A 360 degree feedback survey everyone answers from one link

A 360 feedback survey asks the same questions of the people around one person: their manager, their peers, the people who report to them, and the person themselves. This template is 36 of them, in five competencies drawn from a public framework anyone may reuse. Question 1 records who is answering, so one link covers all four groups.

36questions
about 10 minfor each rater
5 competenciesfrom a public framework
One linksent to every rater

Use this template Take the survey first

360 Feedback Survey · answer to move through it

Use this template

Question 1 of 36 Rater

Which of these describes how you work with [NAME]?

This is my own rating

[NAME] is my manager

I am [NAME]'s manager

We are peers or colleagues

I am in another team

Someone else

Question 2 of 36 Rater

How often do you work with [NAME]?

Every day

Most weeks

A few times a month

A few times a year

Less often than that

Question 3 of 36 Communication

[NAME] listens to the whole point before answering.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 4 of 36 Communication

[NAME] says what they mean without leaving people to guess.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 5 of 36 Communication

[NAME] notices when someone in the room has not been heard.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 6 of 36 Communication

[NAME] tells the people whose work depends on theirs in time for them to act.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 7 of 36 Communication

[NAME] puts a decision in writing when it will need to be found again later.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 8 of 36 Communication

[NAME] changes how they explain something when the first attempt does not land.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 9 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] helps a colleague who is stuck without being asked twice.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 10 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] takes the constraints of other teams seriously when planning work.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 11 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] notices when someone on the team is under real pressure.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 12 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] says so plainly when they were wrong.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 13 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] gives the credit to the people who did the work.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 14 of 36 Collaboration

[NAME] argues with the argument rather than with the person.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 15 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] does what they said they would do, by when they said it.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 16 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] flags a slipping deadline while there is still time to move it.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 17 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] checks their own work before handing it on.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 18 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] keeps to a rule even when nobody would notice if they did not.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 19 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] thinks about what could go wrong before committing the team to something.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 20 of 36 Reliability

[NAME] keeps a confidence.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 21 of 36 Composure

[NAME] stays even-tempered when the pressure goes up.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 22 of 36 Composure

[NAME] takes criticism without making the next conversation harder.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 23 of 36 Composure

[NAME] keeps working sensibly while the plan is still unclear.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 24 of 36 Composure

[NAME] changes course when the evidence changes.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 25 of 36 Composure

[NAME] absorbs pressure rather than passing it on to the people nearby.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 26 of 36 Composure

[NAME] decides at the right moment, neither rushed nor stalled.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 27 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] picks up work that needed doing and was nobody job.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 28 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] holds their own work to a higher standard than the minimum.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 29 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] keeps going on something difficult after the first attempt fails.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 30 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] gives feedback that is specific enough to act on.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 31 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] makes time to teach somebody something they know.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 32 of 36 Leading and coaching

[NAME] makes room for other people to lead a piece of work.

Almost never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Almost always

Cannot rate

Question 33 of 36 Comments

What is one thing [NAME] should start doing that they do not do now?

Question 34 of 36 Comments

What is one thing [NAME] does well that would be a loss if it stopped?

Question 35 of 36 Comments

Is there anything the ratings above gave you no place to say?

Question 36 of 36 Comments

If [NAME] worked on one of these five areas next, which would help you most?

Communication

Collaboration

Reliability

Composure

Leading and coaching

Nothing here needs work

One questionnaire, one link, four points of view

Four rater groups, four points of view, and one form rather than four. Question 1 does the sorting.

Everybody answers the same 36 questions. The manager, the peers, the people who report to them, anyone else who sees the work, and the person themselves. Nothing changes between groups except who is answering, which is what question 1 records. One link to send, and responses in which every row already says which group it came from.

Every stem is about [NAME], not about "my manager" or "I". That is what lets one form serve four groups. The ratings ask how often rather than how good, on five points from Almost never to Almost always, so that a rater describes what they watched instead of awarding a grade. A sixth, Cannot rate, sits on all 30 rating items and is left out of the reading rather than counted low.

What this template does not do, said once. It does not track who has answered, chase anyone, or assemble a report. Whoever set it up can open every response, so tell people that before they answer; the choice between anonymous, confidential and identified is worked through on the anonymous employee feedback page.

Sending it. Copy it into the free survey editor, replace [NAME] everywhere including the survey title, and share the one link. Send the person their own link at the same time as everybody else: a self rating written after seeing what others said is a different measurement. Nothing chases a rater who has not answered, so the date in the invitation is the only nudge.

Invitation text to send with the link

Before you start

You have been asked to give feedback on [NAME]. Thirty-six questions, about ten minutes.

Question 1 asks how you work with [NAME]. Everybody answers the same questions, and that answer separates the manager view from the peer view.

Thirty questions ask how often you have seen something happen. If you have not seen enough to answer one, choose "Cannot rate" rather than guessing. Those are left out rather than counted as low.

The three questions at the end are optional and they are the most useful part.

Please answer by [DATE]. [OWNER] set this survey up and can open every response. [Say here what the feedback will be used for, and what it will not.]

One central survey link connected outward to four separate groups of simple figures, with their answers returning into a single labelled stack — One link out to four groups, one set of answers back, labelled.

The 360 degree feedback survey questions in full

Every question, what it is for, and what to do with the answers. Copy a block or the whole set.

Plain text, one question per line, with the answer scale.

Who is answering

Two questions that turn one set of responses into four. Ask them first, so everything after arrives labelled.

Which of these describes how you work with [NAME]?Pick one of 6What makes one link serve a whole 360.
How often do you work with [NAME]?Pick one of 5Read it when two groups disagree.

Communication

Whether information arrives in time and in a form people can act on. Written from named O*NET Social Skills, as acts rather than opinions.[3]

[NAME] listens to the whole point before answering.5 pointsListening as an act, not a manner.
[NAME] says what they mean without leaving people to guess.5 pointsDirectness. Read a low score beside question 20.
[NAME] notices when someone in the room has not been heard.5 pointsSeparates a talker from a chair.
[NAME] tells the people whose work depends on theirs in time for them to act.5 pointsThe cheapest behaviour to change.
[NAME] puts a decision in writing when it will need to be found again later.5 pointsWhether a decision survives the week.
[NAME] changes how they explain something when the first attempt does not land.5 pointsAdjusting the explanation, not repeating it.

Collaboration

What the person costs and gives the people around them. Peers see this block from an angle a manager does not.

[NAME] helps a colleague who is stuck without being asked twice.5 pointsEffort spent on somebody else.
[NAME] takes the constraints of other teams seriously when planning work.5 pointsWhether planning counts people not in the room.
[NAME] notices when someone on the team is under real pressure.5 pointsAttention to a colleague under load.
[NAME] says so plainly when they were wrong.5 pointsOwning a mistake out loud.
[NAME] gives the credit to the people who did the work.5 pointsAttribution. Peers are in the room for it; a manager is not.
[NAME] argues with the argument rather than with the person.5 pointsOne low group against three high is one relationship.

Reliability

Whether work lands when it was promised, and whether a problem surfaces early or late.

[NAME] does what they said they would do, by when they said it.5 pointsRead the workload comments before acting.
[NAME] flags a slipping deadline while there is still time to move it.5 pointsThe half a manager can help with.
[NAME] checks their own work before handing it on.5 pointsScored differently by whoever receives the work.
[NAME] keeps to a rule even when nobody would notice if they did not.5 pointsIntegrity written as something watchable.
[NAME] thinks about what could go wrong before committing the team to something.5 pointsThe cost of a decision, counted early.
[NAME] keeps a confidence.5 pointsShort on purpose. Cannot rate is the honest answer.

Composure

How the person behaves when the plan slips, the pressure rises, or the feedback stings.

[NAME] stays even-tempered when the pressure goes up.5 pointsInfrequent raters should skip this one.
[NAME] takes criticism without making the next conversation harder.5 pointsDecides whether anyone gives feedback again.
[NAME] keeps working sensibly while the plan is still unclear.5 pointsDirect reports feel this first.
[NAME] changes course when the evidence changes.5 pointsUpdating on evidence, not being agreeable.
[NAME] absorbs pressure rather than passing it on to the people nearby.5 pointsDirect reports answer it differently. That gap is the point.
[NAME] decides at the right moment, neither rushed nor stalled.5 pointsThe comments say which failure it means.

Leading and coaching

Work and teaching nobody assigned them. It measures leadership in somebody with no direct reports too.

[NAME] picks up work that needed doing and was nobody job.5 pointsWith no reports, this is the leadership item.
[NAME] holds their own work to a higher standard than the minimum.5 pointsRead a high score beside question 16.
[NAME] keeps going on something difficult after the first attempt fails.5 pointsPersistence as an occasion, not a trait.
[NAME] gives feedback that is specific enough to act on.5 pointsFeedback quality, not frequency. A peer item too.
[NAME] makes time to teach somebody something they know.5 pointsWith no reports, read it as helping the team.
[NAME] makes room for other people to lead a piece of work.5 pointsHanding work over without vanishing from it.

In your own words

Three optional open questions and one closing choice. A number says where to look; a sentence says what happened.

What is one thing [NAME] should start doing that they do not do now?Long text, optionalA start prompt asks for an addition, not a complaint.
What is one thing [NAME] does well that would be a loss if it stopped?Long text, optionalProtects what works, which gets removed by accident.
Is there anything the ratings above gave you no place to say?Long text, optionalThe escape hatch for what 30 items missed.
If [NAME] worked on one of these five areas next, which would help you most?Pick one of 6One vote each, counting into a priority.

Before you send. Cut a whole competency block if it does not apply. Four blocks is fine; a block nobody can answer is not.

Who to ask, and how many of them

The one published operating standard worth copying comes from a government body that runs these, and it says something about the manager almost nobody else says out loud.

The Public Service Commission of Canada publishes the rules it runs its own 360 service by: a minimum of three raters in each of its Peers, Employees and Other categories, and 4 rater categories with 10 to 12 raters in all.[1] Copied onto one person, that is the table below.

Rater group	How many to ask	Can you tell who wrote it?
The person themselves	One	Yes. Question 1 says so.
Their manager	One	Yes, there is one of them.
Peers and colleagues	Three or more	Only from what they write.
The people who report to them	Three or more	Only from what they write.
Anyone else who sees the work	Three or more	Only from what they write.

The manager form is never anonymous, and pretending otherwise is how a 360 loses trust. The same source states it: rater anonymity applies to the Peer, Employee and Other categories, but not to the immediate supervisor.[1] There is one manager, so those answers are theirs. Say so beforehand.

Fewer than three in a group and their answers read as individuals whatever you promise. Fold that group into another rather than skip the survey. When only the team is asked and the subject is their manager, the supervisor feedback survey is built for that shape. For somebody rating only themselves, use the leadership self-assessment.

Reading four points of view without averaging them

Thirty numbers and three paragraphs per rater. The average is not the useful part.

Read the comments first. Questions 33 to 35 are where somebody names an occasion. A rating says which competency to look at; a sentence says what happened. The other way round makes it a scoreboard.

Then read the ratings by group, not in one pile. Question 1 is on every response, so each arrives labelled. Take the manager response on its own, because there is one of it, then the peers as a set and the direct reports as a set. Look for one item scoring differently in two groups: that distance is the finding, and an average across all the raters would have hidden it.

Leave Cannot rate out of the count, and finish on question 36. Every rater picks one of the five areas, so the answers count into a priority instead of a score. One area worked on for a quarter beats five noted and dropped.

Keep this away from pay and promotion. A 2019 meta-analysis of 236 samples covering 43,203 people put observed interrater reliability at 0.61 for research-collected ratings against 0.45 for administrative-collected ratings.[2] Raters agree with each other less once their answers decide something, which is why the invitation above has a line for what the feedback will not be used for.

Where a low score is a gap in what somebody can do rather than how they work with people, the skill survey asks that directly.

360 feedback survey FAQ

What questions should be on a 360 degree feedback survey?

Behaviours somebody could have watched, grouped into a few competencies, plus one question recording who is answering and two or three open boxes. The 36 above are that set. Leave out anything only a manager could know, and anything about the person rather than the work.

How many raters do you need for 360 feedback?

A minimum of three in each rater category, and a typical process of 4 categories with 10 to 12 raters in all, is the published standard of the Public Service Commission of Canada.[1] For one person: one self rating, one manager, three or more peers, three or more direct reports.

Is 360 feedback anonymous?

Partly, and the part that is not surprises people. There is one manager, so the manager answer is theirs; the same source says rater anonymity covers the Peer, Employee and Other categories but not the immediate supervisor.[1] This template asks for no name and no email address, and whoever set it up can open every response.

Can you run a 360 with an ordinary survey tool?

The questionnaire, yes, and the questionnaire is the part that takes the thought: one link, one form, question 1 doing the sorting. What an ordinary survey tool will not do is chase raters, tell you who has answered, or assemble a per-person report. You send the link, read the responses, decide what to change. For one person that is a few minutes of reading. A programme running fifty at once needs somebody to own that work, and this template does not do it for them.

Methods and sources

Michael Hodge

Survey methodology and questionnaire design, SuperSurvey

Survey methodologist and editor since 2003: wording, response scales, reliability checks, reporting that maps to a decision.

All 36 stems written for this page; no item taken or reworded from a licensed instrument
One meta-analysis was dropped rather than carried forward, because it could not be re-fetched

Updated 8 September 2026 · How templates are reviewed

What this template is based on

Thirty behaviour items in five competencies, two questions about the rater, four at the end. The competency structure is adapted from the O*NET 31.0 Content Model: Communication from the Social Skills of Active Listening, Social Perceptiveness and Coordination, the other four from the Work Styles groups Interpersonally Oriented, Conscientious and Rule Oriented, Emotionally Resilient, and Proactive and Growth Oriented.[3] The change made: an O*NET element names a tendency, and each item was rewritten as a behaviour a colleague could have watched. Rater counts follow the published standard of the Public Service Commission of Canada.[1]

Question licensing

The 36 questions are original wording, free to copy, adapt and send. The competency framework is adapted from the O*NET 31.0 Database, licensed for reuse including commercial reuse, and that licence requires this statement printed as written: "This page includes information from the O*NET 31.0 Database by the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (USDOL/ETA). Used under the CC BY 4.0 license. O*NET is a trademark of USDOL/ETA."[3] No licensed 360 instrument is reproduced: the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire is barred from the open web by its own licence, and the Center for Creative Leadership bars derivative works of its content. Both are named and linked instead.[4]

Limits and disclosure

A questionnaire, not a 360 programme. There is no rater management: no per-rater invitation, no reminder, no way to see who has answered, and no report that assembles itself. Anonymity is a property of how you report answers rather than how you collect them, and whoever owns the survey can open every response. The 25 to 35 minute figure belongs to the Public Service Commission of Canada instrument, not to this template.[1] The reliability meta-analysis covers supervisory ratings rather than multi-rater sets, so it is used only for the effect of appraisal purpose.[2]

SuperSurvey builds the editor this template opens in. Nothing here depends on using it.

References

Public Service Commission of Canada, Personnel Psychology Centre. "360 degree feedback services: frequently asked questions." Source of the three-rater minimum per category and the 4 categories with 10 to 12 raters in all, and of two sentences quoted verbatim: "While rater anonymity applies to all raters in the 'Peer', 'Employee' and 'Other' categories, this is not the case with the participant's immediate supervisor." "The 360 degree feedback questionnaire is based on leadership competencies and takes approximately 25 to 35 minutes to complete." canada.ca
"Meta-Analysis of Interrater Reliability of Supervisory Performance Ratings." Frontiers in Psychology 10:2281 (2019). 236 independent samples, 43,203 individuals. "The best estimates of the observed r_yy for overall job performance are 0.61 for research-collected ratings and 0.45 for administrative-collected ratings." Supervisory ratings, not multi-rater sets. frontiersin.org
O*NET 31.0 Database Content Model, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Element names and definitions read 7 September 2026. Licence CC BY 4.0, verified on the O*NET licence page. onetcenter.org
Mind Garden, "MLQ license to reproduce": "The instrument may not be made available via the open web, nor sent in the message body or as an attachment to survey participants." mindgarden.com. Center for Creative Leadership, copyright policy: "You agree not to modify, reformat, copy, reproduce, display, distribute ... or create derivative works from any Content." ccl.org

One link, 36 questions, four points of view

Put the name in, send one link to everybody, read the answers by group.

Use this template

One questionnaire, one link, four points of view

Invitation text to send with the link

The 360 degree feedback survey questions in full

Who is answering

Communication

Collaboration

Reliability

Composure

Leading and coaching

In your own words

Who to ask, and how many of them

Reading four points of view without averaging them

360 feedback survey FAQ

What questions should be on a 360 degree feedback survey?

How many raters do you need for 360 feedback?

Is 360 feedback anonymous?

Can you run a 360 with an ordinary survey tool?

Related employee survey templates

Methods and sources

What this template is based on

Question licensing

Limits and disclosure

References