Free tools / Measuring culture · 6 min read, 10 to take the check

Culture Strength Check

by design, or by default?

Most culture tools want to tell you what type of culture you have. Collaborative or competitive, cautious or bold. It’s a satisfying label and it leaves you nowhere to go on Monday.

I wanted something that read a different thing: how clearly and deliberately a team’s culture is being built. Whether it’s by design or by default. That’s something you can actually change, and it’s something you can read from behaviour, which is the only honest place to read it from.

So the Culture Strength Check asks about what happens on your team, scores it transparently, and hands you one place to start. This page is how it works, and what it deliberately doesn’t claim. Or you can just take it.

Free, about ten minutes

Take the Culture Strength Check

Thirty-two questions about what actually happens on your team. A read across the six conversations, your safety band, and one thing to do first. Invite your team afterwards if you want the full picture.

Take the free check

What it measures, and what it doesn’t

There are two very different things you can measure about a culture. The first is its content: the type. The second is its strength and intention: how clearly it has been built, and so how coherent and resilient it is. The check measures the second, for three reasons.

It’s actionable. A type label describes you. Measuring the practice of building culture hands you the levers. There’s no single right culture. What works for one team fails for another, so ranking teams against one ideal is the wrong move. What matters is whether people can see the culture and choose to belong to it. And it’s honest. Strength and intention really can be read from behaviour. Claiming to X-ray a team’s soul in ten minutes can’t.

So, plainly: it isn’t a personality test or a culture-type test. It doesn’t prove cause and effect for your team. And taken by one leader on their own, it’s an informed estimate rather than a validated measurement. More on that further down, because I’d rather say it than have you find out.

What it reads

Four layers, at different depths. Reading them as a system rather than a checklist is the whole point.

The foundation is psychological safety. Whether people on your team can ask a question, admit a mistake or disagree without it being held against them. Amy Edmondson’s work showed teams higher in safety learn and perform better, and Google’s study of its own teams found it the biggest single difference between their best and worst. I treat it as the ground everything else stands on, not a seventh conversation. When safety is thin, people manage what they say, and every other reading comes out rosier than it should.

The practice is the six conversations. These come from Let’s Talk Culture, and each one also maps to published research, so the model stands on both the rooms I’ve worked in and the literature.

  1. 1ExpectationAre expectations said out loud and shared, or privately assumed?
  2. 2ClarificationAre the values specific enough to see? A behaviour, not a word on a wall.
  3. 3CommunicationDoes the culture live in shared language, with the reasons visible?
  4. 4CapabilityDo people have the skills and the support to meet the standard?
  5. 5ConfrontationIs accountability kind and early, or avoided until it’s big?
  6. 6CelebrationDo the behaviours you want get noticed and named?

The order isn’t arbitrary. Each conversation builds on the one before, and capability sits before confrontation on purpose. Holding someone to a behaviour they haven’t been equipped for is unfair, and it erodes trust.

The lens is the three gaps. Not three more things to measure. Three ways of reading the same conversations, and the part I haven’t seen another instrument do.

The aspiration gap

The distance between where the team is and the standard it’s reaching for. Goal-setting research has said for decades that this gap is what drives performance.

The perception gap

The distance between how you read the team and how the team reads itself. The 360-degree feedback literature is clear that leaders who rate themselves higher or lower than their people carry predictable blind spots.

The spread

How much the team agrees with itself. A healthy average hiding a wide spread is a contested culture, not a strong one. Researchers call this climate strength.

The outcome is engagement. Energy, purpose and focus, which is the plain-language version of the validated dimensions of work engagement. You don’t build engagement directly. You build the conditions and have the conversations, and engagement tells you whether they’re landing. That’s why it’s reported on its own rather than mixed into the score.

Why the questions feel odd

The single most important design choice is that the check never asks you to rate the thing directly. Ask someone to score their team’s psychological safety out of a hundred and almost everyone lands around 85. Ego and social desirability do the answering. Ask instead, when someone makes a mistake here, does it tend to get held against them, and you get the truth, because it doesn’t feel like a judgement of the person answering.

Three moves make that work. Behavioural, not evaluative: what happens, not how good it is. Recent and specific: “in the last two weeks” beats “generally”, because the memory of a real event resists spin. And reverse scoring: about a third of the items are worded so that agreeing is the unflattering answer, which breaks the autopilot of nodding along.

There are 32 items across the six conversations, safety and engagement, and each one maps to a single facet of a single construct, so the result is specific enough to act on. In the team version, items written from the leader’s seat are reframed to the team member’s seat, so both of you are reading the same team through comparable questions.

How it’s scored

Every answer becomes a number from 0 to 100. Nobody ever sees an item as a score, only as a question. Each area is the average of its items and lands in one of three bands: By design (70 and up), Taking shape (50 to 69), or By default (under 50). Culture strength is the average of the six conversations. Safety and engagement are reported separately, as the foundation and the outcome.

Safety also acts as a gate. When it’s thin, the report says the whole read is probably optimistic, and it shapes what you’re told to do first. The priority itself follows a simple default: fix the foundation if safety is thin, otherwise start with the lowest conversation, because that’s usually where the most is to be gained. It’s a starting point, not a rule. Building from a strength is a perfectly good call when it carries more leverage.

With your team

On your own, you get an informed read. Two of the three gaps, perception and spread, don’t exist until your team answers as well. When they do, they take the same read anonymously. Individual answers are never shown, and results only unlock once at least four people have responded, so nobody can be picked out. The team score is the average of its members. The perception gap is your score minus theirs, area by area. The spread is how far apart your people are, which is the operational measure of climate strength.

The honest part

A methodology that won’t name its own limits doesn’t deserve to be trusted. So here are mine.

None of that is a reason to distrust the read. It’s the basis for trusting it at exactly the level it earns. And the read is the cheap part. What you do with it on Monday is the work, which is where the Review comes in if you want me in the room for it.

Free, about ten minutes

Ready when you are

Thirty-two questions about what actually happens on your team. A read across the six conversations, your safety band, and one thing to do first. Invite your team afterwards if you want the full picture.

Take the free check

What each choice stands on

The full citation list is on the Culture Offsite methodology page, which gets updated as validation data comes in.

Shane Michael Hatton · Team culture, by design.More free toolsThe Team Culture ModelThe Culture Strength Review