here's a line-by-line response — useful the next time you see the same critique re-circulating on LinkedIn.