Manager Feedback Survey Questions: A Question Bank for Upward, Peer and HR Feedback

Manager feedback survey questions help you see how Führungskräfte really show up for people day to day. This template gives you a complete, ready-to-run question bank plus clear thresholds and follow-up rules, so feedback drives development instead of public shaming.

Survey questions

All closed questions use a 5‑point Likert scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree, unless noted. After each question you see the primary audience (Direct reports / Peers / HR & leadership) and whether it fits better in annual surveys, short pulses, or both.

1. Clarity & direction from manager (Q1–Q7)

Q1. My manager explains our team’s goals in a way I can relate to my daily work. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q2. I understand how my priorities support the company strategy, based on my manager’s communication. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q3. My manager provides a clear overview of upcoming deadlines and milestones. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q4. When priorities change, my manager explains the reasons in a transparent way. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q5. My manager gives me enough context to make good decisions independently. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q6. As a peer, I find this manager’s expectations towards our collaboration clear and realistic. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q7. This manager translates leadership expectations into concrete goals for their team. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)

2. Support, coaching & resources (Q8–Q14)

Q8. My manager helps remove obstacles so I can do my work effectively. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q9. I can approach my manager with questions without feeling judged. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q10. My manager actively supports my professional development (e.g. training, stretch tasks, mentoring). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q11. My manager regularly checks in on my workload and adjusts expectations if needed. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q12. As a peer, I see this manager investing time in coaching their team members. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q13. This manager uses 1:1 meetings consistently and with clear agendas. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q14. HR and leadership view this manager as open to coaching and feedback about their own leadership. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)

3. Feedback & recognition (Q15–Q21)

Q15. My manager gives me timely feedback on my performance, not only during formal reviews. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q16. The feedback from my manager is specific and based on observable behaviour, not just opinions. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q17. I receive recognition from my manager when I deliver good work. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q18. My manager addresses performance issues early and constructively. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q19. As a peer, I see this manager giving fair and balanced feedback to their team. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q20. This manager prepares well for performance reviews and calibration discussions. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q21. My manager follows through on agreed development or performance improvement steps. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)

4. Fairness, inclusion & psychological safety (Q22–Q28)

Q22. My manager treats people in the team fairly, regardless of background or personal characteristics. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q23. In my team, I feel safe to speak up about problems or mistakes (“psychologische Sicherheit”). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q24. My manager listens to different opinions, even when they contradict their own view. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q25. My manager addresses inappropriate behaviour (e.g. disrespectful comments) when it occurs. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q26. As a peer, I experience this manager as inclusive and respectful in cross-team settings. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q27. HR and leadership trust this manager to uphold company values in people decisions. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q28. I would feel comfortable raising a concern about discrimination or misconduct with this manager. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)

5. Communication & transparency (Q29–Q35)

Q29. My manager communicates important information in a timely way. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q30. My manager adapts communication style to suit the audience (e.g. blue-collar vs. office roles). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q31. My manager shares both good and bad news honestly, without sugar-coating or hiding issues. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q32. In team meetings, my manager ensures everyone has the chance to contribute. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q33. As a peer, I find this manager responsive and clear in our day-to-day communication. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q34. This manager transparently explains people-related decisions where appropriate (e.g. role changes, team structure). (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q35. I know how to reach my manager and can expect a response within a reasonable time. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)

6. Decision-making & prioritisation (Q36–Q42)

Q36. My manager makes decisions at the right speed (neither rushed nor endlessly delayed). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q37. When making decisions, my manager considers input from those affected. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q38. My manager helps the team prioritise when there are conflicting demands. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q39. My manager balances short-term delivery with long-term sustainability (e.g. workload, quality, safety). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q40. As a peer, I see this manager collaborating effectively on cross-team decisions. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q41. This manager escalates issues appropriately to higher leadership or HR when needed. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q42. My manager explains the rationale behind key decisions that impact our team. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)

7. Collaboration with HR & other teams (Q43–Q48)

Q43. My manager involves the right stakeholders (e.g. HR, Betriebsrat, other teams) when people issues arise. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q44. As a direct report, I see my manager cooperating constructively with other departments. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q45. As a peer, I experience this manager as a reliable partner in joint projects. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q46. This manager uses HR tools and processes (e.g. performance reviews, 1:1 templates) consistently. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q47. This manager responds promptly and constructively to HR guidance or feedback. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q48. My manager supports HR initiatives that affect our team (e.g. engagement surveys, skill management). (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)

8. Overall manager effectiveness & intent (Q49–Q55)

Q49. Overall, my manager enables me to perform at my best. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q50. I trust my manager to represent our team’s interests with higher leadership. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q51. I would recommend this manager as a good manager to work for. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
Q52. As a peer, I would be happy to work with this manager again on future projects. (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
Q53. HR and leadership see this manager as effective in their people leadership responsibilities. (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
Q54. Because of my manager’s behaviour, I am more likely to stay with the company. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
Q55. My manager lives our leadership principles in their daily behaviour. (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)

Optional overall / NPS-style question

Q56. How likely are you to recommend this manager as a Führungskraft to a colleague? (0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely) (Audience: Direct reports & Peers; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)

Open-ended questions

O1. What is one thing your manager should start doing to better support you or the team? (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
O2. What is one thing your manager should stop doing because it reduces your effectiveness or motivation? (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
O3. What is one thing your manager should continue doing because it works well? (Audience: Direct reports & Peers; Cycle: Annual & Pulse)
O4. Describe a situation where your manager supported you particularly well. What did they do? (Audience: Direct reports; Cycle: Annual)
O5. Describe a situation where your manager could have handled a conflict or difficult conversation better. (Audience: Direct reports & Peers; Cycle: Annual)
O6. As a peer, what strengths do you see in this manager’s leadership that others might not notice? (Audience: Peers; Cycle: Annual)
O7. From an HR/leadership perspective, what development focus would most improve this manager’s impact? (Audience: HR & leadership; Cycle: Annual)
O8. Is there anything else about working with this manager that we should understand? (Audience: All; Cycle: Annual)

Decision & action table

Question group / Dimension	Trigger threshold (team average)	Required action	Owner	Timeline
Q1–Q7 Clarity & direction	Score <3.2 or ≥30% “Disagree/Strongly disagree”	Run team session to clarify goals; manager drafts written team priorities and reviews them in 1:1s.	Manager with HR Business Partner	Within ≤21 days after results
Q8–Q14 Support, coaching & resources	Score <3.0	Enroll manager in coaching or leadership training; set 2 concrete coaching behaviours to practice, tracked in 1:1s.	HR / People Development, Manager’s line manager	Action plan in ≤30 days; review after 3 months
Q22–Q28 Fairness, inclusion & psychological safety	Any item <2.8 or critical comments about discrimination	HR conducts confidential follow-up interviews; agree on clear behavioural expectations and, if needed, formal measures.	HR, Betriebsrat (where applicable), Manager’s line manager	Initial assessment in ≤10 days; measures defined in ≤30 days
Q29–Q35 Communication & transparency	Score 3.0–3.4 (yellow zone)	Introduce fixed communication routines (weekly team update, office hour); manager gets feedback on meeting facilitation.	Manager, supported by HR	New routines live in ≤14 days; check-in after 8 weeks
Q36–Q42 Decision-making & prioritisation	Score <3.0	Use decision-making framework in next 3 major decisions; review quality and speed in regular leadership meeting.	Manager, Department head	Framework agreed in ≤14 days; review after 3 months
Q43–Q48 Collaboration with HR & other teams	Peers or HR average <3.2	Facilitate joint workshop (manager + key peers/HR) to clarify interfaces and expectations; document agreements.	HR Business Partner	Workshop scheduled in ≤30 days; follow-up in 3 months
Q49–Q56 Overall effectiveness & intent	Overall score <3.0 or NPS (Q56) <0	Create individual development plan (IDP) with 1–3 leadership goals; connect to next performance review.	Manager, Manager’s line manager, HR	IDP in place within ≤30 days; progress review every 6 months
Any dimension with >0.6 gap between groups (e.g. peers vs direct reports)	Difference >0.6 points	Analyse group differences with HR; run targeted dialogues (e.g. with peers) to understand perception gap.	HR Analytics / HRBP	Analysis in ≤21 days; actions agreed in ≤45 days

Key takeaways

Use manager feedback separately from engagement and performance reviews.
Group questions into clear dimensions with numeric thresholds.
Agree owners and deadlines for every red or amber signal.
Protect anonymity with minimum group sizes and careful comments handling.
Link results to development plans, not surprise sanctions.

Definition & scope

This survey measures how effective a manager is from three perspectives: direct reports (upward feedback), peers, and HR/leadership. It focuses on daily behaviours: clarity, support, fairness, communication, decisions, and collaboration. You can use it for all Führungskräfte levels, from Teamleiter to senior managers. Results guide coaching, training, and leadership culture decisions, alongside engagement and performance review data from tools such as your performance management framework.

6.1 Scoring & thresholds

Engagement surveys ask “How do you feel at work?” and performance reviews ask “How well does this person deliver?”. Manager feedback surveys sit in between: “How does this manager shape those outcomes through behaviour?”. You want consistent scoring rules so you can compare across teams and over time.

Use a 1–5 scale where 1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neutral, 5 = Strongly agree. For 0–10 items (e.g. Q56), treat 0–6 as detractors, 7–8 as passives, 9–10 as promoters, similar to eNPS. For analysis, calculate averages per question and per dimension (e.g. mean of Q1–Q7 for “Clarity & direction”).

Score band (1–5)	Interpretation	Required response
<3.0	Critical – behaviour undermines trust or effectiveness	Formal development actions; close HR support and monitoring
3.0–3.6	Needs improvement – mixed experience	Lightweight action plan; manager owns follow-up with HR check-in
3.7–4.2	Solid – generally positive behaviour	Maintain; share good practices within leader community
>4.2	Strong – clear leadership strength	Recognise; consider for mentoring, best-practice sharing

To move from scores to decisions, map each dimension to clear triggers. For example, if “Psychological safety” (Q22–Q28) is <3.0, HR must run qualitative follow-ups. If “Support & coaching” (Q8–Q14) is low but “Clarity” is high, manager training should focus on coaching skills, not communication basics.

HR Analytics calculates averages per manager, dimension, and rater group within ≤7 days after survey close.
HRBP flags all managers with any dimension <3.0 or NPS (Q56) <0 for structured follow-up.
Each flagged manager schedules a debrief with their line manager and HR within ≤21 days.
They agree 1–3 measurable development goals linked to survey dimensions and IDPs.
Progress is checked in the next performance/talent review cycle and in at least one short upward pulse.

Survey blueprints (ready-made combos)

To keep things practical, combine the manager feedback survey questions into a few standard blueprints instead of reinventing selection each time. This also helps with trend tracking over years.

Blueprint	Length & audience	Included questions	Frequency & timing
(a) Annual manager feedback survey	30–35 items; Direct reports + optional Peers + HR	Core: Q1–Q7, Q8–Q14, Q15–Q21, Q22–Q28, Q49–Q55, Q56, O1–O4, O8	1× per year, 2–3 months before performance reviews
(b) Upward feedback pulse	10–12 items; Direct reports only	Q1, Q3, Q9, Q11, Q15, Q17, Q23, Q29, Q38, Q49, Q51, O1 or O3	2–3× per year, mid-quarter; not during review crunch time
(c) Peer feedback for project leads	12–15 items; Peers only	Q6, Q12, Q19, Q26, Q33, Q40, Q43–Q45, Q52, Q56, O3, O5–O6	At end of major projects or 1× per year for project managers
(d) Manager module in engagement survey	8–10 items; Direct reports within engagement survey	Q1, Q4, Q9, Q17, Q23, Q29, Q38, Q49, Q51, O2 or O3	Alongside annual or bi-annual engagement survey

If you already run an engagement survey using something like these employee engagement survey questions, option (d) keeps extra length small but still gives you comparable manager data across teams.

6.2 Follow-up & responsibilities

No manager feedback survey works without clear follow-up. People must see that honest answers lead to better leadership, not to witch-hunts. Define who reacts to which signal and how fast, ideally documented in a simple process and, in DACH, a Betriebsvereinbarung if a Betriebsrat is involved.

As a rule of thumb in DACH: never share raw comments with the manager when team size is very small, and keep minimum reporting groups at ≥5 respondents per segment (e.g. at least 5 direct reports) to protect anonymity. A talent platform like Sprad Growth or similar can automate reminders, dashboards, and action tracking, but the ownership logic stays the same.

HR defines a simple playbook: what HR does, what the manager does, what the manager’s line manager does for each threshold.
For any critical signal (e.g. allegations of bullying, discrimination, safety issues), HR initiates a review within ≤24 hours and follows existing compliance processes.
For “normal” low scores (<3.0) without severe risk, the manager and their line manager discuss results and draft an action plan within ≤21 days.
HRBPs support managers with templates, coaching, or external training and check implementation after 3–6 months.
Leadership reviews aggregated trends by function / location at least 1× per year and links them to the wider talent development strategy.

Position the survey explicitly as development-focused. Link actions to existing structures: leadership programmes, mentoring, IDPs, and your calibration or talent review routines. Resources like 360° feedback questions for managers can complement this survey for selected senior roles without replacing the lighter, standard manager module.

6.3 Fairness & bias checks

Manager feedback surveys can themselves become unfair if you ignore context or group patterns. You want to detect genuine leadership issues while avoiding “popularity contests” or punishing managers who lead tough change programmes.

First layer: break down results by relevant groups – location, team, role type (e.g. blue-collar vs. office), tenure, remote vs. on-site. Second layer: compare rater groups – direct reports vs. peers vs. HR/leadership. Third layer: combine with other people data from your performance management or engagement systems to spot contradictions or patterns.

HR Analytics prepares a fairness view for each manager: average per dimension, spread of scores, and gaps between rater groups.
Where a manager leads a restructuring or transformation, leadership interprets low short-term scores with more context, not as automatic failure.
Before acting on very negative comments, HR checks for outliers or patterns suggesting personal conflict rather than broad team sentiment.
At least 1× per year, HR reviews manager scores split by gender, age, part-time status etc. to check for systemic bias in how employees rate leaders.
If bias patterns appear (e.g. women managers consistently rated lower on “likeability”), HR adjusts communication and trains employees on fair feedback.

Typical patterns and responses:

Pattern 1: Direct reports rate “Psychological safety” low (Q22–Q28), peers and HR rate it high. This often means problems hidden inside the team. Response: HR runs confidential interviews with 4–6 team members and, if needed, launches targeted coaching or, in serious cases, formal steps.

Pattern 2: Peers rate “Collaboration with other teams” low (Q43–Q45), but direct reports are happy. The manager may over-protect their team and block cross-functional work. Response: set a specific collaboration goal and involve the manager in cross-team projects with clear expectations.

Pattern 3: Managers with high delivery KPIs but consistently low “Support & coaching” (Q8–Q14). Response: talk openly about leadership style in calibration, combine survey data with 1:1 feedback, and include a coaching goal in their development plan.

6.4 Examples / use cases

Use case 1: Low clarity & direction in a growing tech team

A product team in Berlin scored 2.9 in Q1–Q7. Comments showed confusion about priorities and shifting OKRs. Engagement survey results were fine, and performance still looked solid, but people felt pulled in different directions. The company used this survey in addition to general engagement questions, similar to their broader performance review survey.

Decision: the manager, with HR, ran a half-day workshop to rebuild the team roadmap, created a simple monthly priorities email, and added a 15‑minute “goal check” to 1:1s. Three months later, a short pulse using the upward feedback blueprint showed “Clarity & direction” up to 3.8 and fewer last-minute escalations.

Use case 2: Psychological safety concerns in a production site

In a German manufacturing plant, one Schichtleiter scored 2.5 on “Psychological safety” (Q23) and 2.7 on “Comfort raising concerns” (Q28). Comments mentioned sarcastic remarks and public criticism. Because of legal and cultural context (Betriebsrat, strong works council), HR had to handle this carefully and development-focused.

Decision: HR and the Betriebsrat interviewed a sample of team members, then met the manager with their own Führungskraft. They agreed clear behaviour changes, mandated a leadership training module, and scheduled monthly coaching calls. After six months, a repeat survey showed scores above 3.5, and complaints had stopped. HR kept monitoring for another cycle before closing the case.

Use case 3: Great manager not recognised in promotion decisions

In a Swiss HQ, a mid-level manager consistently scored >4.4 on Support, Fairness, and Communication. Direct reports mentioned strong mentoring in O1–O4, and retention in that team was higher than average. However, this manager was seen as “quiet” in leadership meetings, so their impact was underestimated.

Decision: HR brought manager feedback data into the next talent review, using a simple 9‑box and leadership behaviour anchors. The manager was added to the succession pipeline and asked to mentor new Teamleiter. Combining this survey with other tools like 360‑degree feedback templates helped build a fuller picture of their strengths.

6.5 Implementation & updates

Good design is half the work; good implementation is the other half. In DACH, you also balance GDPR, BetrVG/Mitbestimmung, and trust. Start small, communicate clearly, and integrate the manager module into your existing survey and performance rhythm.

Legal basis is usually “berechtigtes Interesse” (legitimate interest) or fulfilment of the employment contract, documented in your data protection information and, where required, a Betriebsvereinbarung. Follow data minimisation: ask only what you’ll use, keep raw data only as long as needed (often 12–24 months), and then retain only aggregated trends.

Agree scope, anonymity thresholds (e.g. ≥5 respondents per group), and retention periods with your Data Protection Officer and Betriebsrat.
Pilot the annual manager feedback blueprint in 1–2 departments (20–50 managers) before rolling out company-wide.
Align timing with reviews: run the annual survey 2–3 months before performance/talent reviews to feed discussions.
Train managers how to read results and have follow-up conversations, linking to your 1:1 meeting practices.
Review and lightly update questions and thresholds 1× per year, based on feedback from HR, Betriebsrat, and managers.

Track a small set of KPIs to see if the survey works. Helpful metrics:

Response rate per rater group (target: ≥70% for annual, ≥50% for pulses).
Average score per dimension and % of managers in “critical” band (<3.0) over time.
Share of managers with documented leadership development actions after each cycle.
Change in key items (e.g. Q23 Psychological safety, Q49 Overall effectiveness) over 12–24 months.
Links to outcomes: team engagement, turnover, or internal mobility where data quality allows.

If you run multiple surveys (engagement, manager feedback, performance, psychological safety), consider consolidating them in one talent platform and using AI assistants like Atlas/Atlas AI to automate text analysis and action suggestions. The approach from employee survey templates with works council and GDPR checklists transfers directly here.

Conclusion

Manager feedback survey questions give you a missing piece between engagement scores and performance ratings: how people experience their Führungskraft every week. When you collect that view from direct reports, peers, and HR/leadership, you see patterns you would never get from top-down reviews alone. You also get early warning signals for issues like low psychological safety or poor cross-team collaboration.

The real value comes when feedback leads to better conversations, not just dashboards. Managers can sit down with their teams, say “Here is what you told me,” and agree 1–3 concrete changes. HR and leadership can use aggregated results to focus development budgets, refine leadership principles, and spot hidden role models. Over time, you move from anecdote-driven debates (“I think this manager is fine”) to evidence-based development decisions.

Next steps can be simple: choose one blueprint (often the annual manager feedback survey), agree anonymity thresholds with your Betriebsrat and DPO, and set up the questions in your survey or talent system. Pick a pilot area, brief managers and employees on the intent (“development, not punishment”), and commit to one visible follow-up action per team. After the first cycle, adjust questions and thresholds, then scale. Used this way, a manager feedback survey becomes a practical lever for better leadership, earlier problem detection, and clearer development priorities across your organisation.

FAQ

How often should we run manager feedback surveys?

Most organisations in DACH do a full manager feedback survey 1× per year and short pulses 2× per year for upward feedback only. Annual runs give stable trend data and align well with leadership programmes and talent reviews. Pulses are lighter (10–12 questions) and focus on a few key dimensions like clarity, coaching, and psychological safety. Avoid running large surveys during bonus or review crunch times to reduce survey fatigue and emotional distortion.

How do we handle very low scores for a manager?

First, stay calm and look at the full picture: scores by dimension, rater group, and comment themes. If there are signals of harassment, discrimination, or safety issues, follow your formal investigation process immediately. For generally low scores (<3.0) without acute risk, discuss results with the manager and their line manager, then agree a structured development plan with 1–3 priorities. Combine training, coaching, and clear behaviour expectations, and repeat a short upward pulse after 3–6 months to track change.

How do we protect anonymity and comply with GDPR/BDSG?

Define clear anonymity thresholds (usually ≥5 respondents per reporting group), suppress small groups, and avoid free-text questions that invite identifiable details. Clarify legal basis (often legitimate interest) in your privacy notice and works council agreements. Limit access to detailed results to HR and the manager’s line manager; share only aggregated scores and summarised comments with the manager. Follow data minimisation: delete or strongly aggregate raw data after 12–24 months and keep audit logs of who accessed which reports, similar to guidance from resources like this regulator overview on GDPR.

How do we integrate manager feedback with engagement and performance reviews?

Think “one integrated picture, three different lenses”. Engagement surveys show climate and satisfaction, performance reviews show delivery, manager feedback shows leadership behaviour. Time the annual manager module 2–3 months before reviews, so scores inform development goals and calibration. Use engagement survey results to prioritise which dimensions to focus on (e.g. if “trust in leadership” is low, double down on transparency items). Keep manager feedback primarily development-focused; don’t plug raw scores directly into compensation formulas.

How should we update the question bank over time?

Keep 60–70% of questions stable for trend analysis and adjust the rest every 1–2 years. Collect input from managers, employees, HR, and the Betriebsrat about which items feel repetitive or unclear. Add or refine questions when your leadership framework changes or new topics emerge (e.g. hybrid work practices, AI usage). Review open-ended questions to ensure they still trigger useful, actionable comments. If you use an AI-enabled survey tool, you can also analyse which items best predict outcomes like retention, engagement, or promotion and protect those in your core set.

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.