Manager Coaching Questions: 180 Prompts HR Can Use in 1:1s and Leadership Programs

This survey helps you see if managers use strong coaching behaviours instead of just giving advice. With clear scores and thresholds, you can spot where manager coaching questions land well, and where leaders need support before issues grow.

Survey questions on manager coaching

Use this question set with direct reports of each Führungskraft to understand how coaching-style leadership really feels in everyday work. You can later combine insights with your existing 1:1 or performance processes, for example with your current 1:1 meeting routines or manager review cycles.

Closed questions (Likert scale)

Scale for all statements: 1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly agree.

My manager often asks open questions that help me think for myself.
My manager listens fully before offering their own opinion.
In 1:1s, my manager focuses on my goals, not only on tasks.
My manager encourages me to bring my own ideas and options.
Our 1:1s have a clear structure and purpose.
My manager follows up on topics and actions we agreed in previous 1:1s.
During difficult situations, my manager uses questions to understand before judging.
I feel my manager’s questions help me clarify problems I am facing.
My manager uses coaching-style questions in performance or Mitarbeitergespräche, not only ratings.
My manager helps me link daily work to my longer-term development.
My manager asks about my career interests and next steps at least a few times per year.
With my manager, I can speak openly about mistakes without fear of blame.
My manager’s questions help me find concrete next steps when I am stuck.
When my performance is off track, my manager works with me on solutions, not just criticism.
My manager invites feedback on their own leadership and coaching style.
My manager adapts their questions to my experience level (e.g. new vs. senior).
Team meetings include questions that invite discussion, not only status updates.
My manager uses data or examples (e.g. goals, feedback) to make coaching more specific.
Digital tools (e.g. AI assistants or templates) help my manager run better coaching conversations.
Overall, my manager helps me grow through the way they ask questions.

Overall evaluation question (0–10 scale)

How likely are you to recommend your manager as a strong coaching leader to a colleague? (0 = Not at all likely, 10 = Extremely likely)

Open-ended questions

What is one coaching question your manager asked recently that helped you most? Please describe the situation.
What is one thing your manager should start doing to make their coaching questions more helpful for you?
What is one thing your manager should stop doing in conversations that blocks open discussion?
Is there anything else you want to share about how your manager uses questions in 1:1s or meetings?

Decision table for interpreting results

Question group / dimension	Trigger threshold (team average)	Required action	Owner	Timeline
Q1–Q4 Coaching mindset & ownership	Score <3.5	Schedule 1:1 coaching skills training and add coaching goals to manager’s development plan.	HRBP + manager’s leader	Training within 30 days after survey; IDP update within 45 days.
Q5–Q8 Quality & structure of 1:1s	Score <3.5 or ≥30 % “Disagree/Strongly disagree”	Introduce standard 1:1 agenda template and coaching question checklist for this manager.	Direct manager + HR L&D	Template introduced within 14 days; check-in after 60 days.
Q9–Q12 Development & career coaching	Score <3.0	Run targeted workshop on career talks; include manager in next talent review calibration.	HR Talent Management	Workshop within 60 days; talent review next planned cycle.
Q13–Q16 Difficult conversations & feedback	Score <3.0 or 0–10 overall coaching rating <6	Offer individual coaching or mentoring; review recent performance cases for fairness and tone.	HRBP + external/internal coach	Coaching offer within 14 days; case review within 30 days.
Q17–Q20 Use of data & tools (incl. AI coaching)	Score <3.5	Provide short training on using data and AI assistants to prepare coaching conversations.	HR L&D + IT/AI enablement	Training within 45 days; follow-up usage review after 90 days.
Across all items: psychological safety (Q11–Q12, Q15)	Any item ≤2.0 or ≥20 % “Strongly disagree”	Escalate to HR; run confidential interviews; agree risk mitigation and leadership actions.	HRBP + area head	Initial response within ≤7 days; action plan within 30 days.
Overall 0–10 coaching recommendation	Average <7.0 for a manager or area	Include coaching skills as explicit development priority in leadership program for that group.	Head of HR + Leadership Development	Program update for next cohort; communicate within 60 days.

Key takeaways

Use this survey to quantify how coaching-heavy your leadership culture really is.
Group questions into clear dimensions and link each to concrete follow-up actions.
Combine scores with open comments for targeted manager coaching or training.
Integrate results into performance, talent reviews and leadership development planning.
Repeat annually plus short pulses to see if coaching habits are improving.

Definition & scope

This survey measures how employees experience their manager’s coaching behaviour, especially the use of manager coaching questions in 1:1s, feedback and development talks. It is designed for direct reports of people managers on all levels. Results support decisions on leadership training, individual coaching, promotion readiness and changes in your Führungskultur.

6.1 Scoring & thresholds

The survey uses a 1–5 agreement scale for statements and a 0–10 overall coaching recommendation. Low scores highlight where managers rely more on telling than on asking. Clear thresholds help you move from “interesting data” to concrete development decisions.

Average score (1–5 items)	Interpretation	Typical action
<3.0	Critical: behaviour often missing or negative.	Mandatory training, coaching, closer HR follow-up.
3.0–3.9	Needs improvement: inconsistent coaching behaviour.	Targeted upskilling, peer learning, monitor next cycle.
≥4.0	Strong: coaching behaviour regularly visible.	Recognise, share good practice, consider mentoring role.

For the 0–10 overall item, treat <7 as a warning, 7–8 as “good but not great”, and ≥9 as strong advocacy. You can align this with your existing performance review surveys to see how coaching style links to review quality.

HR analytics sets standard thresholds (e.g. critical <3.0) and documents them in your survey playbook.
People Analytics delivers dashboards by manager, area and dimension within 7 days of survey close.
HRBPs review critical scores with line leaders and agree actions for each affected manager.
Managers with high scores share practices in leadership roundtables or communities.
Thresholds are reviewed once per year and aligned with other leadership metrics.

6.2 Follow-up & responsibilities

Clear ownership avoids surveys that disappear in a drawer. Define who responds to which signal and in what timeframe. Link this to your talent and performance framework so coaching behaviour has real consequences.

Head of HR approves survey calendar and ensures Betriebsrat and Datenschutz are informed 30 days before launch.
HR Analytics shares preliminary results with HRBPs and Leadership Development within 7 days after closing.
Each manager reviews their own results with their team and agrees 1–2 actions within 21 days.
HRBPs track completion of team follow-ups and report status to area leads after 30 days.
Leadership Development updates programs and manager curricula within 60 days based on aggregate trends.

A talent platform like Sprad Growth or an AI assistant such as Atlas can help automate survey reminders, create manager-specific action checklists and store follow-up notes alongside other performance data.

6.3 Fairness & bias checks

Manager coaching behaviour can vary strongly by Standort, function or working model (remote vs. office). Segment results to spot patterns that might point to structural issues, not just individual weaknesses.

HR Analytics runs breakdowns by team, location, gender, age group, contract type and remote/office within 10 days.
Flag any group where a dimension is ≥0.5 points below company average for deeper review.
Discuss patterns with leaders and Betriebsrat, focusing on systemic factors (workload, structure, training access).
If one demographic group consistently reports lower psychological safety, plan targeted interventions and manager support.
Document all fairness checks and actions in a central log to support future audits and trust.

Typical patterns: junior staff may rate coaching higher if managers are very structured, while long-tenured experts might feel “managed too closely”. Remote teams often feel fewer coaching moments if managers rely only on status updates rather than quality 1:1s. Compare with your broader employee survey results to confirm whether this is a coaching issue or a general climate topic.

6.4 Examples / use cases for manager coaching questions survey

Use case 1: Low coaching scores in a growth team

In a fast-scaling product team, scores for coaching mindset and 1:1 quality (Q1–Q8) fall below 3.2. Open comments mention rushed meetings and managers “only pushing tasks”. HR decides to include all team leads in a focused coaching skills module, using concrete manager coaching questions and role plays on real cases.

After 6 months, a short pulse shows scores up to 3.9, and employees report clearer ownership and fewer escalations. HR links these improvements to the company’s leadership development framework and makes the module standard for all new managers.

Use case 2: Strong overall scores, weak career coaching

In a mature division, overall coaching ratings are high, but the development and career dimension (Q9–Q12) averages 3.1. Many comments: “We talk about tasks, not my future.” HR introduces a simple annual “career month” playbook with suggested questions, building on existing one-on-one question banks.

Managers run at least one dedicated career 1:1 per employee. In the next cycle, the dimension climbs to 3.8, and internal mobility increases because employees see clearer options.

Use case 3: AI coaching pilot for time-poor managers

In a busy operations unit, managers score low on preparation and follow-up (Q5–Q8, Q17–Q20). They admit they “don’t know which questions to ask” and lack time. HR pilots an AI coaching assistant that suggests tailored agendas and questions before each 1:1, similar to the approach described in the internal guide on AI coaching for managers.

Within one quarter, employees report more focused Gespräche and better follow-through. Average 1:1 quality scores rise above 4.0, while manager prep time per meeting drops by around 30 %.

6.5 Implementation & updates

Roll this survey out in small, safe steps. Start with a pilot in one Bereich, then refine questions and thresholds before scaling. Align timelines with your performance reviews and leadership programs so follow-ups feel integrated, not “one more extra topic”.

Phase 1 – Design: HR and HRBPs finalise wording, scales, dimensions and thresholds; involve Betriebsrat and Datenschutz early (6–8 weeks before launch).
Phase 2 – Pilot: Run the survey with 30–50 managers and their teams; collect qualitative feedback on clarity and trust.
Phase 3 – Rollout: Extend to all people managers; synchronise with goal-setting or review cycles for maximum relevance.
Phase 4 – Enablement: Train managers on interpreting results, planning actions and using coaching question banks or AI tools.
Phase 5 – Review: Annually check items, thresholds and process; retire low-value questions and add new ones if needed.

Track at least these metrics over time: participation rate (target ≥70 %), average score per dimension, share of teams with critical scores, percentage of managers who completed follow-up sessions with teams, and changes in engagement or turnover where coaching scores improved.

Using manager coaching questions alongside this survey

The survey gives you “what employees feel”; high-quality manager coaching questions give managers the “how to change”. Combine both: use survey results to pick focus areas, then equip leaders with concrete question sets for 1:1s, performance talks and change situations. You can align with your existing performance management approach or frameworks you use for leadership expectations.

Translate weak dimensions into 10–15 go-to coaching questions each, shared in a simple PDF or in your HR platform.
Encourage managers to copy 2–3 new questions into every 1:1 agenda for the next quarter.
Suggest that managers review open-ended survey comments together with employees to co-create better conversations.
Include coaching skills and use of structured questions in manager performance and promotion criteria.
Use follow-up pulses after 6–12 months to see whether employees feel a difference in daily interactions.

Data protection, Betriebsrat & documentation

For DACH, treat this survey like any Mitarbeiterbefragung with leadership focus. Ensure clear communication on anonymity thresholds (e.g. results only for groups ≥5 respondents), storage periods and who can see what. Involve your Betriebsrat and data protection officer when defining processes, retention and how coaching conversations are documented.

Store identifiable raw data only in approved, GDPR-compliant systems; limit access to HR Analytics and designated HRBPs.
Define clear rules: no single open-text comment is used for disciplinary steps without further investigation.
If managers or employees store coaching notes (e.g. in Atlas or another tool), clarify what belongs in the system vs. private notes.
Set retention periods (e.g. delete identifiable survey data after 24 months) and document them in your record of processing activities.
Communicate transparently why you collect this data and how it helps employees, not only the company.

Conclusion

A focused survey on manager coaching behaviour turns a fuzzy topic (“Do our leaders coach enough?”) into concrete signals. You see where coaching habits are strong, where 1:1s drift into status updates and where psychological safety is at risk. Combined with clear thresholds, the data helps you detect problems earlier, improve Gesprächsqualität and set sharper priorities for leadership development.

Next steps are simple: choose your pilot area, copy the questions into your survey tool, align with your Betriebsrat and data protection, and define owners plus timelines for follow-up. Then run the first cycle, share results openly and support managers with practical coaching question sets and, where helpful, AI assistants that prepare agendas and prompts. Over time, repeating this survey and acting on the insights will shift everyday leadership from “telling” to true coaching – and employees will feel that in their growth, engagement and readiness for change.

FAQ

How often should we run this manager coaching survey?

For most organisations, once per year is enough, combined with short pulses for specific groups after bigger interventions (e.g. new leadership program). Tie timing to your performance or engagement cycles so managers do not drown in surveys. Leave at least 6 months between full runs to allow behaviour change and avoid survey fatigue.

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

First, treat it as a signal to understand, not a verdict. HRBP and the manager’s leader should review results, comments and context together. Then agree a clear plan: targeted training, mentoring, or individual coaching, plus stronger oversight in sensitive topics (e.g. performance talks). If behaviour does not change after one or two cycles, link this to consequences in performance evaluation.

How should we handle critical or emotional comments?

Do not forward raw comments directly to the manager if they risk revealing identities. Instead, cluster feedback, summarise themes and share patterns. For severe issues (e.g. bullying hints), follow your existing escalation path and, if needed, run confidential interviews. Research from organisations like the Center for Creative Leadership shows that how you respond to feedback matters more than the tool itself.

How can we integrate this with our existing leadership and performance frameworks?

Map each dimension (coaching mindset, 1:1 quality, development, difficult conversations, data/AI) to specific competencies in your leadership or performance frameworks. Then use survey results as one input in talent reviews, promotion discussions and manager training needs analysis. This keeps things coherent: leaders see that coaching behaviour is part of “how we assess performance here”, not an extra hobby.

When should we bring in external coaching instead of just training?

Use group training when many managers share similar gaps (e.g. low scores on 1:1 structure). Bring in individual coaches when issues are deep or sensitive: repeated low psychological safety scores, complex performance histories or senior leaders with large spans of control. Always clarify goals, confidentiality and data sharing upfront and inform the Betriebsrat where required by your local agreements.

Jürgen Ulbrich

CEO & Co-Founder of Sprad

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.