Free Leadership Effectiveness Survey Template | Excel with Auto-Scoring
Free Leadership Effectiveness Survey Template | Excel with Auto-Scoring
This survey helps you see how each manager shapes engagement in their team: clarity, support, trust, and growth. With focused employee engagement survey questions for managers, you get early warning signals and concrete levers for coaching instead of vague “leadership culture” debates.
Survey questions for managers
All closed questions use a 1–5 scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree. Tags: (A) = annual survey, (P) = short upward-feedback pulse, (A/P) = both.
- Q1 (A/P). My manager gives our team clear goals for the next 3–6 months.
- Q2 (A/P). I understand how my work supports our team and company strategy.
- Q3 (A). When priorities change, my manager explains what is different and why.
- Q4 (A/P). My manager sets clear expectations for my role and responsibilities.
- Q5 (A). My manager aligns our team’s objectives with other teams we depend on.
- Q6 (P). In the last month, my manager has checked whether my priorities are realistic.
- Q7 (A/P). When I face blockers, my manager responds quickly and helps remove them.
- Q8 (A/P). I have the tools, information and access I need from my manager to do my job well.
- Q9 (A). My manager is available when I need support or decisions.
- Q10 (A/P). My manager helps me navigate other stakeholders or departments.
- Q11 (A). My manager proactively shares context that helps me make better decisions.
- Q12 (P). In the last 4 weeks, my manager has helped me remove at least one blocker.
- Q13 (A/P). My manager gives me specific, constructive feedback on my work.
- Q14 (A/P). I receive feedback from my manager often enough to stay on track.
- Q15 (A). My manager recognises my efforts, not only the final results.
- Q16 (A/P). My manager celebrates team successes in a way that feels meaningful.
- Q17 (A). Feedback from my manager focuses on behaviours I can change.
- Q18 (P). In the last month, my manager has acknowledged something I did well.
- Q19 (A/P). My manager treats everyone in the team with respect.
- Q20 (A/P). Workload and opportunities are distributed fairly in our team.
- Q21 (A). My manager avoids favoritism when assigning tasks or information.
- Q22 (A/P). I feel included in discussions that affect my work.
- Q23 (A). My manager considers different perspectives before making decisions.
- Q24 (A). I would feel comfortable raising concerns about fairness with my manager.
- Q25 (A/P). My manager takes my development and career seriously.
- Q26 (A/P). I have discussed my medium‑term career goals with my manager in the last 12 months.
- Q27 (A). My manager suggests learning opportunities, projects or contacts that support my growth.
- Q28 (A). My manager follows up on agreed development or training steps.
- Q29 (A/P). I see realistic internal opportunities to grow with support from my manager.
- Q30 (P). In recent months, my manager has encouraged me to build new skills.
- Q31 (A/P). My manager regularly checks in on my workload and stress level.
- Q32 (A/P). When my workload is too high, my manager helps to reprioritise or say no.
- Q33 (A). My manager respects boundaries, such as holidays and non‑working time.
- Q34 (A). Our team can discuss wellbeing and energy without stigma.
- Q35 (A). My manager notices early signs of overload and reacts.
- Q36 (P). In the last 4 weeks, my manager has asked how I am doing, beyond tasks.
- Q37 (A/P). I feel safe to speak up about problems or mistakes with my manager.
- Q38 (A/P). I can challenge my manager’s ideas respectfully without negative consequences.
- Q39 (A). My manager listens more than they speak in difficult conversations.
- Q40 (A). My manager admits their own mistakes and learns from them.
- Q41 (A/P). In our team, we talk openly about “psychologische Sicherheit” (psychological safety).
- Q42 (P). In the last month, I have shared a concern or idea openly with my manager.
- Q43 (A/P). The way my manager leads makes me feel engaged and motivated.
- Q44 (A/P). I see myself working with this manager 12 months from now.
- Q45 (A). I would recommend my manager as a leader to colleagues.
- Q46 (A/P). I feel proud to be part of this team.
- Q47 (A). I rarely think about looking for a job outside this team.
- Q48 (P). Compared to 6 months ago, my engagement with my manager has improved.
Overall rating (NPS-style)
- How likely are you to recommend your manager as a leader to a colleague? (0 = not at all likely, 10 = extremely likely)
Open-ended questions
- What does your manager do that helps you feel engaged and motivated?
- What should your manager do differently to support you and the team better?
- What should your manager continue because it clearly works for you or the team?
- Is there anything else you want to share about how your manager influences engagement in your team?
Decision table: from scores to actions
Cluster questions into 8 dimensions: Clarity & Direction (Q1–Q6), Support & Enablement (Q7–Q12), Recognition & Feedback (Q13–Q18), Fairness & Inclusion (Q19–Q24), Development & Career (Q25–Q30), Workload & Wellbeing (Q31–Q36), Voice & Psychological Safety (Q37–Q42), Overall Engagement & Intent (Q43–Q48 + NPS).
| Dimension | Score threshold | Recommended action | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clarity & Direction (Q1–Q6) | Average < 3.0 | Run a team session to clarify goals, priorities and role expectations; document agreements. | Führungskraft + HR Business Partner | ≤ 14 days after results |
| Support & Enablement (Q7–Q12) | Average < 3.0 | Map key blockers and missing resources; escalate 2–3 concrete needs to senior leadership. | Führungskraft, with area lead | ≤ 21 days |
| Recognition & Feedback (Q13–Q18) | Average < 3.0 | Introduce a simple feedback rhythm (e.g. bi‑weekly 1:1s) and a team recognition ritual. | Führungskraft, coached by HR | Plan ≤ 14 days, live ≤ 30 days |
| Fairness & Inclusion (Q19–Q24) | Average < 3.0 | Review task and opportunity allocation; discuss perceived favoritism in a moderated team workshop. | Führungskraft + HR / DEI | Workshop ≤ 30 days |
| Development & Career (Q25–Q30) | Average < 3.0 | Schedule development talks with all directs; create at least 1 Individual Development Plan (IDP) per person. | Führungskraft | All IDPs completed ≤ 45 days |
| Workload & Wellbeing (Q31–Q36) | Average < 3.0 | Reprioritise team backlog; adjust staffing or deadlines; agree clear availability and boundary rules. | Führungskraft + Area Lead | First changes communicated ≤ 14 days |
| Voice & Psychological Safety (Q37–Q42) | Average < 3.0 | Hold anonymous listening round; manager receives coaching on active listening and “psychologische Sicherheit”. | Führungskraft + HR Development | Coaching started ≤ 30 days |
| Overall Engagement & Intent (Q43–Q48 + NPS) | Engagement avg < 3.0 or NPS ≤ 5 | Identify risk hot spots; run 1:1 check‑ins with all team members; agree 3 concrete commitments. | Führungskraft + HRBP | Check‑ins done ≤ 21 days |
Key takeaways
- Focuses engagement data on the manager layer, not only company-wide culture.
- Links low scores to clear next steps, owners and deadlines.
- Enables targeted coaching and training for specific leadership behaviours.
- Works for annual surveys and short upward-feedback pulses.
- Supports GDPR-compliant, anonymous upward feedback in DACH organisations.
Definition & scope
This survey measures how employees experience their direct manager on key engagement drivers: clarity, support, feedback, fairness, development, workload, psychological safety and intent to stay. It is answered by all direct reports of a manager, not by peers or senior leaders. Insights feed into development plans, coaching, leadership training and decisions on team setup or manager support.
Survey blueprints: how to use these questions
You rarely need all 48 items at once. Combine the employee engagement survey questions for managers into different blueprints for annual diagnostics, short pulses or pilots. For complex setups you can also connect them with broader engagement or performance processes, for example via a talent platform like Sprad Growth.
| Blueprint | Typical length | Main dimensions | Use case & frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual manager engagement survey | 15–20 items | All 8 dimensions, but 1–3 core items each | Once per year to get a full picture of manager impact. |
| Upward-feedback pulse after change | 8–12 items | Support, safety, overall engagement | 2–3 months after new manager, reorg or major change. |
| Pilot in one business unit | 15–20 items | Tailored to local issues (e.g. workload, fairness) | Test survey and process in 1–2 units before rollout. |
| Manager engagement + team health pulse | 20–25 items | Manager items + team climate (e.g. processes, tools) | Twice per year, combines leadership and team health view. |
For more generic engagement and team health items you can reuse content from your existing surveys or from resources like employee engagement survey question libraries.
Scoring & thresholds
Use a 1–5 Likert scale for all closed questions. Calculate average scores per item, manager, and dimension. Define three levels: low = average <3.0 (critical), medium = 3.0–3.9 (improvement needed), high = ≥4.0 (strength). For the NPS-style question, treat 0–6 as detractors, 7–8 as passives, 9–10 as promoters.
- HR or People Analytics clusters questions by dimension and calculates averages for every manager (Owner: HR, ≤ 5 days after survey close).
- Any dimension with score <3.0 automatically enters an “action required” list for that manager (Owner: HR, same timeline).
- Managers draft 2–3 improvement actions per weak dimension and validate them with their team (Owner: Führungskraft, ≤ 21 days).
- Dimensions between 3.0 and 3.9 become “development focus areas” for coaching, training or peer learning (Owner: HR Development, plan ≤ 60 days).
- Dimensions ≥4.2 are shared as good practice examples in manager communities, respecting anonymity of teams (Owner: HR/Leadership, quarterly).
Follow-up & responsibilities
Employee engagement survey questions for managers only add value when responses trigger action. Clarify who does what, how fast, and on which level (team, department, company). Use simple SLAs so managers and employees know what to expect.
- If any dimension avg <2.5, the manager reviews all comments and schedules 1:1s with every team member (Owner: Führungskraft, ≤ 10 days).
- For 2.5–2.9, the manager holds one team workshop to discuss results and agree actions (Owner: Führungskraft, ≤ 21 days).
- HR Business Partners support managers with low scores through coaching, templates and, if needed, formal development programmes (Owner: HRBP, plan ≤ 30 days).
- If a pattern appears across several teams or sites, HR escalates it to the business unit leadership and proposes cross-team measures (Owner: Head of HR, ≤ 45 days).
- Progress on agreed actions is reviewed in regular 1:1s and quarterly leadership reviews, ideally supported by tools like Sprad Growth or Atlas AI for tracking.
Fairness & bias checks
Upward feedback can surface unfair treatment or structural issues. At the same time, small team sizes and strong emotions can distort the picture. You need both fairness for employees and fairness for Führungskräfte.
- Apply anonymity thresholds (e.g. no reporting if team size <5) and aggregate micro-teams where needed (Owner: HR Analytics, before sharing reports).
- Compare manager scores across relevant groups: location, contract type, gender, tenure, remote vs office (Owner: People Analytics, every cycle).
- If a group’s fairness or inclusion scores are ≥0.5 points below the overall average, run focused interviews or listening sessions (Owner: HR/DEI, ≤ 60 days).
- Check for rating bias in comments, e.g. harsher language towards specific demographics, and brief calibration groups on how to read such data (Owner: HR, ongoing).
- Involve the Betriebsrat where required, especially if survey results feed into formal performance or promotion discussions.
Examples / use cases
1. Low clarity after reorganisation
After a reorganisation, a sales unit in Germany pilots the manager engagement survey. Clarity & Direction averages 2.6, while other areas are above 3.5. Comments show confusion about new territories and KPIs.
The unit head decides that all Teamleiter must run a goal‑setting workshop, map responsibilities and document rules of engagement with neighbouring teams. Three months later, a short pulse shows clarity scores at 3.7 and fewer escalations between sales and operations.
2. Hidden fairness issues in a hybrid team
A hybrid product team scores high on engagement overall, but Fairness & Inclusion lands at 2.8. Remote employees feel left out of decisions made in the office. The manager and HR run a workshop, review recurring meetings and change rules: all important decisions must be documented and discussed in mixed-location calls.
They also rotate “meeting chairs” and ensure equal speaking time. In the next survey cycle, fairness scores rise to 3.6 and turnover risk markers drop for remote staff.
3. Development & career as retention lever
In a tech unit with high attrition, Development & Career averages 2.5. Many engineers say they don’t see a future path. HR links survey results with career frameworks and sets a rule: every engineer receives an annual development conversation and a lightweight IDP.
Führungskräfte receive coaching and templates. Within 12 months, development scores climb above 4.0 and regretted turnover falls by 20 %. A broader talent-development initiative kicks off, supported by the company’s performance management framework.
Implementation & updates (DACH & GDPR)
Surveys touch on leadership quality and trust, so governance in DACH matters. Involve the Betriebsrat early, share the exact question set and explain that focus lies on development, not sanctioning. Clarify legal basis (often legitimate interest or consent), stick to data minimisation and never ask for health details.
- Pilot. Choose one business unit (≥5 managers) and run the annual blueprint first (Owner: HR, within 1–2 quarters).
- Rollout. After the pilot, adapt questions and thresholds, then roll out to all eligible managers once per year (Owner: CHRO, agreed timeline).
- Tooling. Use survey software with EU data residency and clear deletion rules; a talent platform like Sprad Growth can also run engagement surveys as part of a wider people stack (Owner: HR IT).
- Data retention. Define how long raw data is stored (e.g. 12–24 months) and when reports are anonymised or deleted (Owner: Data Protection Officer, policy approved with Betriebsrat).
- Metrics. Track participation rate (target ≥70 %), average scores by dimension, change vs previous cycle, number of teams with action plans, and retention in low‑ vs high‑score teams (Owner: People Analytics, annually).
For more detail on survey governance, anonymity thresholds and works council collaboration you can build on guidance from your existing employee survey framework or resources like employee survey templates with GDPR and Betriebsrat checklists.
Conclusion
Manager-focused engagement surveys make the link between Führungskraft behaviour and team engagement visible. Instead of generic “culture scores”, you see where managers give clarity, create “psychologische Sicherheit” and support careers – and where they need help themselves. Research from organisations like Gallup shows that the manager explains a large share of engagement variance, so this level of detail matters.
The value does not come from the number of items, but from disciplined follow‑up: clear thresholds, owners, deadlines, and honest conversations with teams. Done well, you get three big benefits: earlier detection of issues, better quality of 1:1 and team conversations, and sharper priorities for leadership development and performance management.
Concrete next steps: pick one blueprint (e.g. annual survey), load the questions into your survey tool, align with the Betriebsrat, and brief managers on purpose and process. After the first cycle, run a short review: what worked, which questions felt redundant, where did actions stall? Adjust and repeat. Over 2–3 cycles, this becomes a reliable, trusted feedback loop between employees, Führungskräfte and HR.
FAQ
How often should we run manager engagement surveys?
Most organisations run a full manager-focused survey once per year and add 1–2 short pulses. A good pattern is: annual diagnostic with 15–20 items, then a targeted pulse (8–10 items) 3–6 months later on the weakest dimensions. This gives you trends without survey fatigue and keeps follow‑up conversations current.
How anonymous should feedback about managers be?
In DACH, aim for strict anonymity to protect employees and keep trust high. Do not show results for teams with fewer than 5 responses and avoid sharing raw comments where individuals are easily identifiable. Aggregate results where needed, and explain these rules in advance. Managers should respond to themes, not guess who said what.
What if a manager’s scores are very low?
Treat low scores as a development signal, not instant condemnation. First, discuss results with the manager in a safe setting and review comments together. Then combine 1:1 conversations with the team, targeted coaching and, if needed, training on basics like feedback or “psychologische Sicherheit”. Re‑measure after 6–12 months to see whether behaviour and perceptions have changed.
How do we connect survey results with other HR processes?
Use manager engagement data as one input into your performance management and talent development discussions, never the only one. For example, include dimension scores and comment themes in leadership development plans or 360° feedback summaries. Keep a clear line between development and hard decisions like promotion or bonus to avoid fear and manipulation.
How can we update the question set over time?
Review questions every 1–2 years with HR, managers, employees and the Betriebsrat. Keep 70–80 % of items stable for trend analysis and rotate 20–30 % to reflect new realities (e.g. hybrid work, new strategy). Track how often items show clear patterns and drive action; retire those that never change or never trigger decisions. Document all changes so you can still compare across cycles where it makes sense.
Jürgen Ulbrich
Jürgen Ulbrich has more than a decade of experience in developing and leading high-performing teams and companies. As an expert in employee referral programs as well as feedback and performance processes, Jürgen has helped over 100 organizations optimize their talent acquisition and development strategies.
