Manager Effectiveness Survey Questions Template: Coaching, Clarity & Trust

This template gives you ready-to-use manager effectiveness survey questions so you can spot issues early, talk concretely with Mitarbeitende, and turn feedback into a simple action plan for each Führungskraft.

Survey questions

Use these manager effectiveness survey questions for annual reviews, 180°/270° feedback, or pulse checks. All closed items use a 1–5 scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree. You can run them in any modern survey tool or a talent platform like Sprad Growth.

2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)

Role clarity & expectations

Goal: Do people understand goals, priorities, and the “why” behind their work?

My manager provides clear goals for our team.
I understand what is expected of me in my role.
My manager explains the “why” behind our goals and priorities.
My individual goals are aligned with our team and company goals.
My manager makes sure my responsibilities are realistic for my workload.
When priorities change, my manager explains what should stop or pause.

Coaching & development

Goal: Quality of 1:1s, feedback, development plans, and growth opportunities.

My manager gives me regular, specific feedback (“Rückmeldung”) that helps me improve.
Our 1:1 meetings are focused and useful for my work and development.
My manager discusses my longer-term career goals with me at least twice a year.
My manager supports me in building an Individual Development Plan (IDP).
I get opportunities to work on stretch projects that help me grow.
My manager follows up on agreed development actions (courses, projects, mentoring).

Communication & transparency

Goal: Listening, context-sharing, difficult conversations, and clarity around decisions.

My manager listens carefully and tries to understand my perspective.
Decisions that impact our team are explained in a clear and timely way.
My manager shares relevant context about company or department changes.
I can ask critical questions without being shut down.
My manager addresses performance or behavior issues directly and respectfully.
Information from upper management is translated into clear guidance for our team.

Psychological safety & trust

Goal: “psychologische Sicherheit”, honesty, reporting problems, owning mistakes, fairness.

I feel safe to speak up about problems or mistakes with this manager.
I can admit when I don’t know something without fear of negative consequences.
My manager responds constructively when people raise concerns or bad news.
My manager keeps commitments and follows through on agreements.
I trust my manager to act in the team’s best interest, even under pressure.
My manager treats me with respect, even in stressful situations.

Recognition & motivation

Goal: Appreciation, celebrating wins, caring about well-being and work-life balance.

My manager notices and acknowledges good work.
Team successes are celebrated in a way that feels motivating.
My manager gives credit fairly when presenting results to others.
My manager cares about my well-being, not only my output.
My manager supports healthy work-life balance (e.g. respecting time off).
My manager checks in on my workload and energy, not just on tasks.

Decision-making & prioritization

Goal: Priorities, focus, removing blockers, saying “no” when needed.

Our priorities as a team are clear and not constantly changing.
My manager helps me focus on the most important work when there are conflicts.
My manager removes obstacles so I can do my job effectively.
My manager is willing to say “no” to extra work that would overload the team.
Changes in priorities are based on clear reasoning, not just ad hoc requests.
My manager involves the right people before making key decisions.

Inclusion & fairness

Goal: Fair treatment, no favoritism, inviting different perspectives, no discrimination.

My manager treats everyone in the team fairly and consistently.
I do not see favoritism in how my manager assigns tasks or opportunities.
My manager actively invites different opinions, also from quieter colleagues.
I feel included in important discussions that affect my work.
I have equal access to development, promotion, and visibility opportunities.
I have not experienced or observed discriminatory behavior from this manager.

2.2 Optional overall rating (0–10)

Use this NPS-style question to get one headline metric per Führungskraft.

How likely are you to recommend this manager (“Führungskraft”) as a manager to a colleague? (0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely)

2.3 Open-ended questions

Use 2–3 short open questions to gather concrete examples and suggestions.

What is one thing your manager should keep doing because it works well for you or the team?
What is one thing your manager should start doing to be more effective as a Führungskraft?
What is one thing your manager should stop doing because it hurts trust, motivation, or performance?

Decision & action table

Use this table to turn scores into clear next steps. Refer to the question blocks above (Role clarity, Coaching, etc.).

Question block	Score / threshold	Recommended action	Owner	Target / deadline
Role clarity & expectations	Average <3.2	Run a role & goals workshop; rewrite team and individual goals.	Manager + HR Business Partner	Within 14 days after results
Coaching & development	Average <3.0	Set a 1:1 cadence (≥2× per month); create or update IDPs for all reports.	Manager	1:1 schedule within 7 days; IDPs within 30 days
Communication & transparency	Average <3.0	Hold a team Q&A; agree information channels and update rhythm.	Manager + Team	Q&A within 10 days; new comms rhythm agreed within 14 days
Psychological safety & trust	Average <2.8 (critical)	HR debrief with manager; run anonymous listening sessions; co-create trust-building actions.	HR / People Ops + Manager	HR debrief within 5 days; first actions visible within 30 days
Recognition & motivation	Average <3.0	Introduce weekly recognition ritual; track who gets visible credit.	Manager	Ritual launched within 14 days; review impact after 60 days
Decision-making & prioritization	Average <3.0	Define clear priority rules; stop or postpone low-value work.	Manager + Department Lead	Priority rules shared within 14 days; first “stops” communicated within 21 days
Inclusion & fairness	Average <3.2 or strong gaps between groups	Review allocation of tasks/promotions; provide bias training and mentoring offers.	HR / Diversity Lead + Manager	Analysis within 21 days; first changes in opportunities within 60 days
Overall 0–10 manager rating	Score ≤6 or large drop vs. last survey	Structured development plan for manager; optional coaching or 270° review.	Manager’s Manager + HR	Plan agreed within 30 days; follow-up check after 6 months

Key takeaways

Use seven core areas to target manager development, not vague “leadership style”.
Translate low scores into 1–2 concrete actions with owners and deadlines.
Protect anonymity with minimum group sizes and transparent communication.
Share results in workshops, not PDFs, to turn feedback into dialogue.
Repeat the survey and track trends to see if actions really worked.

Definition & scope

This survey measures how effective a Führungskraft is at providing clarity, coaching, trust, fairness, and sustainable performance. It is designed mainly for direct reports, but can be extended to 180°/270° feedback with peers and the manager’s own lead. HR and People Ops use the results to decide on coaching, training, succession, and changes to leadership culture.

Scoring & thresholds for manager effectiveness survey questions

Keep scoring simple so Führungskräfte and Mitarbeitende can read results at a glance.

Standard scale for all closed items:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

Define clear thresholds for interpretation:

Average <3.0 = Red zone: acute problem, requires fast action and HR support.
Average 3.0–3.7 = Amber: acceptable, but needs improvement with a concrete plan.
Average ≥3.8 = Green: strength; document good practices and share them.

For the 0–10 overall manager rating, you can roughly map:

0–6 = Detractors: high risk; combine with comments and trust scores.
7–8 = Passive: okay, but team is not enthusiastic about this Führungskraft.
9–10 = Promoters: strong leadership signal; use as internal best-practice examples.

Turn scores into decisions with a simple If–Then logic:

If any core area <3.0, then manager and HR create a written improvement plan within 30 days.
If psychological safety <2.8, then HR runs a confidential debrief and monitors progress closely.
If overall rating improves by ≥1 point, then manager shares what they changed with peers.
If an area stays <3.0 over 2 survey cycles, then consider coaching or role changes.

To connect scores with broader performance processes, many teams link these results into their performance management framework so manager development is reviewed alongside business outcomes, not in isolation.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Without clear owners, survey results die in a slide deck. Define who does what by default so every Führungskraft knows the playbook.

HR / People Ops owns survey design, timing, tool setup, anonymity rules, and training for managers.
Direct managers own interpreting their team results, discussing them with Mitarbeitende, and creating actions.
Managers of managers review patterns across their area and support or challenge action plans.
Works council (Betriebsrat) is involved early for agreement on scope, data handling, and reporting.

Recommended reaction times after survey close:

≤7 days: HR shares results with top leadership and checks for critical risk signals.
≤14 days: Each manager discusses results with their team in a workshop format.
≤30 days: A short, written action plan per team with 2–3 priorities, owners, and dates.
≈90 days: Quick pulse check or team retro to see if actions changed anything.

A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate reminders for manager action plans, link survey results to 1:1 agendas, and track whether follow-up conversations happened.

For recurring feedback, combine this survey with structured 1:1s. Guides on effective manager–employee 1:1 meetings help you turn “low coaching” scores into concrete agenda topics and habits.

Fairness & bias checks

Manager effectiveness scores can hide big differences between groups. To keep things fair and GDPR-compliant, you need anonymized segmentation and clear privacy rules.

Segmentation and anonymity

Segment by team, location, seniority, contract type (if sample sizes allow).
Show results for a subgroup only if there are ≥5 respondents (better: ≥7–10 for extra safety).
Never show raw comments per person; always aggregated and anonymized.
Document data access: who can see individual responses, who sees only aggregates.

For DACH, align with your Betriebsrat and data protection officer before launch. A practical checklist for Works Council and GDPR topics is outlined in the Sprad article on employee survey templates and data protection.

Typical bias patterns and responses

Pattern 1: Remote employees rate “communication & transparency” much lower than office staff.
Action: Managers agree on remote-friendly routines (written updates, inclusive hybrid meetings) within 30 days.
Pattern 2: Women or minority groups rate “inclusion & fairness” lower than others.
Action: HR runs listening sessions with volunteers; managers review task and promotion allocation; launch bias training.
Pattern 3: One team rates psychological safety clearly lower than comparable teams.
Action: HR supports that Führungskraft with coaching, shadowing of high-trust managers, and clear expectations from their manager.

Re-run basic fairness checks every cycle: look at gaps of ≥0.5 points between groups within the same manager. Big gaps are often more useful than absolute scores.

Examples / use cases

Use case 1: Low role clarity & overload

A product team scores 2.7 on “Role clarity & expectations”. Comments mention “too many top priorities” and “no clear ownership”. The manager, their manager, and HR run a 2-hour workshop to map responsibilities, drop low-value tasks, and define 3 top goals for the next quarter. They also agree to review scope in every sprint planning. Next cycle, role clarity scores jump to 3.9 and weekend work drops visibly.

Use case 2: Psychological safety problem in a sales team

A sales manager gets strong numbers but scores 2.5 on psychological safety and 2.8 on inclusion & fairness. Many comments mention public shaming in meetings. HR does a confidential debrief with the manager, then runs an anonymous listening session with the team. They agree on new meeting rules (no public name-and-shame, focus on learning), plus coaching for the manager on feedback style. After 6 months, trust scores rise to 3.6 and voluntary turnover in the team falls.

Use case 3: Strong coaching, weak prioritization

An engineering lead receives very high “Coaching & development” scores (4.5+) but only 3.0 on “Decision-making & prioritization”. Team members say “I feel supported, but we chase too many topics”. The Führungskraft uses an OKR workshop and introduces a simple rule: each engineer has at most 2 active projects. They also start saying “no” to lower-priority work. Six months later, prioritization scores reach 3.9 and cycle time for critical features improves.

Implementation & updates

Roll this survey out like a repeatable process, not a one-off project. Start small, communicate clearly, and link results to visible actions.

Step 1: Design & pilot

HR selects 1–2 departments (50–150 people) for a pilot run.
Adjust wording for your context (e.g. “team lead” vs. “manager”; language variants).
Align with Betriebsrat and data protection on purpose, anonymity, and reporting rules.
Test the survey in your tool; check routing for multiple managers and 180°/270° flows.

Step 2: Pre-communication

Send a simple, honest announcement from HR or the CEO. Example text:

“We’re starting a regular manager feedback survey so every Führungskraft gets structured input from their team. Your answers are anonymous and only shown in groups of at least 5 people. Results are used for development, not punishment. Each manager will discuss the results with their team and agree 2–3 actions. Please take 10 minutes to respond – your feedback shapes how we lead here.”

Owner: HR drafts email and FAQs; leadership reviews and sends 7–10 days before launch.
Owner: HR sets up survey reminders (launch, mid-cycle, 2 days before closing).

Step 3: Run the survey

Survey window: 10–14 days; avoid holiday periods and peak workload weeks.
Target response rate: ≥70% overall, ≥60% in each major function.
Monitor participation; send targeted reminders to low-response areas.
For 180°/270° use, pre-select peers and manager’s manager to keep workload reasonable.

If you already focus on talent development or internal mobility, this survey complements your initiatives and the broader talent development strategy you may have in place.

Step 4: Results & action plans

HR prepares simple dashboards per manager (no raw comments if <5 responses).
Each manager reviews results with their own manager before sharing with the team.
Team workshop: 60–90 minutes to review scores, cluster comments, and pick 2–3 focus areas.
Document an action plan with concrete steps, owners, and dates; store it centrally.

Step 5: Frequency & updates

Full survey: every 12 months (or every 18 months if you run frequent engagement pulses).
Short pulse: 5–8 key items every 6 months to track the biggest action areas.
Review questions annually: remove items that never change; add 1–2 for new priorities.
Align updates with your engagement and retention strategy so surveys stay focused.

Track a small set of KPIs:

Participation rate per area and overall.
Average score per core area (clarity, coaching, safety, etc.) and its trend.
Share of managers with action plans submitted within 30 days.
Improvement in weak areas between cycles (e.g. +0.3 points in psychological safety).
Correlation with hard outcomes: voluntary turnover, internal mobility, team performance.

If you later want more detailed feedback from multiple perspectives, combine this survey with structured 360-degree feedback processes for selected Führungskräfte.

Conclusion

Manager effectiveness survey questions only create value when they are focused, honest, and followed by action. This template helps you measure the basics of good leadership: clear expectations, coaching and development, communication, psychological safety, motivation, and fairness. Used regularly, it gives you earlier warning signals than exit interviews or engagement scores alone.

The real benefit: better conversations. Teams get a safe channel to say what they need, Führungskräfte receive concrete input instead of vague criticism, and HR sees where to invest in coaching, training, or role changes. Over time you get clearer priorities for leadership development and can show which actions move the needle.

Next steps are straightforward: pick a pilot area, configure the survey in your tool, agree on anonymity thresholds and follow-up timelines, and brief managers on how to discuss results with their teams. After the first cycle, refine questions and thresholds based on what you learn. With a few disciplined routines, manager feedback becomes a normal, trusted part of how you run your organisation.

FAQ

How often should we run this manager effectiveness survey?
For most organisations, once per year works well, plus a short pulse on 5–8 key items mid-year. If you already run quarterly engagement pulses, you can include 2–3 core manager items there and keep the full manager survey annual. The main thing: stick to a clear rhythm and always close the loop with visible actions.

How do we handle very low scores for a specific manager?
Treat it as a development signal, not instant punishment. HR should review detailed results and comments with the manager and their manager, then agree on a written improvement plan and optional coaching. If psychological safety or fairness is very low, combine this with HR-led listening sessions. Re-check progress after 6–12 months.

How do we protect anonymity when teams are small?
Set minimum thresholds: for example, show results for a manager only if at least 5 direct reports answered. Don’t show breakdowns (e.g. by gender, age, location) when a subgroup has fewer than 5 responses. Communicate these rules before launch so Mitarbeitende understand how you protect them. In very small teams, consider aggregating multiple teams for reporting.

How should we treat open comments, especially if they are very critical?
Look for themes, not “who wrote this”. HR can tag comments by topic (e.g. clarity, workload, behavior) and share a summary with the manager. Use tough comments as input for 1:1s and team discussions, not to hunt individuals. According to a Gallup analysis, frequent, meaningful feedback links strongly to engagement – so critical input is valuable when acted on.

How do we keep the question set relevant over time?
After each cycle, ask 3–5 managers and Mitarbeitende which items were most useful and which felt redundant. Remove questions that never drive action, and add a small number (1–3) for new topics like hybrid work or new leadership principles. Keep core questions on clarity, coaching, and trust stable so you can track trends across years.

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.