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):

1. What is Name]'s single most important strength? Give a specific example.

1. What is the one behaviour or habit that, if changed, would most increase Name]'s effectiveness?

1. 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.]

1. Behaviour to change]: What does success look like at 90 days? How will we measure it?]
2. 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"