Free IDP Template Excel with SMART Goals & Skills Assessment | Individual Development Plan
Free IDP Template Excel with SMART Goals & Skills Assessment | Individual Development Plan
Promotion experience survey questions help you see if people experience promotions as fair, transparent, and motivating – or as politics. With a focused survey right after each promotion cycle, you catch issues early, make better talent decisions, and have cleaner, calmer conversations with employees and your Betriebsrat.
Survey questions
Use a 5‑point Likert scale for all closed items (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). In brackets you see where each item fits best: (Post-cycle), (Annual pulse) or (Both).
2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)
- Q1. I understand the criteria used to decide who is promoted in my area. (Both)
- Q2. I know what is expected of me to reach the next Karrierestufe/level. (Both)
- Q3. The different role levels and titles in our company are clearly defined. (Annual pulse)
- Q4. Job descriptions for the next level are up to date and specific enough. (Both)
- Q5. I knew the timeline and steps of the last promotion cycle before it started. (Post-cycle)
- Q6. Internal guidelines on Beförderungen are easy to find and understand. (Annual pulse)
- Q7. My manager explained the promotion process to me in a clear and open way. (Both)
- Q8. Before the last promotion cycle, I received feedback on my readiness for the next level. (Post-cycle)
- Q9. After promotion decisions, I received concrete feedback on the reasons. (Post-cycle)
- Q10. I had enough opportunity to ask questions about promotion decisions. (Post-cycle)
- Q11. Feedback on my career prospects is regular, not only once a year. (Annual pulse)
- Q12. Communication from HR and leadership about promotions is consistent across teams. (Annual pulse)
- Q13. Promotion decisions in my area are based on performance and impact, not on politics. (Both)
- Q14. People in similar roles are evaluated against the same standards in promotion discussions. (Both)
- Q15. I believe that gender does not influence promotion chances here. (Both)
- Q16. I believe that age or seniority does not unfairly influence promotion chances here. (Both)
- Q17. Full‑time and part‑time employees have comparable access to promotions. (Both)
- Q18. Remote and on‑site employees have comparable access to promotions. (Both)
- Q19. I have an individual development plan that links clearly to the next Karrierestufe. (Annual pulse)
- Q20. I get access to stretch projects that build skills needed for promotion. (Both)
- Q21. I receive coaching or mentoring related to my future career steps. (Annual pulse)
- Q22. My performance review clearly connects my results to promotion readiness. (Both)
- Q23. Calibration meetings (Kalibrierungsrunden) for promotions feel structured and evidence-based. (Post-cycle)
- Q24. I see a realistic path to grow my career here over the next 2–3 years. (Annual pulse)
- Q25. My manager encouraged me to discuss Beförderung and next steps openly. (Both)
- Q26. My manager supported me when I was nominated or applied for promotion. (Post-cycle)
- Q27. My manager gave honest feedback, even when it was uncomfortable, in a respectful way. (Both)
- Q28. HR was available and helpful when I had questions about the promotion process. (Post-cycle)
- Q29. I trust HR to treat promotion-related information confidentially and fairly. (Annual pulse)
- Q30. I felt psychologically safe (psychologische Sicherheit) when giving feedback about the process. (Post-cycle)
- Q31. After the last promotion cycle, my motivation to perform at a high level increased. (Post-cycle)
- Q32. The promotion process strengthened my trust in leadership decisions. (Post-cycle)
- Q33. Regardless of the outcome, I feel committed to doing my best work here. (Post-cycle)
- Q34. If I were not promoted, I still see a clear plan to grow towards the next level. (Post-cycle)
- Q35. I am more likely to stay at this company because I perceive promotions as fair. (Annual pulse)
- Q36. I would tell a friend that promotion decisions here are generally fair and transparent. (Annual pulse)
- Q37. Overall, the last promotion cycle was well organised and understandable. (Post-cycle)
- Q38. The people who were promoted in the last cycle were the right ones in my view. (Post-cycle)
- Q39. The time between nomination, calibration, and decision was reasonable. (Post-cycle)
- Q40. Workload and expectations for promoted colleagues were realistic after their Beförderung. (Post-cycle)
- Q41. Our promotion process is aligned with our performance management and career framework. (Annual pulse)
- Q42. Overall, I am satisfied with how promotions are handled in this company. (Both)
2.2 Optional overall rating question (0–10)
- Q43. On a scale from 0–10, how fair do you find our overall promotion process, where 0 = very unfair and 10 = very fair? (Post-cycle)
2.3 Open-ended questions
- O1. What is the first thing you would change about our promotion process before the next cycle?
- O2. When did you first understand what you personally need to do to reach the next level here?
- O3. If you were not promoted: what feedback or support would have made the outcome easier to accept?
- O4. What part of our promotion process should we definitely keep because it worked well for you?
Decision & action table
| Question cluster | Threshold | Recommended action | Owner | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1–Q6: Criteria & process clarity | Average score <3.0 or <60 % agree | Rewrite promotion criteria and process FAQ; run 1–2 info sessions per unit. | HR + business unit leaders | Draft in ≤30 days; sessions in ≤45 days |
| Q7–Q12: Communication & feedback quality | Average score <3.2 or <70 % agree | Mandatory manager training on promotion conversations; add pre/post-cycle 1:1 checklist. | HR Learning + line managers | Training concept in ≤21 days; rollout before next cycle |
| Q13–Q18: Fairness & bias perception | Average score <3.0 or gaps ≥0.5 between groups | Review calibration process; add bias prompts and diverse review panels; document rationales. | HR + Promotion Committee + Betriebsrat | Process update agreed in ≤30 days; apply in next cycle |
| Q19–Q24: Development & readiness | Average score ≤3.3 | Link each role to skills and learning paths; ensure every employee has a current IDP. | HR Development + managers | Framework in ≤60 days; IDPs for ≥80 % staff in ≤90 days |
| Q25–Q30: Manager & HR support | Average score <3.0 | Clarify roles (manager vs HR); introduce promotion-support office hours and manager guides. | HR Business Partners + people managers | Guides in ≤30 days; office hours live in ≤45 days |
| Q31–Q36: Motivation & retention impact | Average score <3.0 or strong drop vs last cycle | Run focus groups; update communication; adjust timelines or criteria that demotivate. | HR + local leadership | Focus groups in ≤21 days; action plan in ≤45 days |
| Q42–Q43: Overall satisfaction & fairness | Q42 <3.5 or Q43 <7.0 | Full process review; align with performance & talent management strategy; share decisions. | CHRO + Executive team | Review in ≤60 days; communicate changes before next cycle |
Key takeaways
- Targeted promotion experience survey questions reveal fairness and transparency gaps quickly.
- Clear thresholds turn weak scores into concrete actions, not endless discussion.
- Different blueprints tailor questions to promoted, not‑promoted, and managers.
- DACH‑ready design respects GDPR, Betriebsrat, and anonymity in small groups.
- Results feed directly into performance, talent reviews, and career frameworks.
Definition & scope
This survey measures how employees experience promotions end‑to‑end: criteria, communication, fairness, support, and impact on motivation. It can be run after each promotion cycle for all staff, with variants for promoted, not‑promoted, and managers. Results guide decisions on criteria, promotion committee design, manager training, internal mobility, and talent development, and connect tightly to your wider performance management approach.
Survey blueprints
- (A) Post‑promotion‑cycle survey – all employees
Audience: everyone in scope of the last cycle, regardless of nomination.
Use mainly Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q13–Q18, Q31–Q43 + O1–O4.
Timing: send within 3–7 days after promotion announcements. - (B) Promoted employees
Audience: employees who received a Beförderung.
Use Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q19–Q24, Q25–Q30, Q31–Q36, Q37–Q42 + O3–O4.
Focus: readiness, support, workload after promotion, next‑level onboarding. - (C) Not‑promoted candidates
Audience: nominated or self‑nominated employees who were not promoted.
Use Q1–Q6, Q7–Q12, Q13–Q18, Q19–Q24, Q25–Q30, Q31–Q36, Q42–Q43 + O1–O3.
Focus: clarity, feedback quality, development plans, impact on trust and retention. - (D) Managers about the promotion process
Audience: people leaders who participated in Kalibrierungsrunden or nominations.
Adapt wording of Q1–Q24 from “I” to “In my team” and add items on process burden, tools, and support from HR.
Connect this with talent review and calibration practices.
Scoring & thresholds
All core items use a 1–5 scale from Strongly disagree (1) to Strongly agree (5). To keep promotion experience survey questions actionable, you translate scores into three simple bands and pre‑defined responses.
| Average score | Band | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| <3.0 | Critical (red) | Employees experience the promotion process as unclear or unfair; strong intervention required. |
| 3.0–3.9 | Needs improvement (amber) | Mixed picture; targeted fixes and manager coaching can lift trust. |
| ≥4.0 | Strong (green) | Keep core elements; document as good practice and share. |
For key clusters, define explicit triggers. Example: if Q13–Q18 (fairness & bias) average <3.0 or women score ≥0.5 lower than men, you must adjust the promotion committee workflow, including behaviorally anchored rubrics and diverse panels. Linking clusters to your career framework and talent development plans keeps changes consistent, not ad‑hoc.
- HR calculates scores by team, function, and demographic group within ≤5 working days after closing.
- HR flags any cluster <3.0 or group gap ≥0.5 to the relevant leadership team in a short memo.
- Each flagged cluster gets 1–3 actions with owners and deadlines agreed in a joint workshop.
- Progress is checked in the next performance or talent review cycle, not forgotten.
Follow-up & responsibilities
Without clear follow‑up, promotion experience surveys damage trust instead of building it. Set ownership before you send the first link, and align with your Betriebsrat on what happens when scores are low.
- HR/People team consolidates data, runs basic analysis, and creates an executive summary within ≤10 days.
- Direct managers discuss key signals with their teams and individuals in 1:1s within ≤14 days.
- Business leaders decide on process or criteria changes (e.g. nomination rules) in ≤30 days.
- Betriebsrat/works council is informed about method, anonymity, and main findings, and consulted on major changes.
- Executive sponsor (CHRO/COO) communicates 2–3 concrete improvements to all staff before the next cycle.
For very critical feedback (e.g. harassment mentioned in O‑questions), HR sets a separate escalation route with strict confidentiality and legal review. A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders, and follow‑up tasks so owners do not lose track.
Fairness & bias checks
Fair promotions are central for internal mobility and trust. You should always cut results by relevant groups while respecting anonymity (e.g. only show groups with ≥5 people).
- Compare Q13–Q18 scores by gender, age band, contract type (fixed/perm), full‑time vs part‑time, and remote vs office.
- Look at functions or sites with notably lower Q1–Q6 scores – often career frameworks are missing there.
- Check gaps in Q19–Q24 by tenure; sometimes long‑tenured staff feel “stuck” without clear paths.
Typical patterns and responses:
- Pattern: Part‑time employees rate fairness 0.7 points lower than full‑time.
Response: Review criteria for hidden full‑time bias (e.g. “always available”), adjust role expectations, and train managers. - Pattern: Women report weaker feedback (Q8–Q12) than men.
Response: Add structured promotion readiness check‑ins and written summaries; use promotion rubrics with behavior examples. - Pattern: One site has strong scores in all clusters.
Response: Capture their process as a case, and reuse their templates across the organisation.
Examples / use cases
Use case 1: Low clarity, high frustration
A DACH tech company ran this survey after a promotion round. Q1–Q6 averaged 2.8, and open comments showed people did not know what “senior” meant. HR and engineering leads created a simple career framework with skill‑based levels, inspired by their existing skills matrix. They shared examples of successful promotion cases, plus a Q&A. In the next cycle, clarity scores jumped to 3.9 and promotion disputes dropped sharply.
Use case 2: Fairness gap for part‑time staff
In a retail group, Q17 (“full‑time and part‑time have comparable access”) was 2.6 for part‑time and 3.8 for full‑time. Focus groups revealed that part‑time staff were rarely nominated because managers saw them as “less committed”. HR updated the criteria to focus on outcomes, not hours, and ran a manager workshop on bias in promotions. Within one year, the share of promoted part‑time employees doubled and the gap in Q17 shrank to 0.2 points.
Use case 3: Strong process, weak impact on motivation
A manufacturing company scored well on clarity and fairness, but Q31–Q36 averaged only 3.0. Interviews showed that promotions came with heavy workload increases and unclear pay changes. Leadership used the data in their internal mobility planning: they adjusted spans of control for newly promoted leaders and clarified salary bands. In the following cycle, motivation scores rose to 3.7 and regretted turnover among high potentials dropped.
Implementation & updates
For DACH organisations, promotion experience surveys sit at the crossroads of GDPR, Betriebsrat co‑determination, and talent management. Plan the rollout as carefully as you plan the questions.
- Pilot first: Run the survey in one function or country unit, test wording, and fine‑tune thresholds.
- Align with works council: Share purpose, questionnaire, anonymity rules, and data retention policy (e.g. raw data deleted after 12–24 months).
- Protect privacy: Use “legitimate interest” or consent as legal basis, store data in the EU, avoid health or other sensitive data.
- Train managers: Short sessions on how to read results, run follow‑up talks, and avoid blame.
- Review yearly: Once a year, adjust promotion experience survey questions and thresholds based on feedback and new processes.
Track a small set of KPIs to see if the survey drives real change, not just reports:
- Participation rate per cycle (aim for ≥70 % in affected groups).
- Average scores by cluster, cycle over cycle.
- Number and completion rate of agreed actions (e.g. manager training, criteria updates).
- Share of internal promotions vs external hires to similar levels.
- Regretted turnover among strong promotion candidates.
Over time, connect these signals with your broader engagement and retention data to see how promotion fairness influences overall employee experience.
Conclusion
Promotion moments are trust tests. They send a clear signal: “Is my effort recognised here, and do rules apply to everyone?” Well‑designed promotion experience survey questions give you direct insight into how people answer that question – by team, by group, and over time. You see where criteria are fuzzy, where communication fails, and where perceived bias threatens motivation.
Used consistently, this survey changes three things: you detect problems far earlier than through exits, performance reviews become more linked to real career chances, and leadership gets a concrete agenda for improving fairness instead of debating anecdotes. Start with one promotion cycle and one blueprint, agree owners and thresholds, and put the questions into your survey or talent platform. From there, link results to promotion committee templates, calibration guides, and development plans so every cycle gets a bit clearer, fairer, and more predictable for your people.
FAQ
How often should we run a promotion experience survey?
Most organisations run a short survey after each major promotion cycle (e.g. annually or twice per year) and a lighter pulse once per year focused on clarity and fairness. The key is timing: invite people within 3–7 days after results are communicated, while the experience is still fresh. A separate annual pulse can include promotion items within your broader employee survey.
What should we do if scores are very low in one area?
Treat it like an incident, not “just data”. First, validate with qualitative input: short focus groups or a few structured 1:1s. Then define 1–3 specific actions with owners and deadlines (for example, rewriting criteria, changing nomination rules, or adding manager training). Communicate both the findings and the actions back to employees so they see that feedback matters.
How do we deal with critical or emotional open comments?
Have HR read all O‑questions and cluster themes (e.g. unclear criteria, manager behaviour, bias concerns). Remove any names or identifying details before sharing examples with leaders. If comments mention discrimination or misconduct, trigger your usual investigation process. A guide on employee surveys from SHRM recommends always closing the loop by explaining which themes will be acted on now and which will be reviewed later.
How do we ensure GDPR compliance and anonymity, especially in small teams?
Work with your Datenschutz and works council early. Limit demographic breakdowns to groups with at least 5 responses, and avoid free‑text fields that invite sensitive information. Clearly state purpose, legal basis, retention period, and who will see which level of data. Aggregate results for very small units into larger clusters to avoid indirect identification of individuals.
How do we keep the question set relevant over time?
Once per year, review promotion experience survey questions together with HR, a few managers, and employee representatives. Look at which items show variation and drive action, and which are stable and add little insight. Remove or merge low‑value items, and add a small number of new questions for upcoming changes (e.g. new career framework, new markets). Keep the core clusters (clarity, communication, fairness, development, support, impact) stable so you can track trends over several cycles.
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.
