360-Degree Feedback Template Skill
This skill produces two outputs depending on what the user needs: (1) a complete 360 survey instrument for gathering feedback, or (2) a structured 360 feedback report written from gathered notes. Both outputs follow best practice: behaviourally anchored ratings, specific examples, and development-oriented framing.
Required Inputs
Ask the user which output they need, then gather inputs:
For a survey instrument:
- Role being reviewed (job title and level)
- Competencies to assess (or use defaults below)
- Reviewer relationships (peer / direct report / manager / cross-functional)
- Rating scale preference (1–5 / 1–4 / frequency-based)
- Anonymity level (fully anonymous / attributed / confidential aggregated)
For a feedback report:
- Person being reviewed (role and level)
- Feedback notes or raw themes from reviewers (paste what you have)
- Reviewer relationships (how many peers, direct reports, managers responded)
- Any context — performance cycle, specific behaviours to address, promotion consideration
Output A: 360 Survey Instrument
360 Feedback Survey: [Role / Level]
Purpose: This survey helps [Name / "the reviewee"] understand how their behaviours and impact are perceived by the people they work with most closely. Responses [are / are not] anonymous. Results will be shared as [individual responses / aggregated themes].
Instructions: For each statement, rate how frequently you observe this behaviour. Add specific examples in the open-ended sections — these are the most valuable part of the survey.
Rating scale:
- 5 — Consistently: Almost always demonstrates this behaviour, even in difficult situations
- 4 — Usually: Demonstrates this behaviour more often than not
- 3 — Sometimes: Demonstrates this behaviour inconsistently
- 2 — Rarely: Seldom demonstrates this behaviour
- 1 — Not observed: Have not had the opportunity to observe this behaviour
Section 1: Delivery & Execution
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Delivers work on time and to the expected quality | |
| Proactively flags risks and blockers before they become problems | |
| Follows through on commitments without needing to be chased | |
| Manages their workload effectively without compromising quality | |
| Adapts quickly when priorities or requirements change |
Open question: Describe a specific time when [Name] handled a delivery challenge particularly well or poorly.
Section 2: Communication & Collaboration
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Communicates clearly and concisely in both written and verbal formats | |
| Listens actively and considers others' input before responding | |
| Keeps the right people informed without over-communicating | |
| Resolves disagreements constructively and without defensiveness | |
| Makes it easy for others to collaborate with them |
Open question: Give an example of how [Name] handled a difficult or high-stakes communication.
Section 3: Leadership & Influence
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Sets a clear direction that others can follow | |
| Builds confidence and capability in people around them | |
| Influences decisions without relying on authority | |
| Gives clear, constructive feedback that helps others improve | |
| Creates an environment where people feel safe to raise concerns |
Open question: Describe a situation where [Name]'s leadership had a notable positive or negative impact on the team.
Section 4: Strategic Thinking
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Understands the broader business context, not just their immediate work | |
| Makes connections between their work and organisational goals | |
| Thinks ahead and anticipates second-order consequences | |
| Brings original ideas or new approaches to problems | |
| Balances short-term needs with longer-term thinking |
Open question: Give an example of [Name] demonstrating (or missing) strategic thinking.
Section 5: Culture & Values
| Statement | Rating (1–5) |
|---|---|
| Treats everyone with respect, regardless of level or background | |
| Is someone people trust and can rely on | |
| Gives credit to others and shares the spotlight | |
| Takes responsibility for mistakes without placing blame | |
| Contributes positively to team morale, especially under pressure |
Open question: How does [Name] embody (or not embody) the team's values in practice?
Section 6: Overall & Development
Open questions (all reviewers):
-
What is [Name]'s single most important strength? Give a specific example.
-
What is the one behaviour or habit that, if changed, would most increase [Name]'s effectiveness?
-
Is there anything else you want [Name] to know? (This response will be shared directly.)
Output B: 360 Feedback Report
360 Feedback Report: [Name] — [Role]
Review cycle: [Quarter / Year / Promotion cycle] Responses received: [X total — X peers, X direct reports, X managers, X cross-functional] Report prepared by: [HR / People team / Manager / Coach] Date: [Date]
This report synthesises feedback from [X] reviewers. Open-ended responses have been lightly edited for clarity; no individual response is attributed to protect reviewer confidentiality. Direct quotes marked in italics appear verbatim.
Executive Summary
[3–4 sentences. State the overall picture: what is this person known for, what is working well, and what one or two areas are the consistent development themes. Balanced, honest, and grounded in the data — not a sanitised summary.]
Overall rating: [X.X / 5.0 — above average / at level / below expectations for level]
Strengths: What to Build On
Theme 1: [Strength — e.g. Reliability and follow-through]
[2–3 sentences synthesising the feedback evidence for this strength. Reference how many reviewers noted it and in what contexts.]
"[Direct quote from reviewer that best illustrates this theme]"
Theme 2: [Strength — e.g. Collaborative problem-solving]
[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]
"[Direct quote]"
Theme 3: [Strength — e.g. Clear communication under pressure]
[2–3 sentences synthesising evidence.]
"[Direct quote]"
Development Areas: What to Work On
Theme 1: [Development area — e.g. Giving timely upward feedback]
[2–3 sentences describing the behaviour pattern observed, what impact it has, and what different looks like. Non-blaming and specific.]
"[Direct quote that captures the theme]"
Suggested actions:
- [Specific, observable behaviour change — e.g. In the next team meeting where you disagree with a decision, name your concern in the meeting rather than after it]
- [Development resource or practice — e.g. Try the "I notice / I wonder / I suggest" framework for giving difficult feedback]
Theme 2: [Development area — e.g. Strategic communication to leadership]
[2–3 sentences.]
"[Direct quote]"
Suggested actions:
- [...]
- [...]
Ratings Summary
| Competency | Average score | Range | Notable pattern |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery & Execution | [X.X] | [X–X] | [e.g. Consistently high; one outlier] |
| Communication & Collaboration | [X.X] | [X–X] | [e.g. Peers score higher than direct reports] |
| Leadership & Influence | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| Strategic Thinking | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| Culture & Values | [X.X] | [X–X] | [...] |
| Overall | [X.X] | [X–X] |
Score variance: [Is there high agreement or wide spread across reviewers? High variance suggests the behaviour is context-dependent — explore when and with whom.]
Direct Message from Reviewers
[Include up to 3 unedited quotes from the "Is there anything else you want [Name] to know?" question. These are shared verbatim as agreed in the survey instructions.]
"[Quote 1]"
"[Quote 2]"
"[Quote 3]"
Recommended Focus for the Next 90 Days
[1–2 specific, measurable development commitments. Written to be agreed in the feedback conversation — not prescriptive.]
- [Behaviour to change]: [What does success look like at 90 days? How will we measure it?]
- [Skill to build]: [What specific resource, practice, or support will help? Who will observe progress?]
Quality Checks
- Survey questions are behaviourally anchored — they describe observable actions, not attitudes
- Open-ended questions ask for specific examples — not general impressions
- Report strengths are backed by specific evidence, not generic praise
- Development areas name the behaviour and its impact — not the person's character
- Suggested actions are specific enough that the reviewee knows exactly what to do differently on Monday
- Direct quotes are genuinely direct — not paraphrased into blandness
Anti-Patterns
- Do not write survey questions that ask about personality traits rather than observable behaviours ("is a good communicator" vs "communicates updates before deadlines")
- Do not write development feedback that names the person's character flaws instead of specific behaviours and their impact
- Do not aggregate ratings without noting high-variance scores — a 2/5 and a 5/5 averaged to 3.5 hides a real signal
- Do not include direct quotes in the report that could identify the reviewer in small teams — paraphrase or omit
- Do not write suggested actions so vague they could apply to anyone ("be more strategic") — every suggestion must name a specific observable behaviour change
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Build a 360 feedback survey for a [role] at senior level"
- "Write a 360 feedback report from these notes: [paste notes]"
- "Design a 360 review template for engineering managers"
- "Help me write constructive 360 feedback for my colleague [Name]"
- "Create a peer feedback survey for our upcoming performance cycle"
