A focused set of manager 360 feedback questions helps you move from vague “leadership impressions” to concrete behaviour change. Unlike engagement or manager-effectiveness surveys, this template collects structured feedback from reports, peers and managers-of-managers so you can coach leaders, not hunt for culprits.
Survey questions
Use a 1–5 scale for all closed questions. Default: 1 = Strongly disagree / Never, 5 = Strongly agree / Always. For frequency-style items, keep the 1–5 scale but label it “Never” to “Always”.
2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)
- Q1. Our team’s goals are clear and concrete. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q2. This manager connects our team goals to the wider company strategy. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q3. When priorities change, this manager explains what we should stop or pause. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q4. This manager focuses our time on the few most important outcomes. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q5. I understand how my work contributes to the results this manager is responsible for. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q6. [Frequency] This manager revisits goals and priorities with the team. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q7. This manager gives me clear, constructive feedback on my performance. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q8. Feedback from this manager helps me understand my strengths. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q9. Feedback from this manager helps me understand my development areas. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q10. [Frequency] This manager holds regular 1:1s focused on my growth, not only on tasks. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q11. This manager suggests concrete development actions (projects, training, mentoring). (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q12. I would feel comfortable asking this manager for support with my career development. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q13. This manager shares relevant context behind important decisions. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q14. I can ask this manager clarifying questions without feeling awkward. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q15. [Frequency] This manager checks whether messages have really landed and been understood. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q16. This manager adapts their communication style to different audiences. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q17. This manager is responsive and reachable when I need them. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q18. This manager is transparent about constraints, risks and trade-offs. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q19. This manager encourages team members to help each other. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q20. [Frequency] This manager brings the right people together to solve cross-team issues. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q21. This manager addresses tensions or conflicts instead of ignoring them. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q22. People in this team can disagree openly with this manager. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q23. This manager gives credit to others for their contributions. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q24. Other teams find this manager constructive to work with. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q25. This manager treats people fairly, regardless of personal relationships. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q26. I do not see favouritism in how this manager allocates interesting work. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q27. This manager considers diverse perspectives before deciding. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q28. People with different backgrounds feel respected by this manager. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q29. This manager gives feedback in a way that respects cultural and personal differences. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q30. If I raised a concern about unfair treatment, I would trust this manager to handle it. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q31. This manager sets realistic expectations for workload and deadlines. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q32. [Frequency] This manager checks how workload and stress levels are developing in the team. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q33. This manager supports me in setting healthy boundaries (e.g. evenings, weekends, vacations). (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q34. When workload is high, this manager helps to re-prioritise or push back. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q35. This manager recognises early signs of burnout or overload. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q36. I feel this manager cares about my wellbeing, not only my output. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q37. I feel safe to speak up about problems with this manager. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q38. [Frequency] This manager invites critical feedback on their own behaviour. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q39. This manager reacts constructively when they receive bad news. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q40. I can admit mistakes to this manager without fear of unfair consequences. (Best for: Direct reports)
- Q41. I trust this manager to keep sensitive information confidential when appropriate. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q42. I believe this manager will follow through on commitments they make. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q43. Overall, this manager is an effective leader for this team. (Best for: All rater groups)
- Q44. I am confident in this manager’s ability to lead through change. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q45. I would choose to work with this manager again in the future. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
- Q46. This manager is a good role model for our leadership expectations. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q47. [Frequency] I see this manager investing time in their own learning and development. (Best for: Peers, Manager-of-manager)
- Q48. This manager helps create a work environment where people can do their best work. (Best for: Direct reports, Peers)
2.2 Overall / NPS-style question
- Q49. How likely are you to recommend this manager as a leader to a colleague? (0–10, 0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely)
2.3 Open-ended questions
- O1. What is one thing this manager should do more of to increase their positive impact?
- O2. What is one thing this manager should do less of or stop doing?
- O3. Describe a specific situation where this manager supported you particularly well. What did they do?
- O4. Describe a specific situation where this manager disappointed you. What would you have needed instead?
Decision & action table
| Dimension / questions | Trigger threshold | Recommended action | Owner | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direction & prioritisation (Q1–Q6) | Average score <3.5 or ≥25% “Disagree” | Run a goal-setting workshop with manager and team; define 3–5 clear priorities. | Manager + HR business partner | Within 30 days after results |
| Coaching & development (Q7–Q12) | Average score <3.5 or ≥30% “Disagree” on Q10 | Set up a coaching plan: monthly 1:1s focused on strengths, growth, and concrete actions. | Manager + external/internal coach | Plan agreed within 21 days, review after 90 days |
| Communication & transparency (Q13–Q18) | Average score <3.5 | Provide communication skills training and shadowing; manager practices key messages with mentor. | HR / L&D + manager’s leader | Training within 60 days; check-in after 120 days |
| Collaboration & team climate (Q19–Q24) | Average score <3.5 or strong gap between peers vs. reports (>0.7) | Facilitate a team workshop on collaboration; agree 3 concrete norms and conflict-handling rules. | Manager + HR facilitator | Workshop within 45 days; follow-up survey after 6 months |
| Inclusion & fairness (Q25–Q30) | Any item <3.0 or large variance by subgroup (e.g. gender, location) | Run bias-awareness coaching for manager; review work allocation and promotion decisions. | D&I lead / HR + manager’s leader | Diagnose within 30 days; structural changes within 90 days |
| Wellbeing & workload (Q31–Q36) | Average <3.5 or high burnout risk in comments | Re-plan workload; clarify expectations; schedule regular wellbeing check-ins. | Manager + HR + relevant senior leader | Workload review within 21 days; progress review after 60 days |
| Trust & psych. safety (Q37–Q42) | Any item <3.0 or ≥20% “Strongly disagree” on Q37/Q40 | Offer leadership coaching; manager co-creates “team safety” commitments with team. | Manager + coach + HR | Start coaching within 30 days; commitments shared within 45 days |
| Overall impact & NPS (Q43–Q49) | Q49 average <7.0 or >25% promoters (9–10) gap vs. company benchmark | Hold development debrief; agree 2–3 written development goals linked to leadership expectations. | Manager + manager-of-manager | Debrief within 30 days; goals integrated in next review cycle |
Key takeaways
- Use manager 360 feedback questions to drive behaviour change, not one-off ratings.
- Cluster questions into clear dimensions to spot patterns quickly.
- Set numeric thresholds so feedback always triggers concrete follow-up.
- Protect anonymity and psychological safety with smart rater selection.
- Turn each 360 into 2–3 specific leadership development commitments.
Definition & scope
This manager 360° survey measures concrete leadership behaviours: direction, coaching, communication, collaboration, inclusion, wellbeing, trust, and overall impact. It is designed for feedback from direct reports, peers and managers-of-managers on people managers at any level. Results support decisions on coaching, leadership programs, succession planning and changes in leadership culture, alongside performance management and talent development processes.
Questionnaire blueprints for typical manager 360 cycles
Use these blueprints to assemble lean manager 360 feedback questions for different leadership situations. They sit nicely next to a broader 360 degree feedback framework or a company-wide performance approach.
| Blueprint | Target group | Length & question ranges | Focus dimensions | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Manager 360 | Experienced team leads / managers | ~35 closed items: Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q13–Q18, Q19–Q24, Q37–Q42, Q43–Q49 + O1–O4 | Direction, coaching, communication, collaboration, trust, overall impact | Good default for annual development cycles; use for all rater groups. |
| New Manager 360 (6–12 months) | Recently promoted managers | ~28 closed items: Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q13–Q15, Q19–Q21, Q31–Q36, Q43–Q45, Q49 + O1–O3 | Basics: clarity, feedback, 1:1s, workload, early trust | Emphasise concrete behaviours; skip advanced cross-team items. |
| Senior Leader / Director 360 | Directors, heads, VPs | ~32 closed items: Q1–Q5, Q13–Q18, Q19–Q24, Q25–Q30, Q37–Q42, Q43–Q49 + O1–O4 | Strategic direction, cross-functional collaboration, inclusion, psychological safety | Include more peers and managers-of-managers; fewer direct reports can still work. |
| Focused 360: Inclusion & feedback culture | Any people manager with a specific development goal | ~24 closed items: Q7–Q12, Q19–Q24, Q25–Q30, Q37–Q40, Q43–Q45 + O1–O4 | Feedback quality, fairness, team climate, safety to speak up | Use mid-cycle as follow-up to training or coaching on inclusion. |
Scoring & thresholds
All closed manager 360 feedback questions use a 1–5 scale. Map responses like this: 1 = Strongly disagree/Never, 2 = Disagree/Rarely, 3 = Neutral/Sometimes, 4 = Agree/Often, 5 = Strongly agree/Always. The 0–10 recommendation item (Q49) stands alone.
Define clear ranges so you can act quickly:
- Low score (critical): average <3.0 → must trigger targeted intervention.
- Medium (needs improvement): 3.0–3.9 → choose 1–2 priority areas for each manager.
- High (strength): ≥4.0 → recognise and use as peer role model where appropriate.
For each dimension, calculate:
- Average score per question and per dimension (e.g. Direction = mean of Q1–Q6).
- Distribution of “Disagree/Strongly disagree” responses per item (red flags if ≥20%).
- Gaps between rater groups (e.g. peers vs. reports >0.7 → perception mismatch).
Translate scores into decisions, not just reports. For example, a Direction score <3.5 (Q1–Q6) leads to a 90-day plan: goal-reset workshop, updated team OKRs, and follow-up check-in. A Trust & psychological safety score <3.0 (Q37–Q42) requires leadership coaching and clear “speak-up” commitments, not only training slides.
Follow-up & responsibilities
Good manager 360 cycles stand or fall with follow-up. Treat the survey as the start of a coaching process, not the end. Link the steps tightly into your performance management rhythm.
Who owns what
- HR / People team: designs the process, sets thresholds, checks anonymity, prepares reports.
- Direct manager (manager-of-manager): debriefs results with the leader and agrees development goals.
- Leader being rated: shares high-level themes with their team and owns concrete behaviour changes.
- Executives: sponsor the process and keep 360° feedback clearly separate from pay decisions.
Recommended follow-up process
Keep the process lean and predictable so managers know what will happen with their manager 360 feedback questions.
- Within 7 days: HR shares individual reports plus short guidelines for reading scores and comments.
- Within 14 days: manager-of-manager runs a 60–90 minute debrief with each leader.
- Within 21 days: leader discusses key themes and 1–2 commitments with their team.
- Within 30 days: development goals go into performance or development plans (e.g. IDPs).
- After 6 months: quick pulse (5–8 questions) on the main focus dimensions checks progress.
For very critical feedback (e.g. trust and safety <3.0 with strong negative comments), HR should reach out to the manager-of-manager within ≤5 days to assess risk and, if needed, run separate listening sessions with the team. A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks so you don’t lose momentum.
Fairness & bias checks
Manager 360 processes can amplify bias if you do not design guardrails. Mix rater groups carefully and analyse results across relevant segments.
Segmentation and fairness views
- Compare scores by rater group: direct reports, peers, manager-of-manager, self.
- Where data volume allows, review by location, function, tenure band or employment type.
- For DACH organisations, align segmentation with Betriebsrat agreements and GDPR rules.
Watch for typical patterns:
- Systematically lower scores for women or under-represented groups in “leadership presence” type items → review wording of questions and promotion criteria.
- Managers of remote or blue-collar teams scoring lower on “visibility” and “communication” → may indicate structural communication gaps, not poor leadership.
- Very polarised scores within one team (mix of 1s and 5s) → suggests alliances, conflicts or unclear expectations; HR should investigate qualitatively.
When comments point towards discrimination or harassment, treat them under your normal grievance process, not only as development feedback. Document steps and keep access tightly controlled.
Examples / use cases
Use case 1: New manager struggling with direction
Context: A first-time engineering manager scores 2.9 on Direction (Q1–Q6) and 3.8 on other areas. Comments mention “unclear priorities” and “constant last-minute changes”.
Decision and actions: The manager-of-manager and HR decide this is a development, not a role-fit issue. They run a debrief, then agree a 90-day focus:
- Manager re-writes team goals with clear outcomes and owners within 2 weeks.
- Monthly goal-review ritual added to team calendar, owned by the manager.
- Mentor shadows one planning meeting and gives feedback within 45 days.
- After 3 months, HR runs a 6-question pulse on Q1–Q4 and Q43 to check progress.
Result: Direction scores rise to 3.8; comments shift towards “clearer trade-offs” and “less chaos”.
Use case 2: Senior leader with weak psychological safety
Context: A director scores 4.2 on Direction but 2.7 on Trust & psychological safety (Q37–Q42). Reports describe “managing by fear” and avoiding bad news.
Decision and actions:
- CHRO and business lead review results and agree this is a risk case, not a minor gap.
- Director enters a 6-month coaching program focused on reaction to mistakes and feedback.
- They co-create “speak-up agreements” with their leadership team within 30 days.
- Skip-level listening sessions validate whether behaviour changes are felt in teams.
Result: Follow-up pulse shows Trust & safety at 3.4. Comments mention “still demanding, but calmer and more open to bad news”.
Use case 3: Focused 360 on inclusion & fairness
Context: After an inclusion workshop, HR runs the focused blueprint (Q7–Q12, Q19–Q24, Q25–Q30, Q37–Q40). One manager’s scores on Q25–Q30 average 2.8, with lower scores from women.
Decision and actions:
- D&I lead and HR review work and project allocation patterns for the last 12 months.
- Manager and manager-of-manager agree transparent rotation rules for high-visibility tasks.
- Manager practices inclusive feedback and meeting facilitation with a coach for 3 months.
- Next cycle: D&I topics integrated into their formal development plan and check-ins.
Result: In the next 360, Inclusion & fairness scores increase to 3.7, and the gender gap narrows clearly.
Implementation & updates
Start small, keep people safe, and iterate. You can connect this survey easily with broader talent development and internal mobility work.
Step-by-step implementation
- Pilot: Choose one function or level (e.g. all team leads in Product & Tech), 20–50 managers.
- Rater selection: Aim for ≥3 direct reports, ≥3 peers, 1 manager-of-manager per leader.
- Anonymity rules: Minimum 3 raters per group; otherwise merge into “Other” or drop group.
- Communication: Send a simple explainer to managers and raters; clarify purpose (development, not pay).
- Report delivery: Standardised PDF or dashboard with clear structure: scores, gaps, comments, 2–3 key messages.
DACH-specific notes: GDPR & Betriebsrat
If you operate in DE/AT/CH, treat manager 360° as a formal process with co-determination rights:
- Agree survey design, rater rules, and report recipients with the Betriebsrat before rollout.
- Define legal basis (usually consent or legitimate interest) and retention periods for 360 data.
- Clarify how free-text comments are handled (e.g. no direct quotes in personnel files).
- Restrict access to identifiable data; log who can see which reports.
Tools must support GDPR basics: EU data residency, role-based access, deletion on request, and audit logs. Your legal and privacy teams should sign off the process before launch.
Updating the question set
Review manager 360 feedback questions at least once per year so they match your leadership framework and business strategy.
- After each cycle, gather feedback from managers and raters: which questions felt unclear or redundant?
- Align items with any updated leadership principles or competency models.
- Keep a stable “core” (e.g. Q37–Q42 for trust and safety) and rotate 4–6 optional questions by theme.
- Benchmark with resources like large 360° question libraries when you refresh.
Key metrics to track over time
- Participation rate per rater group (target: ≥70% for direct reports, ≥60% for peers).
- Average scores per dimension and their trend across cycles.
- Share of managers with clear development plans logged within 30 days (target: ≥90%).
- Completion rate of planned actions after 6 months (from IDPs or follow-up tools).
- Correlations with engagement, retention or internal promotion rates in each area.
Conclusion
Manager 360 feedback works when it leads to better conversations, not thicker reports. Well-crafted manager 360 feedback questions translate the messy reality of leadership into patterns you can coach: clearer direction, more useful feedback, higher psychological safety.
If you define explicit thresholds, every report becomes a decision: which 1–2 dimensions does this leader focus on, which support do they get, and how will you check progress? When you protect anonymity and bias-check results, people feel safer to give honest feedback, and you spot issues long before they turn into attrition or formal complaints.
A practical next step: pick one blueprint, configure the questions in your survey or performance platform, and run a pilot with a single function. Agree upfront who debriefs each manager, how development goals link into your performance cycle, and what follow-up pulse you’ll run after 6 months. From there, you can refine wording, expand to new groups, and keep the survey tightly aligned with your leadership expectations and culture.
FAQ
How often should we run manager 360° feedback?
For most organisations, a full manager 360° every 18–24 months per leader is enough. Running it every year often creates survey fatigue and blurs real behaviour change. In between, use focused pulses on specific dimensions (e.g. coaching or inclusion) or integrate key items into your engagement survey. Align timing with your performance cycle so development goals from 360° feed into reviews and individual development plans without overloading managers.
How many raters do we need per manager?
As a rule of thumb, aim for at least 3 direct reports, 3 peers and 1 manager-of-manager per leader. Fewer raters reduce anonymity and make scores noisy. If a manager has only 1–2 direct reports, either merge them into an “Other” group with peers or skip the separate group view. For very small teams, rely more on qualitative feedback and coaching conversations. Always communicate minimum group sizes clearly so people understand how anonymity is protected.
What should we do if a manager receives very low scores?
Treat very low scores (<3.0, especially on trust and safety) as a signal to pause and understand context, not to punish automatically. First, review comments and rater mix with HR and the manager-of-manager. Then talk with the leader to hear their view. If risks are high, run separate listening sessions or an anonymous pulse for the team. Combine targeted coaching, clear behavioural expectations and, where needed, structural changes like workload or team composition. Document actions and review progress within 3–6 months.
How do we handle very critical or emotional comments?
Critical comments often carry the most value but can feel personal. In individual reports, group comments by theme and remove identifying details where possible. During debriefs, help managers focus on patterns (“several raters mention…”) instead of single sentences. If comments hint at harassment, discrimination or health risks, follow your usual escalation and investigation process. Guidance from sources like Harvard Business Review can help you frame 360° as developmental, not as a verdict.
How can we keep bias low in 360° ratings?
Use behaviour-based questions, not vague labels. Mix rater groups, and avoid over-relying on a single peer or senior leader. Provide short rater training explaining common biases (recency, halo, similarity) and asking people to base ratings on specific events from the full period. Calibration across HR and senior leaders helps catch outliers and systemic patterns. Over time, compare 360° results with other data, such as engagement or attrition, to spot where bias may still distort the picture and adjust questions or guidance accordingly.
How do we update manager 360 feedback questions as our culture evolves?
Revisit the question set annually with HR, senior leaders and a small manager focus group. Keep core items on trust, safety and coaching stable so you can track trends. Swap 4–6 questions to reflect new priorities such as hybrid work or cross-functional collaboration. Pilot any major changes with a small group first, and compare score patterns with the old version to check consistency. Document each version of the survey so future analyses know which questions were live in which cycle.
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.
