A focused 360‑degree feedback survey for managers gives you concrete data for coaching, not public shaming. With clear manager 360 feedback survey questions, you spot strengths, risks and development priorities early – and you have a neutral basis for conversations with Führungskräfte, HR and the Betriebsrat.

Manager 360 feedback survey questions

All items below use a 5‑point scale: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree. Rater groups in brackets: [DR] = Direct reports, [P] = Peers, [U] = Upward (manager’s manager).

2.1 Closed questions (Likert scale)

2.2 Overall / NPS-style question

2.3 Open-ended questions

Decision & action table

Key takeaways

Definition & scope

This manager 360‑Grad‑Feedback survey measures observable leadership behaviours across values, clarity, coaching, collaboration, psychological safety, wellbeing and future readiness. It is designed for feedback from direct reports, peers and the manager’s own manager, mainly for people-leaders in DACH organisations. The survey supports decisions around development plans, coaching, training offers and broader changes in leadership culture and performance management.

How manager 360 feedback differs from engagement surveys

Engagement surveys ask, “How do you feel about work?”. 360 feedback asks, “What does this specific Führungskraft do?”. Engagement is anonymous and company-wide. 360 is person-focused, with carefully controlled anonymity and rater groups. You typically run 360 in sync with your performance management or talent reviews, not as a generic climate check.

For DACH, the key difference is legal and cultural. Engagement surveys often sit on a general consent or legitimate interest basis. 360‑Grad‑Feedback can feel closer to Leistungskontrolle, so you need Betriebsrat involvement, clear purpose (“Entwicklung, not Sanktion”) and data minimisation. A talent platform like Sprad Growth can automate survey sends, reminders and follow-up tasks with GDPR-friendly controls.

Survey blueprints for typical 360 cycles

You rarely need all 60 closed items at once. Below are ready-made blueprints you can plug into your tool or into simple forms, aligned with the question numbers above and your manager 360 feedback survey questions.

Full manager 360 (25–35 questions)

Use for first-time 360 programmes or key talent pools (e.g. new Führungskräfte, succession candidates).

Lightweight upward-feedback pulse (10–15 questions)

Use 1–2 times per year to give direct reports a safe channel about their manager.

Peer-only 360 for project leads (12–18 questions)

Use when someone leads projects or squads without many direct reports.

360 for senior leaders / executives (20–25 questions)

For directors and executives, focus more on strategy, culture and future fit.

Scoring & thresholds

All closed questions use a 1–5 scale. Define clear bands so you and leaders interpret scores consistently. As a rule of thumb: average <3.0 = critical, 3.0–3.7 = needs improvement, 3.8–4.2 = solid, >4.2 = strong area. Look at both averages and distributions, especially how many raters choose ≤3.

Translate scores directly into actions. Connect 360 results with your 360 degree feedback policies, leadership programmes and your broader talent development strategy. Avoid hard links to pay, but you can use patterns across several cycles as one input into promotion discussions.

Follow-up & responsibilities

A 360 programme fails when reports land in inboxes and nothing happens. Define who owns which step and by when. Use your performance/talent system or a spreadsheet to track completion, similar to how you track actions from employee surveys.

For DACH, also agree on escalation rules: who sees critical comments, and how quickly do you react if feedback signals Mobbing, discrimination or health risks? That protects employees and reduces legal risk.

Fairness & bias checks

360 feedback feels more personal than an engagement survey. You need fairness checks both during design and when interpreting results. Combine this with guidance from resources on performance review biases so raters and leaders know typical traps.

Analyse results by relevant groups (location, business unit, remote vs. office, gender where allowed) without exposing individuals. The goal is not to micro-analyse one manager but to detect systematic issues, e.g. consistently lower psychological safety scores for women reporting to male leaders or for remote staff.

Examples / use cases

Use case 1: New manager with weak feedback skills

A first-time Führungskraft scores well on values and collaboration, but Q19–Q24 average 2.8 from direct reports. Comments mention “no feedback unless something goes wrong”. HR and the manager’s manager agree on targeted actions: a feedback training, a structured 1:1 template and a simple quarterly check on Q19 and Q20 as a mini-pulse.

Within 6 months, direct reports report clearer expectations and less surprise in performance reviews. The next 360 shows the feedback cluster at 3.9, while engagement survey comments about “unclear performance expectations” drop significantly.

Use case 2: Senior leader with strategy strengths, culture risks

A director scores very high on Q9–Q12 and Q31–Q36, but values (Q1–Q6) and wellbeing (Q43–Q48) land at 3.1. Peers and direct reports describe “results at any cost” and “late-night messages”. The CEO and HR decide to link the director’s bonus not to 360 scores, but to demonstrable culture changes: a new meeting rhythm, realistic capacity planning and delegation.

The leader works with a coach, adjusts behaviour, and in the next cycle wellbeing scores rise to 3.8 while business performance stays strong. The case becomes an internal example that culture topics are taken seriously without immediate punishment.

Use case 3: Project lead without formal reports

A project lead in a matrix organisation receives a peer-only 360 focusing on Q25–Q29 and Q31–Q33. Scores are strong except for Q33 (explaining decisions) at 3.0. Comments show that stakeholders often feel surprised by changes. The project lead experiments with short weekly updates and early alignment meetings.

Three months later, a follow-up pulse just on Q31–Q33 shows averages ≥4.0. Stakeholder satisfaction in post-project reviews improves, and the project lead is shortlisted for a formal leadership role.

Implementation & updates

Start small. Run a pilot with 20–50 managers in one business area before you go company-wide. Align the concept with the Betriebsrat, your Datenschutzbeauftragte and senior leadership early. Clarify the legal basis (usually legitimate interest plus transparency, sometimes consent), retention periods (e.g. delete raw data after 24 months) and no-use rules (e.g. no unilateral dismissal based solely on 360).

Use lessons from the pilot to refine manager 360 feedback survey questions, thresholds and processes. Align your question clusters with your leadership model, performance process and, if you use one, a skills or competency framework similar to those described in the talent management guide.

Conclusion

A well-designed 360‑Grad‑Feedback for managers is one of the fastest ways to spot leadership strengths, problems and development priorities. Compared to generic engagement surveys, it gives you concrete behaviour data for each Führungskraft. Used with clear rules and Betriebsrat alignment, it increases trust instead of fear.

The real value comes after the survey: structured debriefs, targeted coaching and visible follow-up. That’s where you improve psychological safety, feedback quality and clarity of direction across teams. Over time, 360 results also make talent decisions in your performance and succession processes more objective, especially when combined with skills and role data.

Next practical steps: choose one pilot population, load the question bank into your survey or talent tool, and agree on owners and timelines for debriefs and development plans. Once you’ve run one full cycle and learned from it, you can standardise the approach and connect it with your broader performance and talent management architecture.

FAQ

How often should we run manager 360 feedback?

For most organisations, every 18–24 months per manager is enough. That gives time to work on development actions and see behaviour change. You can add short upward-feedback pulses (10–15 questions) annually for critical roles. Running full 360 cycles more often risks survey fatigue and can feel like permanent surveillance, especially in DACH environments.

What do we do if a manager gets very low scores?

Treat low scores as a development signal, not an automatic verdict. First, offer a confidential debrief with HR or a coach to interpret results and comments. Then agree on a documented development plan with 2–3 clear goals, support offers and timelines. Only if you see no change across several cycles and other evidence should it influence bigger role decisions.

How anonymous should 360 surveys be?

In DACH, aim for strong anonymity for rater groups, especially direct reports. A common rule is to show averages only if ≥4 raters contributed in a group. Never show individual answers or timestamps. Explain these rules in your privacy notice and Betriebsvereinbarung. According to guidance from organisations like the CIPD, clear anonymity builds trust and data quality.

How should we handle very critical comments?

Separate critical but constructive comments (“too little feedback”) from indications of harassment, discrimination or health risks. For the first, use them in coaching. For the second, define an escalation path with HR, Compliance and the Betriebsrat before launch. Make clear in the info text that such topics may trigger follow-up, while keeping individual raters protected wherever possible.

How do we keep the question bank up to date?

Review the items at least once per year with HR, a sample of managers and the Betriebsrat. Compare them with your leadership principles and current strategy. Remove low-usage or overlapping questions, and add a few targeted items when new priorities arise (e.g. AI adoption, hybrid work). Keep total length stable; better to swap items than endlessly add more.