Handy Organizational Culture Typology Test

How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No
- Yes
- No
Handy Organizational Culture Typology Test - Description and methodology of the test
Managers, team leaders, consultants, and employees can use the Handy Organizational Culture Typology Test to examine how an organization distributes authority, coordinates work, and defines effective behavior. As an organizational culture assessment, it provides a structured vocabulary for discussing workplace fit, decision-making, leadership expectations, and the conditions that help people contribute.
What This Assessment Measures
The results use the Handy culture model, which describes culture through authority, coordination, relationships, and work priorities. Statements reflect perceived norms, not an objective audit of every team.
The four displayed dimensions are:
- Person Culture: 0-100 measures autonomy, professionalism, consensus, and minimal control; Low 0-33, Moderate 34-66, High 67-100.
- Task Culture: 0-100 measures teamwork, creativity, distributed authority, and goal-focused problem solving; Low task culture 0-33, Moderate task culture 34-66, High task culture 67-100.
- Role Culture: 0-100 measures formal duties, procedures, standardization, and predictability; Low role culture 0-33, Moderate role culture 34-66, High role culture 67-100.
- Power Culture: 0-100 measures leader-centered influence, personal trust, intuition, and central relationships; Low power culture 0-33, Moderate power culture 34-66, High power culture 67-100.
The combined profile highlights dominant arrangements and supports reflection on workplace fit, collaboration, and friction.
Methodology and Evidence Base
The response format is binary: each statement is marked Yes or No. Items cover structure, authority, communication, decision-making, career expectations, rules, innovation, learning, problem solving, and individual expertise. Grouping them allows the questionnaire to compare recurring patterns rather than treat one answer as a complete description.
Handy’s four-part typology supplies the central framework. Harrison’s work offers a related way to examine how authority and operating assumptions shape behavior, while Tikhomirova addresses organizational culture formation and evaluation. Schein’s model supports viewing culture as shared patterns that influence how people interpret and coordinate work. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with these sources, not a verbatim administration of any cited instrument.
The results provide four profile scores and show the corresponding bands; the questionnaire does not state a standardized point-allocation or calculation rule. No population norms, reliability estimates, or diagnostic thresholds are specified for this online questionnaire, so the results work best as descriptive prompts for discussion. As a workplace culture test, it is sensitive to the respondent’s role, current experience, and willingness to answer candidly. Comparing perspectives across teams can produce a more balanced interpretation.
- Handy, Charles B. (1978). Gods of Management: How They Work, and Why They Will Fail. London: Souvenir Press.
- Harrison, Roger. (1972). Understanding Your Organization's Character. Harvard Business Review, 50(3), 119-128.
- Tikhomirova, Olga G. (2008). Organizational Culture: Formation, Development, and Evaluation. Saint Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics.
- Schein, Edgar H. (1990). Organizational Culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. 10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.109
Updated: