This template gives you ready-to-use manager feedback survey questions that lead to real behavior change. You get clear scales, thresholds and follow-up steps, so feedback from 180° or 270° reviews turns directly into coaching and development actions.
You can use the questions standalone or embed them in a broader feedback and performance process, for example together with a structured performance management approach or existing 360° tools. The design fits DACH-style requirements around anonymity, data protection and cooperation with the works council.
Manager feedback survey questions
Rating scale for all closed questions: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.
- Q1. My manager communicates a clear direction for our team.
- Q2. My manager links our team goals to the broader company strategy.
- Q3. My manager sets clear priorities when our workload is high.
- Q4. I understand what success looks like in my role.
- Q5. My manager involves the team when defining goals and priorities.
- Q6. My manager provides regular, specific feedback on my performance.
- Q7. My 1:1 meetings with my manager focus on my development, not only on tasks.
- Q8. My manager helps me identify skills I should develop for the future.
- Q9. My manager supports me in finding learning opportunities (projects, training, mentoring).
- Q10. I receive useful feedback from my manager after important projects or milestones.
- Q11. My manager explains the reasons behind important decisions that affect our team.
- Q12. My manager is approachable and responds in a reasonable time.
- Q13. My manager listens carefully and lets me finish before responding.
- Q14. My manager shares relevant information early enough for me to act on it.
- Q15. My manager communicates changes in a calm, structured way, even under pressure.
- Q16. My manager encourages collaboration within the team instead of promoting competition.
- Q17. My manager addresses conflicts in the team in a timely and constructive way.
- Q18. My manager supports cooperation with other teams and departments.
- Q19. My manager recognizes good collaboration, not only individual achievements.
- Q20. My manager creates space for the team to discuss tensions or problems openly.
- Q21. My manager treats people in the team fairly, regardless of background or personal relationship.
- Q22. My manager distributes interesting tasks and opportunities in a fair way.
- Q23. I have not observed favoritism from my manager.
- Q24. My manager actively values different perspectives and working styles.
- Q25. I would feel comfortable raising a concern about unfair treatment with my manager.
- Q26. My manager sets realistic expectations about workload and deadlines.
- Q27. My manager notices early when I am overloaded or at risk of burnout.
- Q28. My manager supports flexible working arrangements where possible.
- Q29. My manager encourages me to take breaks and vacation without guilt.
- Q30. I feel my manager cares about my wellbeing, not only my output.
- Q31. I trust my manager to follow through on commitments.
- Q32. I feel safe to speak up with critical feedback to my manager.
- Q33. My manager does not micromanage; I have enough autonomy in my work.
- Q34. I can admit mistakes to my manager without fear of unfair consequences.
- Q35. If I report a problem or concern, my manager will not retaliate against me.
Overall evaluation question (optional)
Rating scale: 0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely.
- Q36. How likely are you to recommend this manager as a leader to a colleague?
Open-ended questions
- O1. What do you appreciate most about how this manager leads the team?
- O2. What is one thing this manager should do more of to support you better?
- O3. What is one thing this manager should do less of or stop doing?
- O4. Describe a recent situation where this manager strongly supported you – or clearly disappointed you. What happened?
Decision & action table
| Question cluster | Score / threshold | Recommended action | Owner | Target / deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1–Q5 Leadership & direction | Average <3.0 or ≥30% “Disagree” | Run a goal-setting and prioritization workshop; define 3 concrete behavior changes. | Manager + HR business partner | Workshop within 30 days after results. |
| Q6–Q10 Coaching & development | Average <3.2 or >50% “Neither” | Introduce structured 1:1 agenda and quarterly development talks for all directs. | Manager, supported by HR/L&D | New 1:1 format live within 14 days. |
| Q11–Q15 Communication & transparency | Average <3.0 or gap >1.0 vs. leadership benchmark | Manager attends communication training; agree on 2–3 concrete communication routines. | Manager + line leader | Training booked within 45 days; routines tested for 3 months. |
| Q16–Q20 Collaboration & team climate | Any item ≤2.0 or average <3.0 | Facilitated team session on collaboration norms and conflict handling; document team agreements. | HR/People team + manager | Session within 30 days; follow-up check-in after 60 days. |
| Q21–Q25 Inclusion & fairness | Average <3.5 or strong differences between subgroups | Run fairness/bias coaching for manager; review task and opportunity distribution. | HR, manager’s manager | Coaching started within 30 days; review completed within 60 days. |
| Q26–Q30 Wellbeing & workload | Average <3.3 or ≥25% “Strongly disagree” on any item | Adjust workload/priority planning; implement simple workload check-in in weekly meetings. | Manager + team, overseen by line leader | New planning approach tested in next 2 sprints / months. |
| Q31–Q35 Trust & psychological safety | Average <3.2 or Q32/Q34 ≤3.0 | Manager enters coaching program; schedule facilitated trust-building session with team. | HR, external/internal coach, manager | Coaching agreed within 21 days; session within 45 days. |
| Q36 Overall recommendation | Score ≤6 or >20% of raters ≤6 | Manager and HR create a written development plan with 3 priorities and clear metrics. | Manager + HR business partner | Plan signed off within 30 days; review progress every 90 days. |
Key takeaways
- Cluster questions into 7 dimensions and track scores per area, not only overall.
- Use clear thresholds (e.g. score <3.0) to trigger predefined follow-up actions.
- Protect anonymity with minimum rater counts and aggregated reporting only.
- Combine survey results with 1:1s, workshops and coaching for real behavior change.
- Review and adapt questions yearly with HR, works council and leadership input.
Definition & scope
This manager feedback survey measures how employees, peers and senior leaders experience a specific manager across seven areas: direction, development, communication, collaboration, inclusion, wellbeing and psychological safety. It works for 180° reviews (direct reports) and 270° reviews (plus peers and manager). Results inform development plans, coaching priorities and leadership culture discussions.
6.1 Scoring & thresholds
All closed manager feedback survey questions use a 1–5 Likert scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. For most organizations, an average score <3.0 in a cluster is critical, 3.0–3.7 means “needs improvement”, and ≥4.0 is strong. Also watch patterns: high “Neither agree nor disagree” often signals avoidance rather than satisfaction.
Turn scores into decisions with simple rules. For example: if Leadership & Direction (Q1–Q5) averages <3.0, you schedule a goal-setting workshop. If Coaching & Development (Q6–Q10) is 3.0–3.4, you require a new 1:1 routine but no full coaching program yet. When Trust & Psychological Safety (Q31–Q35) is <3.2, you combine coaching, supervision and a team session.
- HR defines numeric thresholds for each cluster and documents them in the HR playbook by survey launch.
- HR builds a simple dashboard that shows averages per cluster, per manager and per rater group within 7 days after survey close.
- Line leaders review each manager’s cluster scores and overall Q36 result within 14 days.
- Managers with ≥2 clusters below threshold must create a written development plan within 30 days.
- HR re-runs a short pulse on key items (e.g. Q6, Q26, Q32) after 6 months to check progress.
6.2 Follow-up & responsibilities
Feedback without follow-up damages trust, especially in DACH environments with strong co-determination. Define clear owners and timelines up front, and communicate them together with the survey invitation. For critical feedback (e.g. retaliation risk, bullying), you need faster and more formal escalation paths than for “normal” development topics.
For 180° reviews, the primary owner is the manager’s own manager. For 270° reviews that include peers and senior leaders, the leadership team plus HR share responsibility. A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks across these groups.
- HR designs the survey process (timeline, reminders, anonymity rules) and aligns it with the works council at least 6–8 weeks before launch.
- Managers’ managers review reports and agree initial actions with each manager within 14 days after results are available.
- Each manager presents key findings and 2–3 commitments in a team meeting within 21 days, protecting individual anonymity.
- HR tracks follow-up actions (coaching, workshops, training) and completion status in a central overview every month.
- Serious allegations (e.g. discrimination, harassment) trigger HR investigation within ≤5 working days, following internal policies.
6.3 Fairness & bias checks
Fairness matters both in how you collect feedback and how you interpret it. In DACH companies, you also need to meet GDPR and works council expectations: anonymized data, clear purpose, limited retention and no hidden performance monitoring. Always define a minimum number of raters per view (e.g. ≥3) before showing scores.
Analyze results by relevant groups: team, location, tenure, gender, remote vs. office. Differences can be real signals or bias. For example, women managers often receive more personality-focused comments than men; remote teams often rate communication lower simply because they miss informal updates. Use patterns as a starting point for conversations, not as automatic verdicts.
- HR sets anonymity rules: no individual report if <3 raters in a group; small groups are merged.
- HR reviews results for systematic rating gaps by gender, age, location or contract type every survey cycle.
- Where one subgroup rates a manager ≥0.7 points lower than others, HR and the manager’s manager discuss context before deciding actions.
- Critical open-text comments are reviewed by HR first to filter identifiable details and protect anonymity.
- HR keeps survey data only as long as necessary (e.g. 2–3 years), aligned with internal retention rules and works council agreements.
6.4 Examples / use cases
Case 1: Low direction and overloaded team
A product team rated their manager low on Leadership & Direction (Q1–Q5 average 2.8) and Wellbeing & Workload (Q26–Q30 average 2.9). Open comments mentioned “changing priorities every week” and “no clear ‘no’ to new requests”. The manager and their leader ran a workshop with the team to define 3 quarterly priorities, a simple Kanban system and a weekly 15‑minute check-in focused on workload.
Six months later, a short pulse with selected manager feedback survey questions showed Leadership & Direction at 3.9 and Wellbeing & Workload at 3.7. The team reported fewer weekend shifts and clearer trade-offs when new projects appeared.
Case 2: Strong results, weak psychological safety
In a sales unit, one manager had top performance numbers and high scores on Coaching & Development (Q6–Q10), but Trust & Psychological Safety (Q31–Q35) was 2.9. Comments mentioned “public shaming on bad deals” and “no room to admit mistakes”. HR and the manager’s manager agreed that this was a risk despite the strong revenue.
The manager entered a 6‑month coaching program focused on leadership style, and the team held a facilitated session to reset norms around feedback and learning from losses. After 6 months, Trust & Psychological Safety improved to 3.6, while sales results stayed stable. Turnover in that team dropped compared to the previous year.
Case 3: Fairness concerns in a hybrid team
A hybrid engineering team showed solid overall scores, but office-based employees rated Inclusion & Fairness (Q21–Q25) 4.1, while remote employees gave 3.2. Comments said “interesting tasks go to people who are physically in the office”. The manager and HR reviewed task allocation and meeting practices.
They introduced a simple rotation for high-visibility tasks and ensured that key decisions moved from hallway talks into documented channels. The next survey showed a smaller gap (3.9 vs. 3.7) and far fewer complaints from remote staff. This kind of targeted response is easier if you connect this survey with broader employee survey templates and analytics.
6.5 Implementation & updates
A good template is only half the story; the other half is a clean, predictable process. For DACH organizations, that means early works council involvement, a clear communication plan and technical handling that respects GDPR. Aim for a 2–3 week response window with 1–2 reminders, then fast feedback of results and actions.
Start with a pilot (one business unit or leadership level), learn, then scale. You can send the survey through existing tools or specialized platforms. Many teams connect this to 360‑degree feedback programs or use AI-supported platforms to analyze open text and spot patterns across managers faster than manual work would allow.
- HR defines scope, timeline, tools and anonymity concept; aligns with data protection officer and works council at least 6 weeks before launch.
- Communications: send a simple manager-facing guide and an employee FAQ 1 week before survey invitations go out.
- Survey window: keep it open for 14 days, with reminders on day 5 and day 10, respecting part-time and shift patterns.
- Reporting: HR prepares manager reports and area benchmarks within 7 days; no free-text comments are shared if <3 raters.
- Follow-up: HR organizes 2–3 short virtual trainings on “How to read your report” for managers within 3 weeks after survey close.
Review and update the manager feedback survey questions at least once per year. Involve HR, a few managers, a sample of employees and the works council. Remove items that never lead to action, add items that reflect new leadership expectations, and keep the core clusters stable so you can track trends. For benchmarking and inspiration, you can also look at more general employee engagement survey questions and templates you already use.
Track 3–5 metrics over time: participation rate per manager, average cluster scores, share of managers with ≥2 weak clusters, time from survey close to first follow-up meeting, and completion rate of agreed development actions. Connect these to your broader talent development strategy so manager feedback feeds into promotions, succession planning and learning investments.
Conclusion
Manager feedback works best when it is simple, predictable and connected to clear follow-up. This template groups feedback into seven practical dimensions, so you see quickly whether the main issue is direction, coaching, communication, collaboration, fairness, workload or psychological safety. That makes it much easier to choose focused next steps instead of generic “be a better leader” goals.
For employees, a structured 180° or 270° survey with anonymity and clear rules provides a safe channel to raise issues early instead of waiting until an exit interview. For managers, good reports plus coaching turn criticism into concrete habits: better 1:1s, clearer priorities, fewer last-minute escalations. For HR and leadership, aggregated data highlight where to invest in training and where individual coaching or role changes are needed.
To get started, pick one pilot group of managers, adapt the manager feedback survey questions to your language and context, and align anonymity and data rules with your works council. Load the questions into your survey tool, schedule the cycle and block time in calendars for follow-up conversations. Once you have run one full loop – survey, feedback, action, re-measure – refine thresholds and questions. Over time, this becomes a normal part of how you develop leaders, not a one-off project.
FAQ
How often should we run this manager feedback survey?
Most organizations run a full 180° or 270° manager feedback survey every 12–24 months. That gives enough time for behavior change between cycles, while keeping the data current. In between, you can run short pulses on a few items (for example Q6, Q26, Q32) to check progress. Avoid constant surveys; employees need to see actions, not just questions.
How do we protect anonymity, especially in small teams?
Set strict minimum rater counts before showing results (for example ≥3 direct reports, ≥3 peers). If a manager has fewer raters, merge data across teams or skip the report. Never show raw comments when raters could be identified; HR should review and redact specifics. Align rules with your data protection officer and works council, and share them clearly in the survey invitation.
What should we do when scores are very low for a manager?
Treat very low scores as a serious risk, not only a development hint. First, review open comments for concrete incidents and check whether any require formal investigation (e.g. harassment). Then the manager’s manager and HR should meet the manager to discuss results, agree on a coaching plan, and decide whether temporary limits on span of control or people processes are needed. Reassess after 3–6 months.
How do we handle very critical or emotional comments?
Have HR or a trained reviewer read all comments before managers see them. Group comments into themes and remove names or details that could reveal individual raters. When sharing feedback with managers, focus on patterns rather than single quotes. According to research summarized by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, employees are more willing to give honest feedback when they trust the process and see that criticism leads to constructive action.
How do we update the manager feedback survey questions over time?
Review the question set after each full cycle. Look at which items had clear variance and led to concrete actions; keep those. Remove questions that were confusing or never used. Invite feedback from managers, employees, HR and the works council, and keep the seven core dimensions stable so you can track trends. Update wording to match new leadership principles, but keep the 1–5 scale consistent for comparability.
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.
