Want to run 360-degree feedback without spending a week building forms? This page gives you three ready-to-copy templates — self-assessment, peer feedback, and manager review — each with rating items and open-ended fields, plus step-by-step build instructions for Word and Google Forms, GDPR-ready and with Works Council notes for the DACH region.
Looking instead for a large question bank, a methodology primer, or a software comparison? We cover those in separate posts. This page stays deliberately focused on the finished, copyable templates and links out where it makes sense.
What these templates include — and what they don't
Each of the three templates below has five rating items (behavioral frequency, 1–5) and two open-ended fields. They're kept short enough to fill out in 10 to 15 minutes. Copy the tables straight into Word, or rebuild the questions in Google Forms — both routes are described step by step further down.
- Included: three role-ready forms, competency sets by role, a rating scale, the build in Word and Google Forms, a simple no-software analysis tip, and GDPR and Works Council notes.
- Not included: a large question bank, a methodology primer on 360 feedback, or a tool comparison. Those live in dedicated posts (see links).
If you need more questions, browse our curated set in 210 Best 360-Degree Feedback Questions and Templates. For a broader take on why feedback matters, read Feedback as an Important Tool.
Template 1 — Self-Assessment Form (Word & Google Forms)
The self-assessment is the starting point of any 360 round. It's what makes the self-vs-peer gap visible later. Copy the table below straight into your Word document, or transfer the items into Google Forms.
| # | Statement (self-rating) | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | I proactively communicate work results and status to colleagues and stakeholders. | 1–5 |
| 2 | I share my knowledge and resources openly with other team members. | 1–5 |
| 3 | I offer constructive solutions when problems come up. | 1–5 |
| 4 | I take ownership of mistakes and turn them into improvements. | 1–5 |
| 5 | I adapt my working style to different people and situations. | 1–5 |
| 6 | Open text: Where do you see your biggest development area over the next 12 months? | Open text |
| 7 | Open text: What is your strongest skill that the team relies on directly? | Open text |
Scale (behavioral frequency): 1 = Never · 2 = Rarely · 3 = Sometimes · 4 = Often · 5 = Always.
Adjusting competencies by role
The five items above fit individual contributors. For managers and senior leaders, the emphasis shifts. Swap individual items rather than rebuilding the whole template.
| Competency | Individual Contributor | Manager | Senior Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Communication | Clear in writing and speech | Audience adaptation, top-down and bottom-up | Vision communication, stakeholder briefings |
| Collaboration | Knowledge sharing, reliability | Cross-functional coordination | Strategic partnerships |
| Problem-solving | Creative solutions within scope | Leading teams through complex problems | Decisions under uncertainty |
| Ownership | Error culture, self-organization | Keeping commitments, accountability | Carrying organizational consequences |
| Development | Own willingness to learn | Team development, coaching | Talent pipeline, succession |
Template 2 — Peer Feedback Form
The peer form captures the colleague perspective. Replace [Name] with the person being reviewed before you distribute it. It uses the same scale as the self-assessment on purpose — only identical items make the self-vs-peer comparison clean.
| # | Statement (peer perspective) | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Name] communicates clearly and understandably, including in written updates. | 1–5 |
| 2 | [Name] actively shares knowledge and resources with the team. | 1–5 |
| 3 | [Name] contributes to solving problems rather than just pointing them out. | 1–5 |
| 4 | [Name] is reliable and keeps commitments. | 1–5 |
| 5 | [Name] is open to feedback and criticism. | 1–5 |
| 6 | Open text: What do you value most about working with [Name]? | Open text |
| 7 | Open text: In which area could [Name] develop the most? | Open text |
Same scale as Template 1: 1 = Never to 5 = Always. Collect at least five peer forms per person to smooth out individual opinions.
Template 3 — Manager / Upward Feedback Form
This form reverses the direction: direct reports rate their manager. Anonymity matters most here, because few people answer honestly otherwise.
| # | Statement (direct-report perspective) | Scale |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | My manager gives me clear, constructive feedback regularly. | 1–5 |
| 2 | My manager actively supports my professional development. | 1–5 |
| 3 | My manager communicates goals and expectations clearly. | 1–5 |
| 4 | My manager creates an environment where I can raise mistakes openly. | 1–5 |
| 5 | My manager makes decisions transparently and understandably. | 1–5 |
| 6 | Open text: Which leadership quality do you value most in your manager? | Open text |
| 7 | Open text: What is the one thing you'd want your manager to do differently? | Open text |
Once the results are in, turn them into concrete actions. For how raw data becomes a development plan, see our 360-Degree Development Review Template.
Choosing your rating scale (3, 5, or 7 points)
A single scale across all three forms lowers the cognitive load for raters and makes analysis simpler. For most teams, the 5-point behavioral-frequency scale is the best choice. A five-point Likert scale is also the most commonly recommended option for peer ratings in HR methodology literature (for example at AIHR).
| Type | Points | Labels | When to use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 3-point | 3 | Needs development · Meets expectations · Exceeds expectations | Getting started, small companies, pulse |
| Standard Likert | 5 | Strongly disagree · Disagree · Neutral · Agree · Strongly agree | Attitude-based questions |
| Behavioral frequency | 5 | Never · Rarely · Sometimes · Often · Always | Observable behavior (recommended) |
| Granular | 7 | Behavior-specific anchors per level | Senior leaders, high-stakes decisions |
Recommendation: behavioral frequency (5 points) for the rating items, plus one or two open-ended questions per form. Avoid vague labels like "average" or "good" — they dilute the data.
How to build a 360 feedback form in Google Forms (step by step)
Google Forms suits distributed teams because responses land automatically in Google Sheets. Here's how to rebuild a form in a few minutes.
- Create the form: open Google Forms, choose "Blank form," and set a title (e.g. "360° Feedback [Name] [Date]").
- Ensure anonymity: Settings → turn "Collect email addresses" OFF. Without this step, responses are not anonymous.
- Add sections: one each for (a) intro and privacy note, (b) rating questions, (c) open-ended questions.
- Pick question types: rating items as "Linear scale" (1–5) with labeled endpoints, open text as "Paragraph."
- Set required fields: mark rating questions as "Required," leave open-text fields optional.
- Test it: fill out the preview link yourself and check that all answers reach Google Sheets correctly.
- Distribute: send one identical link to everyone and communicate a deadline. No individualized links — they break anonymity.
As a rule of thumb, keep it to around 50 questions and 10 to 15 minutes of completion time per form. If you're weighing dedicated software instead, our overview 360-Degree Feedback Tools in Test helps you decide.
How to build a Word template (step by step)
Word fits small teams and controlled distribution by email. Here's how to structure the document.
- Cover page: title, name of the person being reviewed, role of the rater (self-assessment, peer, manager), completion date, plus a note on anonymity and purpose.
- Privacy paragraph: who can access the data, how long it's stored, when it's deleted.
- Instructions: explain the scale, state the completion time (10–15 minutes), and ask for constructive answers.
- Competency table: columns Question | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Comment (optional). Reuse the items from the templates above.
- Open-text sections: two to three open questions with enough blank lines.
- Return instruction: how and where to send the form back (email, drop box, Teams channel).
Keep the document under 1 MB and avoid image clutter. A clear structure noticeably lifts the response rate.
Analyzing results without software — averages and the self-vs-peer gap
You don't need special software to get meaningful results. Two simple metrics are enough for the first round.
- Average per question: the mean of all peer ratings per item. Shows where consensus strengths and gaps sit. In Google Sheets, the AVERAGE formula per row is all you need.
- Self-vs-peer gap: self-rating minus peer average. A positive difference points to a blind spot (self-overestimation), a negative one to self-underestimation.
- Cluster the open text: qualitatively summarize the three most common themes under strengths and the three most common under development areas.
These three steps give you a solid picture — enough for a first development conversation. To turn it into a structured plan, use the 360-Degree Development Review Template.
GDPR and Works Council requirements (DACH)
360 feedback data is personal data under Art. 4 GDPR. Purpose, retention period, and deletion deadline must be documented, and the right to access and erasure also applies to feedback results. In Germany, the Works Council's co-determination rights apply on top.
- Section 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG: the Works Council has a co-determination right when introducing technical systems suitable for monitoring behavior or performance — this covers digital feedback software and systematically used Google Forms processes (Section 87 BetrVG, gesetze-im-internet.de).
- Section 94 (2) BetrVG: general appraisal standards require the Works Council's consent — this affects the template structure and competency framework (Section 94 BetrVG, gesetze-im-internet.de).
- Anonymity in Google Forms: disable "Collect email addresses" and add a privacy note to the form description.
Practical tip: agree a works agreement in advance that covers purpose, anonymization, storage, analysis rules, and deletion deadlines. In Austria, Section 96a ArbVG applies; in Switzerland, Art. 328b OR together with the Data Protection Act (DSG).
Frequently asked questions
How many questions should a 360 questionnaire have?
As a rule of thumb, keep it to around 50 questions and 10 to 15 minutes of completion time. The templates above stay deliberately lean with five rating items and two open-text fields each — that lifts the response rate and keeps quality high.
How many raters do I need for a meaningful result?
At least five raters from different perspectives balance bias and effort well. Combine the manager, peers, and — for leadership roles — direct reports. More than ten raters usually adds effort without noticeably improving quality.
How do I ensure anonymity in Google Forms?
Turn off "Collect email addresses" in the settings and avoid individualized links. Add a clear privacy note to the form description. For Word forms, collect responses through an anonymous channel with no identifying details.
When do I need to involve the Works Council?
As soon as a 360 process runs systematically with digital tools, Section 87 (1) no. 6 BetrVG applies (technical monitoring systems). The appraisal standards — templates and competency framework — are additionally covered by Section 94 (2) BetrVG. Involve the Works Council before the rollout.
Can I use these templates internationally?
Yes. Translate the competency questions but keep the structure and scale, so results stay comparable across locations. The GDPR clauses cover the EU; for Austria and Switzerland, Section 96a ArbVG and Art. 328b OR plus the DSG apply.
Conclusion
With the three forms above, you can launch a 360 round without starting from scratch. Copy the right template, pick a single 5-point scale, build the form in Word or Google Forms, and analyze it with averages and the self-vs-peer gap. Settle anonymity and the Works Council up front — then your feedback delivers honest, usable results.
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.
