Free Leadership Effectiveness Survey Template | Excel with Auto-Scoring
Free Leadership Effectiveness Survey Template | Excel with Auto-Scoring
This template gives you ready-to-use team health survey questions so you can spot issues in collaboration, workload and trust early. You get a question bank, clear thresholds and follow-up actions that managers and HR can turn into concrete team experiments right away.
Survey questions
Use a 5‑point Likert scale for all closed items unless noted: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree. Tags: [Pulse] = short monthly check, [Deep-dive] = quarterly or post-project.
2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)
- Collaboration & Communication (Q1–Q7)
- Q1 [Pulse] I get the information I need from teammates in time to do my work.
- Q2 [Pulse] Our handovers between people or shifts are clear and reliable.
- Q3 [Deep-dive] Meetings in our team are focused, with clear purpose and outcomes.
- Q4 [Deep-dive] We coordinate well with other teams that depend on our work.
- Q5 [Pulse] I know who to ask when I get stuck on a task.
- Q6 [Deep-dive] We have agreed “rules” for tools, channels and response times.
- Q7 [Deep-dive] Conflicts in our team are addressed directly and respectfully.
- Goals & Alignment (Q8–Q14)
- Q8 [Pulse] I understand our team’s top 3 priorities right now.
- Q9 [Pulse] I know how my work contributes to our team goals.
- Q10 [Deep-dive] Our team goals for this quarter are realistic and achievable.
- Q11 [Deep-dive] We regularly review progress and adjust priorities when needed.
- Q12 [Deep-dive] Expectations for my role are clear and documented.
- Q13 [Pulse] When priorities change, they are communicated quickly and clearly.
- Q14 [Deep-dive] Our team has enough influence on goals that affect our work.
- Workload & Pace (Q15–Q21)
- Q15 [Pulse] My workload is manageable within my normal working hours.
- Q16 [Pulse] I can take breaks and time off without feeling guilty.
- Q17 [Deep-dive] We plan work in a way that avoids constant last‑minute pressure.
- Q18 [Deep-dive] Overtime in our team is the exception, not the rule.
- Q19 [Pulse] I can say “no” or renegotiate deadlines when my plate is full.
- Q20 [Deep-dive] Staffing levels in our team match our responsibilities.
- Q21 [Deep-dive] We regularly discuss workload and capacity as a team.
- Trust & Psychological Safety (Q22–Q28)
- Q22 [Pulse] I feel safe to speak up about problems or risks.
- Q23 [Pulse] I can admit mistakes without fear of unfair consequences.
- Q24 [Deep-dive] People in this team keep their promises and follow through.
- Q25 [Deep-dive] Different opinions are welcomed, even when they challenge the status quo.
- Q26 [Pulse] I trust my teammates to support me when I need help.
- Q27 [Deep-dive] We treat each other with respect, regardless of role or background.
- Q28 [Deep-dive] I feel comfortable raising concerns with my manager.
- Manager & Leadership Support (Q29–Q35)
- Q29 [Pulse] My manager is available when I need input or a decision.
- Q30 [Pulse] I receive helpful feedback on my performance and impact.
- Q31 [Deep-dive] My manager helps remove obstacles that slow the team down.
- Q32 [Deep-dive] My manager addresses performance or behavior issues fairly.
- Q33 [Deep-dive] I have regular 1:1 meetings that focus on my development.
- Q34 [Pulse] I trust my manager to act in the team’s best interest.
- Q35 [Deep-dive] Changes that affect our team are explained with context and rationale.
- Tools & Processes (Q36–Q42)
- Q36 [Pulse] Our core tools (e.g. ticketing, docs, chat) support our work well.
- Q37 [Deep-dive] We have clear processes for recurring work (e.g. releases, closing deals).
- Q38 [Deep-dive] We review and improve processes instead of adding more bureaucracy.
- Q39 [Pulse] I know where to find up‑to‑date documentation for my work.
- Q40 [Deep-dive] Our approvals and sign‑offs are fast enough for our business needs.
- Q41 [Deep-dive] We adapt processes for remote, hybrid or shift work where needed.
- Q42 [Pulse] I can do focused work without constant tool or process friction.
- Wellbeing & Motivation (Q43–Q49)
- Q43 [Pulse] I feel energized by my work most days.
- Q44 [Pulse] I feel that my contributions are recognized by the team.
- Q45 [Deep-dive] I see a future for myself in this company in the next 2 years.
- Q46 [Deep-dive] I feel our team’s “Teamgesundheit” is stable and sustainable.
- Q47 [Pulse] I feel motivated to give my best in this team.
- Q48 [Deep-dive] I can grow my skills through my current role and tasks.
- Q49 [Deep-dive] Our team celebrates progress and wins, not only points out problems.
2.2 Overall team health question (0–10)
- Q50 [Pulse] On a scale from 0–10, how healthy does our team feel right now? (0 = very unhealthy, 10 = excellent health)
2.3 Open-ended questions
- O1 What is currently slowing our team down the most?
- O2 What is one thing we should start doing as a team to improve our daily work?
- O3 What is one thing we should stop doing because it adds little value?
- O4 What should we definitely continue because it supports our Teamgesundheit?
Mapping of question ranges to dimensions for analysis: Collaboration & Communication = Q1–Q7; Goals & Alignment = Q8–Q14; Workload & Pace = Q15–Q21; Trust & Psychological Safety = Q22–Q28; Manager & Leadership Support = Q29–Q35; Tools & Processes = Q36–Q42; Wellbeing & Motivation = Q43–Q49; Overall = Q50.
Decision & action table
| Area / Questions | Threshold (team average) | Required action | Owner | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collaboration & Communication (Q1–Q7) | Score <3.2 or ≥30 % “disagree” | Run a 60‑minute workshop to map handovers, clarify channels and define 3 new norms. | Team lead + team | Within 14 days after results |
| Workload & Pace (Q15–Q21) | Score <3.0 or ≥25 % “strongly disagree” on Q15/Q18 | Pause new non‑critical initiatives, re‑prioritize backlog, agree max hours/overtime rules. | Team lead + department head | Action plan within 7 days; review after 30 days |
| Trust & Psychological Safety (Q22–Q28) | Score <3.4 or gap >0.5 vs company average | HR partners with manager to run psychological safety session and adjust 1:1 routines. | HR / People Partner + manager | Session within 21 days; follow‑up pulse after 60 days |
| Manager & Leadership Support (Q29–Q35) | Score <3.3 or ≥20 % “disagree” on Q29/Q30 | Manager coaching focusing on 1:1s, feedback quality and decision speed; monitor next pulse. | HR / People Lead | Coaching started within 30 days; re‑check next quarter |
| Tools & Processes (Q36–Q42) | Score <3.3 or ≥30 % mention tools in O1 | Run a lean process review to remove 2–3 pain points; document new standards. | Process owner + team representatives | Improvements agreed within 30 days; implemented within 60 days |
| Wellbeing & Motivation (Q43–Q49) | Score <3.2 or Q45 average <3.0 | Review development options, workload and recognition habits; define 2 concrete experiments. | Manager + HR | Plan within 21 days; progress review after 90 days |
| Overall team health (Q50) | Q50 ≤6 or drop ≥2 points vs last cycle | Short “team health retro” to identify 3 root causes and 3 experiments; share summary. | Manager + team | Retro within 14 days; experiments run for 4–6 weeks |
Key takeaways
- Use this survey as an early-warning system for collaboration and workload risks.
- Translate low scores into 2–3 concrete team experiments, not endless discussions.
- Combine quantitative scores with open comments to target the right problems.
- Share results openly with the team and agree actions together to build trust.
- Repeat pulses regularly and track score trends alongside performance outcomes.
Definition & scope
This team health survey measures Teamgesundheit at team level: collaboration, goals, workload, trust, leadership support, tools and motivation. It targets intact teams with a shared manager and can be used cross-functionally. Results support decisions on team rituals, resource allocation, manager coaching, development priorities and workload adjustments, and complement broader engagement or performance management surveys at company level.
Survey blueprints & cycles
Use the full question bank for quarterly or post‑project “health checks” and shorter subsets for monthly pulses. This keeps survey fatigue low while giving managers and HR a stable core of metrics that link to retention, engagement and performance. For broader employee sentiment, you can connect this with your annual engagement or employee survey templates.
a) Monthly team pulse (10–12 items)
Goal: fast signal on collaboration, workload, safety, motivation and overall health. Use 5‑minute surveys monthly or every 6 weeks.
| Dimension | Questions to include | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Collaboration & Communication | Q1, Q2 | Basic info flow and handovers. |
| Goals & Alignment | Q8, Q9 | Keep priorities visible between quarterly planning cycles. |
| Workload & Pace | Q15, Q19 | Early warning for overloading the team. |
| Trust & Psychological Safety | Q22 | Single anchor question on speaking up. |
| Manager Support | Q29 | Availability check. |
| Wellbeing & Motivation | Q43, Q47 | Energy and motivation snapshot. |
| Overall health + open text | Q50, O1 | One open question to catch emerging risks. |
b) Quarterly team health check (15–20 items)
Goal: deeper view of collaboration, processes and leadership per team, once per quarter or per half‑year. Great input for team offsites or planning and for your wider employee engagement & retention strategy.
| Dimension | Questions to include | Typical use |
|---|---|---|
| Collaboration & Communication | Q1–Q4 | Information flow, meetings, cross‑team work. |
| Goals & Alignment | Q8–Q11 | Clarity, realism and review of goals. |
| Workload & Pace | Q15–Q18 | Workload, overtime and planning quality. |
| Trust & Psychological Safety | Q22–Q25 | Speaking up, mistakes, diverse opinions. |
| Manager Support | Q29–Q32 | Availability, feedback, obstacle removal. |
| Tools & Processes | Q36–Q39 | Tool fit and process clarity. |
| Wellbeing & Motivation | Q43–Q46 | Energy, recognition, intent to stay. |
| Overall + opens | Q50, O1–O4 | Health score and improvement ideas. |
c) Post‑project team health retro
Use this within 1–2 weeks after major projects or releases. Short survey plus a 60‑minute retro helps you learn without blame.
| Focus | Questions to include | Retro prompts |
|---|---|---|
| Execution & collaboration | Q1–Q4, Q36–Q39 | Where did handovers fail or shine? Which process changes stick? |
| Workload & pace | Q15–Q18 | Was the pace sustainable? Where did we over‑ or under‑staff? |
| Psychological safety | Q22–Q23 | Did people feel safe raising risks early? |
| Motivation & lessons | Q43, Q49, O1–O4 | What to keep/stop/start for the next project? |
d) Team‑in‑crisis pulse
For teams with clear stress signals (conflict, high attrition, repeated escalations), run a focused pulse every 2–3 weeks for 2–3 cycles.
| Focus area | Questions to include | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Trust & safety | Q22–Q28 | Understand safety, respect and trust patterns. |
| Workload & wellbeing | Q15, Q18, Q43–Q47 | Separate conflict from pure overload. |
| Manager & escalation | Q29–Q32, Q35 | Check whether leadership is part of the solution. |
| Overall + key blocker | Q50, O1 | Track health trend and main blocker each cycle. |
Scoring & thresholds
Use simple rules so managers see quickly when to act. Keep the same thresholds across teams to allow fair comparison and avoid endless debates about “is this bad enough?”.
Scale and definitions
Closed items: 1–5 from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree”. Interpret averages as:
| Average score | Interpretation | Action level |
|---|---|---|
| <3.0 | Critical – many people dissatisfied | Immediate action; discuss with team within 14 days |
| 3.0–3.7 | Needs improvement – mixed experiences | Plan 1–2 targeted experiments next cycle |
| 3.8–4.2 | Healthy – keep and fine‑tune | Share good practices; monitor trend |
| >4.2 | Strong – team strength | Protect; consider peer sharing to other teams |
For Q50 (0–10), treat ≥8 as strong, 6–7 as okay, <6 as a warning. Always combine numbers with open comments: high score plus worrying comments still needs attention.
From scores to decisions
- HR consolidates scores per team, dimension and company within ≤5 working days.
- Managers review their team’s results and highlight 2–3 priority areas (scores <3.5 or steep drops).
- Each team chooses max. 3 experiments (e.g. new meeting format, focus time, new handover checklist).
- Managers log actions and owners; HR tracks completion rate and impact in the next survey.
- Use trends over 2–3 cycles before making big structural decisions (reorg, headcount changes).
Follow-up & responsibilities
Surveys only help Teamgesundheit if someone owns the follow-up. Set clear responsibilities and reaction times so feedback does not disappear into a slide deck.
Who does what
- Manager: presents results to the team, moderates discussion and agrees concrete next steps.
- Team: adds context to results, suggests actions and commits to 1–3 experiments.
- HR / People Partner: supports interpretation, provides facilitation tools and coaches managers.
- Leadership / BU head: acts when patterns appear across teams (e.g. unrealistic targets).
- Works council (Betriebsrat) if applicable: informed about design, timelines and anonymization rules.
Reaction times
- Very critical feedback (e.g. psychological safety scores <2.5, severe comments): HR contacts manager within ≤24 h and agrees immediate steps.
- Regular low scores: team results discussion within ≤14 days; action plan documented.
- Company‑wide patterns: HR prepares a summary for leadership within 30 days and proposes 2–3 cross‑team initiatives.
- Progress review: next pulse or health check used to assess effect of actions after 4–12 weeks.
Fairness & bias checks
Team health data should be used for fairness, not as a hidden performance ranking. Keep anonymity and group comparisons in mind, especially in smaller DACH teams with strong co‑determination by the Betriebsrat.
Segmentation and anonymity
- Do not show team‑level results for groups with <5 respondents; aggregate with a neighbor team.
- Segment scores by location, role level, gender or remote vs. office only when group size ≥10.
- Share only aggregated data with leadership; avoid identifying individuals from comments.
- Involve the works council early for agreement on legal basis, data minimization and retention.
Typical patterns and responses
- Remote staff with lower collaboration scores: review meeting times, async documentation and access to decisions; manager adjusts rituals within 30 days.
- Women rating psychological safety lower than men: run focus groups, review speaking time in meetings, update escalation routes; HR monitors progress next quarter.
- Shift or blue‑collar teams with high workload/low recognition: adapt communication channels, adjust staffing and recognition to shifts; leadership reviews KPIs after 60–90 days.
Examples / use cases
Use case 1: Hidden workload risk in a “high-performing” team
A product team regularly hit its targets, but quarterly team health scores showed Workload & Pace (Q15–Q21) around 2.9 while Goals & Alignment stayed above 4.0. Comments mentioned “late‑night releases” and “no time for recovery”.
The manager paused non‑critical initiatives, moved one engineer from side projects back to core work and introduced a no‑meeting block three mornings per week. After 2 months, workload scores rose to 3.7, overtime dropped, and defect rates after release went down as well.
Use case 2: Low psychological safety in a hybrid sales team
A hybrid sales team showed Trust & Psychological Safety (Q22–Q28) of 3.0, with remote colleagues especially low on “I feel safe to speak up”. Several comments described “public blame” on calls. Engagement survey results were otherwise average.
HR used this survey plus a targeted engagement question set to confirm the pattern. The sales leader joined a workshop on psychological safety, introduced private 1:1 debriefs instead of public call‑outs and rotated who presents deals. Safety scores increased to 3.8 over two quarters and voluntary turnover decreased.
Use case 3: Tool chaos blocking cross-team work
In a project with several departments, Tools & Processes (Q36–Q42) landed at 2.7 post‑project, while collaboration inside each team was fine. Open comments mentioned “five tools for the same thing” and “no single source of truth”.
The project sponsors agreed on one shared ticketing system, created a cross‑team playbook and sunsetted old tools. The next project retro showed tool scores climbing above 4.0, and teams reported spending less time looking for information and reconciling data.
Implementation & updates
Start small, standardize what works, and refresh questions as your organization and Teamgesundheit topics evolve. A talent platform like Sprad Growth can help automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks, but you can also start with spreadsheets and simple forms.
Implementation steps
- Pilot: choose 3–5 teams from different areas; run a quarterly health check plus 2 pulses over 3–4 months.
- Align: review pilot results with managers, HR and, where relevant, works council; tweak wording and thresholds.
- Rollout: extend to all teams; define fixed windows (e.g. first week of each quarter) and clear communication templates.
- Training: run short manager sessions on interpreting scores, facilitating team discussions and designing experiments.
- Review: once per year, remove or refine questions that no longer add insight and check thresholds against experience.
DACH‑specific GDPR / Betriebsrat notes
- Use clear legal basis (usually legitimate interest or works agreement) and keep questions away from medical or highly sensitive health data.
- Minimize data: store only necessary attributes (team, location, role level) and define retention periods (e.g. delete raw data after 24 months).
- Share documentation and DPIA drafts with the works council early to avoid delays shortly before rollout.
Metrics to track over time
- Participation rate per team and survey type (aim for ≥70 % in quarterly checks, ≥60 % in pulses).
- Average scores per dimension and their trends over at least 3 cycles.
- Number and completion rate of agreed team actions per cycle.
- Links between team health trends and outcomes (attrition, quality, customer satisfaction, sick leave).
- Manager follow‑through: share‑back sessions held vs. planned within 14 days.
Conclusion
Team health surveys close the gap between annual engagement surveys and day‑to‑day reality. With structured team health survey questions, you spot collaboration issues, unsustainable workload and low trust before they turn into attrition or burnout. The goal is not perfect scores, but faster learning cycles and better conversations.
Used well, this survey improves three things: you detect problems earlier, your team discussions become more concrete, and you gain clear priorities for development and process changes. A pragmatic next step is to pick one of the blueprints, set up the questions in your survey tool, and select a pilot group of managers willing to experiment.
From there, agree on owners and timelines for follow-up, keep your survey cadence stable and review questions once per year. Over a few cycles, the survey becomes part of how you run the business: a simple, repeatable way to protect Teamgesundheit while still pushing for strong performance.
FAQ
How often should we run this team health survey?
For most teams, a quarterly health check plus a short monthly or bi‑monthly pulse works well. Quarterly checks dive into all seven dimensions and feed planning or offsites. Pulses just track a small set of leading indicators and overall health. Very stable teams can reduce the quarterly check to twice a year, while teams in crisis might run focused pulses every 2–3 weeks for a limited period.
Can we link scores to individual performance reviews?
Avoid using team health scores directly in individual performance evaluations. They reflect shared conditions, not single employees. Instead, use them as context in manager development and team‑level goals. For example, if psychological safety is low, set a leadership development goal around feedback culture. Resources like the talent development guide help connect survey insights with fair growth opportunities rather than punishment.
What should we do if comments are very critical or emotional?
Strong comments often signal that people finally feel heard. First, protect anonymity: never “hunt” for the author. Then, look for repeated themes rather than single statements. Share a summarized version with the team, acknowledge the pain points and propose a process to work through them (e.g. a series of retros). For severe issues such as bullying or discrimination, follow your formal HR and compliance procedures immediately.
How do we combine team health data with engagement or EX surveys?
Think of engagement or employee experience surveys as the “big picture” and team health as the zoomed‑in view. Use engagement data to spot which departments or locations struggle. Then, run this team health survey in those areas to understand collaboration, workload and trust in detail. Align scales where possible and keep a shared question or two (e.g. overall satisfaction) so you can track trends across instruments.
How should we update the question bank over time?
Review questions annually with managers, HR and, if relevant, works council. Remove questions that never influence actions, and refine unclear wording based on employee feedback. Keep core items for trust, workload and overall health stable to maintain trend data. If your organization changes (e.g. more remote work, new tools), add 2–3 focused questions and test them in a pilot before rolling them out company‑wide.
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.
