Manager Effectiveness Survey Questions Template: Leadership, Coaching, and Support

A manager effectiveness survey focuses tightly on the day-to-day experience with your direct manager (Führungskraft). Unlike broad engagement surveys or 360° feedback, these manager effectiveness survey questions tell you where local leadership, coaching and support really work – and where teams struggle – so you can prioritise concrete actions instead of guessing.

Survey questions

Use a 5‑point scale for agreement items (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). For frequency items, map 1 = Never, 5 = Always. Tags in brackets suggest whether an item fits better for an annual survey or for short pulses.

2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)

Q1. My manager (Führungskraft) communicates clear goals for our team. [Annual / Pulse]
Q2. I understand how my individual work contributes to our team goals. [Annual]
Q3. My manager helps me prioritise when I have too many tasks. [Annual / Pulse]
Q4. My manager explains the reasons behind key decisions that affect our team. [Annual]
Q5. I know what is expected of me in my role, both results and behaviours. [Annual]
Q6. When priorities change, my manager updates the team quickly and clearly. [Pulse]
Q7. How often does your manager review goals or priorities with the team? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Annual]
Q8. My manager involves the team when setting goals and priorities. [Annual]
Q9. I rarely feel confused about what I should focus on first. [Pulse]
Q10. My manager provides a clear picture of where the team is heading in the next 6–12 months. [Annual]
Q11. I receive regular, specific feedback on my performance from my manager. [Annual / Pulse]
Q12. My manager gives feedback that focuses on behaviours I can change. [Annual]
Q13. We have structured 1:1s that cover both current work and development. [Annual]
Q14. How often does your manager discuss your development goals or career path with you? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Annual]
Q15. My manager supports me in creating and following an Individual Development Plan (IDP). [Annual]
Q16. My manager suggests learning opportunities (projects, training, mentoring) that fit my strengths. [Annual]
Q17. I feel my manager invests time in my long‑term growth, not just short‑term tasks. [Annual]
Q18. When I make mistakes, my manager treats them as learning opportunities. [Annual / Pulse]
Q19. My manager recognises and appreciates my progress and achievements. [Annual / Pulse]
Q20. I feel encouraged to apply new skills in my daily work. [Annual]
Q21. My manager shares relevant information from leadership in a timely way. [Annual / Pulse]
Q22. I feel comfortable approaching my manager with questions or concerns. [Annual / Pulse]
Q23. My manager actively listens and asks clarifying questions before responding. [Annual]
Q24. How often does your manager check for understanding after sharing important updates? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Annual]
Q25. My manager communicates in a way that is easy to understand. [Annual]
Q26. My manager adapts communication style for different people in the team when needed. [Annual]
Q27. I am kept informed about changes that impact my work early enough to prepare. [Annual]
Q28. My manager is transparent when they do not yet have all the answers. [Annual]
Q29. Team meetings led by my manager are structured and productive. [Annual]
Q30. My manager follows up on agreed actions from 1:1s and team meetings. [Annual / Pulse]
Q31. I feel safe to speak up about problems or risks without negative consequences. [Annual / Pulse]
Q32. In our team, admitting a mistake does not lead to blame or humiliation. [Annual]
Q33. My manager responds constructively when someone challenges their opinion. [Annual]
Q34. How often does your manager ask the team for honest feedback on their own Führungsverhalten? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Annual]
Q35. I trust my manager to act in the best interests of the team. [Annual]
Q36. My manager follows through on commitments to the team. [Annual / Pulse]
Q37. I would feel comfortable raising concerns about workload, stress, or wellbeing with my manager. [Annual / Pulse]
Q38. In our team, people can disagree openly and still work well together. [Annual]
Q39. My manager protects the team from unrealistic demands where possible. [Annual]
Q40. I believe my manager would support me if I reported inappropriate behaviour. [Annual]
Q41. My manager treats all team members fairly and consistently. [Annual]
Q42. I do not see clear favouritism from my manager towards specific people. [Annual]
Q43. My manager values and includes different perspectives in decisions. [Annual]
Q44. I feel respected by my manager, regardless of my background or role. [Annual]
Q45. Team opportunities (interesting projects, visibility, promotions) are distributed transparently. [Annual]
Q46. My manager intervenes when someone is excluded or treated unfairly. [Annual]
Q47. How often does your manager ask quieter voices in the team for their opinion? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Annual]
Q48. My manager supports flexible working options fairly across the team where possible. [Annual]
Q49. I feel included in informal communication and team rituals. [Annual / Pulse]
Q50. My manager addresses inappropriate jokes or comments in the team. [Annual]
Q51. My manager has a realistic view of our team’s Arbeitsbelastung. [Annual / Pulse]
Q52. I can discuss stress or overload with my manager without feeling weak. [Annual / Pulse]
Q53. My manager helps me prioritise or say no when workload becomes unsustainable. [Annual]
Q54. How often does your manager check in on your wellbeing, not only on tasks? (1 = Never, 5 = Always) [Pulse]
Q55. My manager respects agreed working hours and boundaries in most cases. [Annual]
Q56. My manager reacts quickly if someone in the team shows signs of burnout risk. [Annual]
Q57. I feel supported to take time off when needed to recover. [Annual]
Q58. My manager encourages healthy work habits (breaks, realistic deadlines, focus time). [Annual]
Q59. I have the tools and resources I need to do my job effectively. [Annual]
Q60. Overall, my manager helps create a sustainable working pace for our team. [Annual]
Q61. I am confident in my manager’s ability to lead this team successfully. [Annual / Pulse]
Q62. I believe my manager will address issues raised in this survey. [Annual / Pulse]
Q63. I would be happy to stay in this team with this manager for the next 12 months. [Annual]
Q64. I see my manager as a role model for our company values. [Annual]
Q65. I trust my manager to make fair performance and promotion decisions. [Annual]
Q66. Communication from my manager gives me confidence during change or uncertainty. [Annual / Pulse]
Q67. Compared to other managers I know, this manager is effective. [Annual]
Q68. My manager is open to feedback and visibly works on their own development. [Annual]
Q69. I would recommend this manager as a good Führungskraft for colleagues. [Annual]
Q70. Overall, I am satisfied with the day‑to‑day leadership I receive from my manager. [Annual / Pulse]

2.2 Overall / NPS-style question

On a scale from 0–10, how likely are you to recommend this manager as a leader to a colleague?

2.3 Open-ended questions

What does your manager do particularly well that you would like them to continue?
What is one thing your manager should start doing to support you better?
What is one thing your manager should stop doing because it harms trust, fairness, or wellbeing?
If you could give your manager one honest piece of feedback, what would it be?

Decision & action table

Question range / Dimension	Trigger threshold	Recommended action	Owner	Timeline
Q1–Q10 Clarity & Direction	Average score <3.2 or ≥30% unfavorable	Run a 60‑minute team workshop to reset goals, priorities and expectations; document agreements.	Manager with HR support	Within 21 days after results release
Q11–Q20 Coaching & Development	Average score <3.0	Set up monthly coaching training for managers and require written IDPs for all team members.	HR / L&D	Training plan agreed within 30 days; IDPs in place within 60 days
Q21–Q30 Communication & Listening	Any item <2.8	Manager records 4 weeks of communication changes (e.g. new 1:1 structure) and reviews with HR.	Manager	Behaviour changes implemented within 14 days; review after 6 weeks
Q31–Q40 Trust & Psychological Safety	Average <3.0 or psych. safety items <2.8	Launch facilitated team session on psychologische Sicherheit plus individual coaching for manager.	HR / external coach	Session scheduled within 30 days; coaching started within 45 days
Q41–Q50 Fairness & Inclusion	Average <3.2 or strong gaps between groups (≥0.4)	Run fairness/bias training, review recent people decisions for bias, adjust processes where needed.	HR Business Partner	Review completed within 60 days; process changes documented within 90 days
Q51–Q60 Wellbeing & Workload	Average <3.0 or ≥25% “Strongly disagree” on workload items	Conduct workload analysis, reprioritise tasks, and agree explicit working‑hours norms with the team.	Manager with Department Head	Initial actions decided within 21 days; follow‑up pulse after 90 days
Q61–Q70 Overall Confidence & Recommendation	Manager NPS <0 or overall average <3.2	Create a written development plan for the manager linked to coaching and leadership training.	Manager’s manager + HR	Plan signed off within 30 days; progress check after 6 months
Any open comments indicating acute risk (e.g. harassment, health, ethics)	1+ critical comment, regardless of score	Trigger confidential escalation protocol, including HR and, if needed, Compliance / Betriebsrat.	HR / Compliance	Initial review within ≤48 h; action plan within 7 days

Key takeaways

Use this survey to separate manager behaviour from general engagement noise.
Cluster questions into clear dimensions to trigger focused, trackable actions.
Set numeric thresholds so low scores always lead to concrete follow‑up.
Protect anonymity and involve Betriebsrat early to build trust in the process.
Combine survey results with coaching and IDPs, not punishment, to grow leaders.

Definition & scope

This manager effectiveness survey measures day‑to‑day Führungsverhalten: clarity, coaching, communication, trust, fairness and workload support. It is completed by direct reports only, sometimes extended to skip‑level employees. Results support decisions on manager development, targeted coaching, leadership programmes and changes in local practices. It complements broader engagement surveys and separate 360° feedback cycles, not replaces them.

Survey blueprints

Here are four ready blueprints built from the question bank. You can combine them with an existing engagement survey or a broader performance management process.

Annual manager effectiveness survey (core diagnostic)

Goal: Full picture of manager effectiveness per team, once per year, across all dimensions.

Include: Q1–Q10, Q11–Q20, Q21–Q30, Q31–Q40, Q41–Q50, Q51–Q60, Q61–Q70, NPS question, 3–4 open questions.
Length: ~35–40 items + open text, 10–15 minutes.
Timing: 2–3 months after annual engagement survey to avoid survey fatigue.
Output: Manager scorecards, team heatmaps, company‑wide benchmarks by dimension.

New manager after 6 months

Goal: Early feedback on new or newly promoted managers so you can course‑correct quickly.

Include: Q1–Q5, Q11–Q14, Q21–Q25, Q31–Q36, Q61–Q70, 2 open questions.
Length: ~20–22 items, 7–10 minutes.
Target group: Direct reports of managers in role for 4–12 months.
Follow‑up: Mandatory debrief between manager and their manager, plus coaching where needed.

Team in crisis or after restructuring

Goal: Quickly understand trust, psychologische Sicherheit and workload after major change.

Include: Q1–Q4, Q21–Q23, Q31–Q40, Q51–Q60, 2–3 open questions focused on concerns.
Length: ~18–22 items, 7–10 minutes.
Cadence: Once 4–8 weeks after the event, then a short pulse focusing on Q31–Q37 and Q51–Q54.
Follow‑up: Facilitated team sessions and change‑specific support plan.

Leadership programme follow‑up

Goal: Measure if a leadership training or programme changed observable manager behaviour.

Include: Select 3–4 items from each relevant block (e.g. feedback, psychological safety, fairness).
Add: 1–2 specific items about behaviours trained in the programme.
Cadence: Pre‑programme baseline, then 6 and 12 months after completion.
Link: Combine with 360° tools and bias‑aware performance reviews for a full picture.

Scoring & thresholds

To keep decisions simple and fair, use one scoring logic across all manager effectiveness survey questions. That allows you to compare managers, teams and time periods cleanly.

Scale: Agreement items 1–5 (Strongly disagree → Strongly agree). Frequency items 1–5 (Never → Always).
Low scores: Averages <3.0 are critical and must trigger action; 3.0–3.4 show clear improvement potential.
Healthy scores: 3.5–3.9 = acceptable; ≥4.0 = strong area to safeguard and share as good practice.
Favourability: Treat 4–5 as “favourable”, 3 as “neutral”, 1–2 as “unfavourable”. Track % favourable.
Decision rules: Any dimension average <3.0, or ≥30% unfavourable, automatically creates a follow‑up task.
Manager NPS: >=20 strong, 0–19 mixed, <0 signals trust problems; combine with Q31–Q37.
Frequency items: Use them in the same thresholds; low scores mean behaviour isn’t happening often enough.

Follow-up & responsibilities

Surveys without follow‑up destroy trust. Set clear owners, timelines and formats before asking a single question.

HR: Designs survey, guards anonymity/Datenschutz, prepares dashboards and trains managers on interpretation.
Direct managers: Share team results, host 1–2 follow‑up sessions, and update working agreements.
Manager’s managers: Review low‑scoring managers, co‑create development plans and monitor progress.
HR / L&D: Offers coaching, leadership training and tools (e.g. Sprad Growth) to track actions and 1:1s.
Reaction times: Critical comments reviewed in ≤48 h; first team discussion within 21 days; action plan within 30 days.
Documentation: Capture 3–5 concrete actions per low dimension with owners and dates in a shared tracker.

Fairness & bias checks

Manager surveys can surface unfair treatment – or hide it if you do not slice data. Use structured checks to spot inequities early and react fairly.

Segment results: By location, function, tenure band, contract type, gender, remote vs office, and full‑time vs part‑time.
Check gaps: Treat differences ≥0.3–0.4 points between groups as signals that need qualitative follow‑up.
Example: Women rating fairness Q41–Q46 lower than men by 0.4 → review promotion, pay and project allocation decisions.
Example: Remote staff giving lower communication scores than on‑site colleagues → adjust meeting cadence and channels.
Protect anonymity: Do not show cuts with <5 respondents; explain this logic clearly to employees and Betriebsrat.
Use bias‑aware interpretation: Avoid blaming individuals only; look for structural causes (processes, workload, unclear roles).

Examples / use cases

Case 1: Low clarity scores in a fast‑growing tech team

Situation: Q1–Q10 averaged 2.9; comments mentioned changing priorities and confusion about responsibilities. Trust and wellbeing scores were fine. Decision: Focus on goal clarity and basic performance routines rather than generic “leadership training”.

Actions: HR helped the manager set quarterly OKRs, introduced structured 1:1s, and aligned expectations using a simple role/goal overview. After 3 months, a pulse survey (Q1–Q7 only) showed the dimension average up to 3.7 and open comments became more positive about direction.

Case 2: Psychological safety issues after a failed project

Situation: Q31–Q37 collapsed to 2.6 in one product team. Comments described public blame from the manager and fear of escalation. Engagement scores at company level were still high, so central HR had missed this before.

Decision: HR and the manager’s manager ran a confidential debrief, then scheduled a team workshop on psychologische Sicherheit facilitated by an external coach. The manager started coaching and shadowing a peer with strong safety scores. Six months later, a repeat survey lifted this dimension to 3.5; turnover risk in the team dropped.

Case 3: Fairness concerns in a hybrid sales organisation

Situation: Q41–Q50 averaged 3.8 overall, but remote employees scored 3.1 while office‑based scored 4.2. Remote reps mentioned fewer chances for stretch projects and visibility.

Decision: Sales leadership introduced transparent criteria for project allocation and regular virtual “deal reviews” where everyone could contribute. They also checked promotion history for bias. The next cycle showed the gap shrink to 0.1 points, and remote promotions increased.

Implementation & updates

A strong implementation protects trust, respects Betriebsrat and Datenschutz, and keeps the survey useful over years instead of becoming another HR ritual.

Pilot: Start with 1–2 departments (including one office and one blue‑collar team) to test wording and process.
Governance: Align survey content, anonymity rules and data retention with Data Protection Officer and Betriebsrat.
Tools: Use a survey platform or a talent suite like Sprad Growth to automate reminders, dashboards and follow‑up tasks.
Communication: Explain purpose (“development, not punishment”), anonymity thresholds, and what will happen with results.
Cadence: Full survey annually; shorter pulses (10–15 items) on 1–2 hot topics every 3–6 months.
Review questions: Once per year, remove 3–5 low‑value items and add 2–3 that reflect new priorities (e.g. hybrid work).
KPIs: Track response rate (target ≥75%), average scores by dimension, action completion rate, and trend vs previous cycles.

Conclusion

Manager effectiveness surveys sit between broad engagement surveys and individual 360° feedback. Engagement tells you if people feel connected to the company; 360° zooms in on one person from many perspectives. This template focuses only on how direct reports experience their manager’s daily Führungsverhalten – where clarity, coaching, fairness and workload support either build or erode trust.

Used well, these manager effectiveness survey questions help you spot problems early (before they show up as exits), improve the quality of manager–employee conversations, and create a prioritised list of development needs instead of a vague wish‑list. The value comes from what happens after the survey: transparent sharing of results, honest team discussions, and targeted experiments that you revisit with short pulses.

Next practical steps: pick one blueprint (often the new‑manager or crisis version) and pilot in a contained area. Configure the questions and scales in your survey or performance system, including anonymity and segmentation rules. Finally, brief managers and Betriebsrat, name clear owners for follow‑up, and schedule the first debrief sessions already when you launch the survey. That way the signal from employees turns into concrete, timed actions – not another forgotten dashboard.

FAQ

How often should we run a manager effectiveness survey?

Run a full survey once per year to benchmark all managers on the full question set. Between cycles, use short pulses (10–15 questions) on 1–2 focus dimensions, for example psychological safety or workload, every 3–6 months. Avoid overlapping with big engagement or change surveys. Always leave enough time (at least 8–12 weeks) to discuss results and implement actions before launching another survey.

What should we do when a manager scores very low?

Treat low scores as data, not a verdict. First, validate anonymity and response count. Then debrief with the manager and their manager using specific items and comments, and co‑create a documented development plan with 3–5 behaviours to practice. Offer coaching and training, and check progress with a follow‑up pulse after 6–9 months. In rare severe cases (e.g. ethics breaches), follow your regular HR or compliance process.

How do we handle critical or emotional comments?

Route comments through HR first, so urgent risks (health, harassment, compliance) receive fast attention, ideally within 24–48 hours. For less acute but emotional feedback, anonymise and summarise key themes before sharing with the manager. Train managers to thank people for honesty, avoid defensiveness, and focus on patterns rather than single sentences. Use comments to design 1–2 specific behaviour changes you can revisit in team check‑ins.

How is this different from a 360° feedback process?

360° feedback gathers input from multiple rater groups (peers, reports, manager, sometimes customers) and often focuses on broader leadership competencies. A manager effectiveness survey only asks direct reports and focuses on their lived experience of leadership, support and Arbeitsbelastung in this team. That makes it easier to compare managers, track trends and link results to engagement and retention. Many organisations use both tools but on different cycles and with different goals.

How can we ensure data protection and works council alignment?

Agree on anonymity thresholds (e.g. no results for groups smaller than 5), data retention periods and access rights before launch. In DACH, involve your Betriebsrat early, share the full questionnaire, scoring logic and sample reports, and clarify that results serve development, not hidden performance sanctions. Follow GDPR rules on purpose limitation and minimisation; for detailed guidance, you can use frameworks like those in this German‑language guide on employee survey templates and GDPR/Works‑Council checks.

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.