Feedback Culture Survey Questions Template: Psychological Safety, Candor & Follow-Through

This survey helps you see if people actually speak up when something's wrong, give honest feedback without fear of retaliation, and whether suggestions turn into real change. Research shows that teams with high psychological safety are more innovative and adaptable; transparent feedback cycles close the gap between good intentions and daily practice. By measuring candor, follow-through and safety, you spot problems early and turn vague concerns into targeted coaching, training or process fixes.

Feedback Culture: Survey questions

I feel comfortable raising problems or admitting mistakes on my team without fear of punishment.
My manager encourages me to share new ideas and voice concerns openly.
Team members actively welcome opinions that differ from their own.
I feel safe taking risks and suggesting bold approaches in discussions.
People on this team respect each other's unique skills and viewpoints.
My colleagues provide honest, constructive feedback, not just vague praise.
I feel comfortable giving critical feedback to peers or my manager.
Members of this team can raise tough issues and challenge decisions openly.
Feedback on my work is given regularly, not only during annual reviews.
I receive specific, timely feedback soon after completing important tasks.
Our team frequently asks for input and adjusts work based on that feedback.
I feel safe disagreeing with the group's opinion when I see a better approach.
I can give feedback to my manager without fear of negative consequences.
My manager actively asks for and listens to feedback from the team.
Colleagues regularly seek and offer constructive feedback with each other.
When feedback is given, leaders take visible action or explain why not.
Our team implements changes based on employee suggestions and tracks progress.
Managers receive training in giving and receiving feedback effectively.
We have tools or regular meetings that make giving feedback easy.
Overall, our culture supports speaking up and honest communication.
I see leaders modeling direct, respectful feedback in daily interactions.
Peers provide both recognition and constructive comments on my performance.
Upward feedback (to my manager) is taken seriously and acted upon.
Feedback is documented and revisited in follow-up conversations.
I understand how my feedback contributed to decisions or changes made.

How likely are you to recommend this team or organization to a friend as a place where honest feedback is valued? (0 = Not likely at all, 10 = Extremely likely)

What is one thing our team should start doing to improve how feedback is given and received?
What is one practice we should stop that makes honest feedback feel unsafe?
What should we continue doing to maintain openness and trust in our feedback culture?
Any other comments or suggestions related to candor, psychological safety or follow-through?

Decision table

Area or question(s)	Score / threshold	Recommended action	Owner	Deadline
Psychological safety (Q1–Q5)	Average <3.0	Hold a facilitated team workshop to discuss fear of speaking up. Coach leaders on supportive behaviors. Create anonymous feedback channel.	HR/Team Lead	Within 14 days
Feedback frequency (Q8–Q11)	Average <3.0	Establish regular check-ins (weekly or bi-weekly). Train managers to give timely, specific feedback. Monitor compliance.	Managers/People Ops	Within 21 days
Candor & directness (Q6–Q7, Q21–Q22)	Average <3.0	Run communication skills workshop on respectful candor. Leaders model direct feedback. Q&A sessions for difficult topics.	Leadership & HR	Within 30 days
Upward feedback (Q13–Q14)	Average <3.0	Clarify no-retaliation policy. Introduce anonymous upward feedback option. Train managers to receive feedback constructively.	Managers/HR	Within 21 days
Action & follow-through (Q16–Q17, Q24–Q25)	Average <3.0	Create an action-tracker for issues raised. Assign owners and due dates. Communicate progress publicly. Close the loop.	Team Lead/HR	Within 30 days
Feedback systems & training (Q18–Q20, Q23)	Average <3.0	Provide manager training on giving and receiving feedback. Implement feedback tools (1:1 templates, software). Review uptake quarterly.	HR L&D/People Ops	Within 60 days

Key takeaways

Identify silent dysfunction early before it escalates into turnover or conflict.
Focus manager development on receiving feedback and showing visible follow-through.
Ensure every survey outcome has a named owner and clear deadline for action.
Measure progress with repeat pulses to prove that feedback drives real change.
Build trust by closing the loop publicly on what you changed and why.

Definition & scope

This employee engagement survey measures feedback culture across seven core dimensions: psychological safety (comfort speaking up without punishment), feedback norms and frequency (how often real feedback happens beyond annual reviews), candor and directness (avoiding fake harmony), upward feedback to managers, peer feedback practices, action and follow-through (whether suggestions lead to visible change), and the tools or training that support feedback. It is designed for all employees or at least all direct reports, providing HR and leadership with diagnostic data to guide manager development, communication training and broader culture initiatives.

Psychological safety

Psychological safety is the bedrock of a healthy feedback culture. People must believe they can admit mistakes, challenge ideas and raise uncomfortable truths without fear of retribution or being frozen out. When scores on Q1 through Q5 fall below 3.0, it signals fear, mistrust or learned silence that will stifle innovation and retention. Low safety often shows up as people nodding in meetings but venting privately or staying quiet even when they see problems brewing.

The process starts with listening. Hold a confidential session (one-on-one or small group) where team members can voice specific concerns without being named. Then train the manager on supportive behaviors: thanking people for dissent, visibly acting on small suggestions and never punishing someone for bad news. Senior leaders should model this by publicly sharing a time they were wrong or changed course based on feedback.

Schedule a facilitated debrief within 14 days where the team discusses survey patterns without blame (Owner: Team Lead).
Provide coaching for the manager on listening, acknowledgement and psychological safety techniques (Owner: HR, within 30 days).
Commit to responding to any reported safety concern within 24 hours, even if only to acknowledge receipt and next steps (Owner: Team Lead, immediate).
Ask senior leaders to share a mistake or course-correction in an all-hands to model openness (Owner: Leadership, next all-hands).

Candor & directness

Candor means giving feedback that is clear, specific and actionable, delivered with respect but without softening the message into uselessness. It cuts through fake harmony where everyone smiles and nods but nobody addresses the real issue. When Q6 through Q8 and Q21 through Q22 score low, you likely have polite avoidance or dancing around problems instead of honest dialogue.

Set clear norms: feedback should name observable behavior, explain impact and suggest an alternative. For example, instead of "Great job!" say "Your detailed notes saved the team three hours of rework." Run a workshop on respectful candor, with role-plays covering how to deliver critical feedback and how to receive it without defensiveness. Leaders must go first by giving direct feedback in public forums and by asking for it themselves.

Train employees on "radical candor" or similar frameworks that balance care with directness (Owner: HR, within 30 days).
Have a senior leader share a story of receiving tough feedback and how they acted on it (Owner: Team Lead, next team meeting).
Establish team communication norms in writing (e.g. no interruptions, focus on behavior not person) and revisit them quarterly (Owner: Team, by next sprint).
Follow up two weeks after training by asking peers if they've received useful, specific feedback (Owner: HR, within 14 days after training).

Feedback frequency & norms

High-performing teams exchange feedback continuously, not just once a year during formal reviews. If Q8 through Q11 are low, people are waiting too long for input, letting problems fester and missing opportunities to reinforce good work. Frequency matters because timely feedback is easier to act on and signals that improvement is part of daily work, not an annual event.

Establish a rhythm: for example, weekly one-on-ones where managers ask "What's one thing I can help with?" and "What's one thing you'd like me to keep doing or change?" Document these check-ins in a shared system so nothing is forgotten. Use short pulse surveys or quick polls after big projects to capture real-time feedback while memories are fresh. Automated reminders help maintain the cadence.

Implement weekly or bi-weekly one-on-ones with a standing feedback agenda item (Owner: Managers, starting immediately).
Send a quick three-question pulse after each major project (Owner: HR, after next milestone).
Add a "feedback moments" section to team rituals like retrospectives or all-hands (Owner: Team Lead, at next all-hands).
Train managers to give feedback within 48 hours of an observed event, not weeks later (Owner: HR, within 30 days).

Upward & peer feedback

Employees must feel safe giving feedback to their manager and to colleagues at the same level. Upward feedback ensures managers know what to keep doing and what to change; peer feedback builds mutual accountability. When Q13 through Q15 are low, people fear that criticizing the boss or a peer will backfire or simply be ignored.

Revisit how feedback moves up the chain. If employees don't trust face-to-face channels, offer an anonymous option (but explain that anonymity limits follow-up). Train managers to thank people for upward feedback, even when it stings, and to act on at least one suggestion publicly. For peer feedback, introduce structured 360-degree reviews with clear confidentiality rules and tie the results to development plans, not compensation.

Hold an anonymous upward feedback round where employees rate their manager on receptiveness and action (Owner: HR, within 30 days).
Train managers to say "Thank you for that feedback" before reacting or defending (Owner: HR, within 30 days).
Set up peer review sessions (e.g. 360-style) with guidelines on giving constructive criticism (Owner: HR, within 60 days).
Celebrate an example where employee feedback led to a visible change (Owner: Leadership, ongoing at team meetings).

Action & follow-through

Feedback is worthless if it vanishes into a void. When Q16, Q17, Q24 and Q25 are low, employees see no proof that their input mattered. This breeds cynicism and discourages future participation. Follow-through means documenting suggestions, assigning owners, tracking progress and communicating outcomes transparently.

Create an action-tracker (spreadsheet or software) where every piece of feedback has a status: "under review," "in progress," "implemented" or "declined with reason." Review the tracker in regular manager meetings and share updates with the team. Even when you can't act on a suggestion, explain why and show the analysis you did. Visible progress turns feedback into a conversation, not a complaint box.

Build a shared action-tracker for issues raised in the survey; update status weekly (Owner: Team Lead & HR, within 14 days).
Assign a specific owner and due date for every action item (Owner: Team Lead, within 7 days).
Report progress on the tracker at every team meeting or in a monthly email (Owner: Manager, ongoing).
If an idea can't be implemented, write a one-paragraph explanation and share it with the person who suggested it (Owner: Manager, within 21 days).

Scoring & thresholds

This feedback culture survey questions template uses a 1 to 5 agreement scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). We define thresholds as follows: any average below 3.0 is critical, indicating urgent concern that needs immediate attention; 3.0 to 3.9 means needs improvement and should be addressed in the next planning cycle; 4.0 and above is healthy, though you should still review open comments for nuance.

Responses are typically averaged by theme: psychological safety (Q1–Q5), feedback frequency (Q8–Q11), candor (Q6–Q7, Q21–Q22), upward feedback (Q13–Q14), peer feedback (Q15, Q22), follow-through (Q16–Q17, Q24–Q25) and systems support (Q18–Q20, Q23). These scores trigger the actions in the decision table. For example, a sub-3.0 in safety means immediate team intervention; a 3.5 in frequency might prompt a check-in cadence review; scores above 4.0 suggest maintaining current practices while looking for incremental gains.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Decide in advance who acts on which signals. Managers address team-specific issues (e.g. low candor in one squad). HR handles systemic patterns (e.g. training gaps across multiple teams). Senior leaders own cultural signals that cross teams (e.g. organization-wide fear of speaking up). As soon as results arrive, any average below 2.5 triggers an immediate check-in by the manager with the team or individuals, ideally within 24 hours.

Then, within one week, leaders and HR must plan concrete responses with clear owners and deadlines. Document each action step with a specific date; for example, "HR will run candor workshops with all managers by 30 days post-survey." Update employees regularly so improvements become a permanent fixture. Experts recommend regular communication about progress to keep workforce apprised and maintain trust.

Leader reviews results with the team, acknowledges key issues without blame (Owner: Manager, within 7 days).
HR collaborates with managers to assign actions for averages below 3.0, writing them down with dates (Owner: HR, within 14 days).
Report progress on each action to the whole team in every check-in or monthly update (Owner: Manager, ongoing).
Escalate any signs of retaliation or fear immediately to HR for investigation (Owner: Team Lead or HR, 24-hour response).

Fairness & bias checks

Always break down results by relevant groups: team, location, remote versus in-office, tenure, department, level and any other demographic dimension your tools allow (while protecting anonymity thresholds). This reveals hidden disparities that overall averages can mask. For instance, one study showed an overall communication score of 65 percent but the engineering team scored only 30 percent compared to 95 percent for sales, pointing to a team-specific breakdown.

Look for any groups consistently rating safety or feedback lower. Typical patterns include junior staff feeling less safe than veterans, one office location showing lower trust than others or remote workers receiving less frequent feedback. Respond accordingly: if one team or demographic scores much lower (e.g. below 3.0), conduct a targeted focus group within 14 days to understand root causes. If differences persist, consider tailored initiatives such as mentor programs, local leadership changes or remote-specific check-in protocols. Always be transparent about the data and intended fixes to maintain fairness.

If one team or department scores much lower than others (e.g. below 3.0), run a retrospective to identify causes (Owner: HR & that Manager, within 14 days).
If a particular group (remote, role, demographic) reports low safety, arrange confidential interviews to understand concerns (Owner: HR, within 30 days).
If differences persist, design tailored initiatives (e.g. mentor programs, leadership changes) and publish the plan transparently (Owner: HR & Leadership, within 60 days).

Examples / use cases

A product team in a SaaS company showed very low scores in safety and candor (Q1 through Q5 average 2.2). Management acted by running a trust-building workshop facilitated by an external coach and encouraging the manager to share stories of past mistakes that improved products. They also set up bi-weekly feedback check-ins with a simple agenda. In the next pulse survey three months later, safety and openness scores rose above 4.0 and team members reported fewer hidden problems and faster problem-solving.

An operations group at a manufacturing firm scored high on safety (4.5) but low on follow-through (Q16 through Q17 average 2.5). Employees said feedback "vanishes into a void." The decision was to assign a project manager to track all feedback items in a shared spreadsheet and communicate back what changes were made. Messages like "We heard your concern about tool X and we will implement feature Y by next month" were sent. After implementation and regular updates, follow-through scores improved significantly and employees felt heard.

A department in a professional services company had mixed results between junior and senior staff: juniors rated leadership access much lower. In response, senior leaders held open office hours for two weeks to listen to junior concerns and adjusted promotion criteria transparently based on that input. This showed responsiveness and the next survey saw more uniform scores across levels, indicating that visible action on upward feedback built trust.

Implementation & updates

Roll out this survey in stages. Begin with a pilot in one department, especially one that is receptive to feedback and already has some trust, to refine questions and process. Collect reactions: were any questions confusing? Did the survey take too long? Once validated, expand to all teams. Inform managers about how to interpret results and integrate them into performance reviews and development plans. Train leaders on action planning, ensuring they understand the link between survey insights and daily management practices.

Review and update the survey questions annually or when priorities change. For example, if your team introduces a new feedback tool, add a question about it. Analyze each survey to identify gaps: are there emerging issues (e.g. hybrid work challenges) that aren't captured? Iterate by refining wording, adding or retiring questions and adjusting thresholds based on observed outcomes. Continuous improvement of the survey itself signals that feedback is valued at every level.

Pilot the survey in one team, gather feedback on question clarity and length (Owner: HR/Team Lead, within 30 days).
Roll out company-wide with communication from leadership explaining purpose and confidentiality (Owner: People Ops, next quarter).
Train managers on using results for development, not punishment (Owner: HR, within 60 days).
Use a platform like Sprad Growth to automate survey sends, reminders and task tracking for follow-up actions.
Track key metrics: participation rate, average scores by dimension, percentage of action items completed on time and repeat survey scores to measure progress.

Conclusion

This feedback culture survey uncovers hidden doubts and prevents misalignment by measuring psychological safety, candor and follow-through. It helps HR and leaders detect problems early, focus on concrete improvements (notably manager training and communication changes) and track whether interventions work. The key is action: create clear plans from the scores, assign owners with deadlines and communicate progress so employees see that their voice drives real change.

Three central learnings stand out. First, early recognition of low safety or follow-through scores allows you to address issues before they become big problems like turnover or conflict. Second, better conversation quality emerges when you train managers to receive feedback gracefully and respond visibly. Third, clearer priorities for development result when you link survey insights to individual coaching, team workshops and system-level changes. Next steps include choosing a pilot team and setting a survey date, loading the questions into your survey tool and assigning an owner (e.g. People Ops) to analyze results. Then plan a kickoff meeting with leaders to explain how to use the data for action, not blame. Over time, repeat the survey and refine questions so feedback culture becomes a continuous cycle of improvement.

FAQ

How often should we run this feedback culture survey?

We recommend at least an annual full review to establish a baseline and track year-over-year trends. After the initial survey, many organizations do quarterly or semi-annual pulse surveys on key issues to maintain momentum and catch new problems early. Shorter pulse surveys (even monthly) can track progress on specific action items and keep the conversation alive without survey fatigue.

What should we do if the scores are very low?

Low scores are not the end; they are a call to action and a gift of honest data. Treat them as starting points: sit down with those teams or individuals, listen to their concerns in confidential settings and address root causes with concrete plans. For example, low trust might mean more transparent communication or leadership changes; low scores on fairness might mean revisiting policies or decision-making processes. Use the results to have open discussions and then implement targeted fixes with clear timelines.

How should we handle very critical or negative comments?

Critical feedback should be handled with care and transparency. Thank respondents for honesty and investigate whether specific concerns reveal broader trends. While respecting anonymity, summarize main themes back to the team and explain how you will respond. If handled with care, clarity and consistency, even low scores can build trust because employees see that leadership takes feedback seriously and acts on it rather than burying bad news.

How can we involve managers and employees in this process?

Engagement is key. Get leaders to champion the survey by publicly thanking participants and explaining how results will guide changes, not punishment. Encourage managers to discuss results in one-on-ones and team meetings, framing feedback as a tool for growth. Let employees know you value their input by sharing survey findings, planned actions and progress updates transparently. Training managers on how to give feedback about feedback (meta-feedback) also boosts participation and quality of future surveys.

How do we update the survey questions over time?

Review the question set annually to keep it relevant. Over time, you may add new questions on emerging priorities (e.g. hybrid work, new tools) or retire ones that no longer apply. Analyze each survey to identify gaps: for example, if your team introduces a new feedback platform, add a question about its usability. Feedback from participants themselves can highlight confusing wording or missing dimensions, so iterate continuously to improve clarity and coverage.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

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.