---
url: "https://questionstar.com/blog/360-degree-feedback/"
title: "360-degree feedback: process, sample questions and common mistakes"
description: "What 360-degree feedback is, how to run it in six steps, which questions work and how to handle anonymity and results correctly. With templates."
lastmod: "2026-11-07"
type: "blog"
---

# 360-degree feedback: process, sample questions and common mistakes

*How do I run a 360-degree feedback process that really helps a manager?*

What 360-degree feedback is, how to run it in six steps, which questions work and how to handle anonymity and results correctly. With templates.

In 360-degree feedback, several groups rate the behavior of one person: that person's own manager, colleagues, direct reports and, depending on the job, customers too, plus the person's self-assessment. The aim is development, because the person learns how their behavior comes across to others in different situations. It isn't an automatic performance appraisal from which you could read off pay or promotion.

Here's what a typical result looks like. A team leader rates her collaboration with others positively. Her team sees it the same way. Colleagues from other departments are clearly more reserved. The quick conclusion: she overestimates herself. Before you draw that conclusion, it's worth asking a simpler question: did everyone experience the same situations?

Below I'll show you the process, sample questions and how to read the results so that you end up with a good development conversation. All examples come from a made-up mid-sized company.

## What is 360-degree feedback?

Let's start with an everyday example. You want to know how well you drive. You consider yourself a calm, safe driver. Your passenger notices whether you brake gently before curves. The driver behind you sees whether you signal in time. The garage can tell from the wear on your brakes how you've been driving over the months. Each of these views is right, and none of them sees everything. And someone who has never seen you drive simply can't say anything about it.

That's exactly how 360-degree feedback works, also written 360° feedback, or 360 feedback for short. At the center is one person who receives feedback. That can be a manager, but also an employee without management responsibility. Werther lists as typical feedback sources the supervisor, colleagues, direct reports and, depending on the job, customers and suppliers or internal project and cooperation partners (*Einführung in Feedbackinstrumente in Organisationen* [An introduction to feedback instruments in organizations], 2015, section 3.1, pp. 22-23, [publisher DOI](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10497-9)). Supervisors and direct reports give vertical feedback, from above and from below. Colleagues and project partners give horizontal feedback, from the side. Then there's the self-assessment. At its core, it's always about comparing your own self-image with how others see you (Werther 2015, p. 23).

By the way, why go to all this trouble? Because most managers and employees get detailed feedback on their behavior only from their own supervisor (Werther 2015, p. 22). In the hustle of day-to-day business, open and critical feedback on leadership is rare (Linke 2018, p. 115).

### How is 360-degree feedback different from other forms?

In traditional top-down feedback, only the supervisor gives the assessment. In 360-degree feedback, direct reports, colleagues and supervisors come together (Werther 2015, p. 20). I explain what "180 degrees" means in the [FAQ](#difference-180-360-degree-feedback).

This variety of perspectives is a starting point for development. It isn't a procedure that, given enough votes, automatically calculates an objective truth about the person.

## The 360-degree feedback process in six steps

Werther (2015, pp. 40-42) divides the introduction of a feedback instrument into phases, from the decision to the evaluation. For a single 360-degree feedback exercise, they translate into six practical steps.

1. **Define the purpose.** Should the feedback serve development or a decision? Who sees which results? At this stage, involve the relevant employee representatives, where applicable, and whoever handles data protection in your organization. [More on this](#purpose)
2. **Choose the behavior.** Pick one or two concrete development questions, not "leadership in general". Describe the behavior so that it can be observed. [More on this](#matrix)
3. **Choose the raters.** What matters is who has actually experienced the behavior, not their position on the org chart. Invite enough people per group so that no one can be identified. [How many?](#how-many-raters)
4. **Create and test the questionnaire.** Word your questions following the pattern behavior, situation and time frame, and offer "not observed" as a separate answer. Test the questionnaire beforehand with a few people from the target groups. [Sample questions](#sample-questions)
5. **Run the survey.** Tell the person receiving feedback about the aim and the process. Avoid vacation periods and long weekends. Werther (2015, p. 45) calls it "too much of a good thing" (translated) when someone is invited within 14 days to an employee survey, to give feedback on their own manager and to a 360-degree potential assessment of a colleague. Invite each person personally and explain in advance how their anonymity is protected. [Anonymity](#anonymity)
6. **Analyze the results and discuss development.** The person receives their report and discusses it, for example with a coach, with their manager or in a half-day workshop (Werther 2015, p. 42). Agree on a concrete experiment and on a date when you'll ask again. [From results to development](#development)

## Define the purpose before the questionnaire

Start with a concrete development question. Should a team leader delegate more clearly, improve handovers to other departments or discuss conflicts more objectively? "Measuring leadership in general" is often too broad for a small development process.

By the way, your choice of topic also sends a signal. Werther (2015, p. 20) gives the example of a 360-degree feedback exercise focused on cooperation between departments: whoever chooses a topic like that shows what matters to the company.

Also clarify what the feedback will be used for. Werther (2015, p. 19) assigns 360-degree feedback to the goal of development and change. As the criterion of success, he names an actual change in behavior that can be checked by comparing over time. For decision and evaluation, he names other instruments, such as supervisor appraisals and potential assessments. This article is only about feedback for development (more in the [FAQ](#pay-or-promotion-decisions)). A list of desired qualities such as "is competent and inspiring" doesn't replace the development question.

### Involve the works council and data protection early

Werther (2015, p. 40) recommends bringing in the works council or staff council and the data protection officer from the start, because the earlier everyone is at the table, the fewer problems there are later. In Germany, the works council (Betriebsrat) is the elected body that represents employees in a company, and the staff council (Personalrat) is its counterpart in the public sector. Linke (*Mitarbeiterbefragungen optimieren* [Optimizing employee surveys], 2018, p. 71) describes two rights of the works council for employee surveys under the German Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz, BetrVG). The works council must be informed about surveys (§ 80(2) BetrVG). It has a right of co-determination when a company uses IT systems to collect and process data on employees' behavior or performance (§ 87(1) no. 6 BetrVG). Linke relates this to surveys based on a personalized list of the organization's structure. He advises recording the conditions in a works agreement (Betriebsvereinbarung) between employer and works council.

360-degree feedback focuses on the behavior of one specific person. I'm not a lawyer and can't tell you what that means legally for your company. So before the first invitation, clarify with your works council or staff council and your data protection officer which data you collect, who sees which results and what happens to them. Outside Germany, the rules on employee representation differ, so ask whoever is responsible for employee representation and data protection in your organization. You'll find more on the basics in our article [Data protection in online surveys](/blog/data-protection-in-online-surveys/).

## Who can judge what? The observation matrix

Before you send the invitations, draw up a small matrix: which behavior interests us, where does it occur and who has had the opportunity to experience it? A colleague from Sales may experience order handovers more often than the person's line manager.

Let's look at an example. Jana Becker heads order processing at a mid-sized machine manufacturer. Nine employees belong to her team. She works with Sales and Installation every day. Her supervisor is the commercial director. Ms. Becker wants to know whether it's clear at handovers who does what next.

The following matrix and all examples in this article are my own made-up teaching examples. They aren't a tested scale and don't report any actual results.

| Behavior | Situation | Possible observers | Limitation |
|------|------|------|------|
| Clarify who is responsible for a task | Task allocation in the weekly team meeting | Team members | Sales and Installation usually see only the result |
| Pass on changes in good time | Handover of a changed order to Sales or Installation | Colleagues from Sales and Installation | The preparation within the team stays invisible to them |
| Respond objectively to disagreement | Meeting with differing proposals | Those present from every suitable role | Without such an occasion, there's nothing to observe |
| Discuss development goals | One-on-one review meeting | The employee concerned | Other team members don't know the content |
| Report problems upward with reasons | Coordination with the commercial director | Supervisor | The team often learns only the outcome |

At first, the matrix is an assumption about who can observe what. Check it with people from the intended roles.

### A question people can answer

Ms. Becker's team sees how she coordinates tasks in team meetings. Sales and Installation see how she handles written order changes and joint meetings. The commercial director mainly sees key figures and the cases that end up on his desk. A question that all groups can answer from their own situations could read:

"For the handovers of tasks or orders I was involved in during the past three months, Ms. Becker clearly stated who would take the next step."

This wording contains a time frame, a situation and an observable behavior. Three months is a choice for this example, not a general rule. What matters is that the time frame is stated. Otherwise one person thinks of last week and another of the whole year. Thielsch, Lenzner and Melles stress that questions must be answerable and that time frames must be clearly specified, in section 4 of their chapter *Wie gestalte ich gute Items und Interviewfragen?* [How do I design good items and interview questions?] (2012, pp. 231-232).

### "Not observed" isn't a midpoint

Before you ask about agreement, find out whether the person has experienced such handovers at all. "Not observed" doesn't belong in the middle of a rating scale and doesn't count as a negative rating. Schumann (2019, pp. 69-70) shows the same principle with the answer "don't know": it must never serve as the middle answer option and must be clearly set apart from the substantive scale points. Otherwise the answer can no longer be interpreted. I'll show you further below what happens if you forget this.

## 360 feedback questions: ten sample questions for the questionnaire

Werther (2015, p. 24) lists common dimensions, including relationship skills, development, planning skills and motivation, with general sample questions such as "My manager treats me with respect" (translated). For a development conversation, questions that describe a behavior in a situation and within a time frame are more helpful. For team feedback, Werther (2015, p. 26) himself recommends behavior-based questionnaires.

The following ten questions for Ms. Becker are grouped into four topics. Each group receives only questions about behavior its members have had an opportunity to observe. All of them use the same five-point scale with a neutral midpoint, plus "not observed" as a separate answer:

> completely untrue · somewhat untrue · partly true, partly untrue · somewhat true · completely true
> 
> (separate) not observed

| No. | Topic | Question | Who answers |
|------|------|------|------|
| 1 | Clarifying tasks | In the team meetings of the past three months, Ms. Becker clearly stated at the end who would take on which task. | Team |
| 2 | Clarifying tasks | When Ms. Becker assigned me a task in the past three months, I knew by when it should be done. | Team |
| 3 | Clarifying tasks | When I had a question about an assigned task in the past three months, Ms. Becker told me whom I could turn to. | Team |
| 4 | Handovers | For the handovers of tasks or orders I was involved in during the past three months, Ms. Becker clearly stated who would take the next step. | Team, Sales, Installation |
| 5 | Handovers | When something changed in a joint order in the past three months, Ms. Becker informed me in good time. | Sales, Installation |
| 6 | Handling disagreement | When I made a different proposal in a meeting in the past three months, Ms. Becker asked questions before she decided. | All groups |
| 7 | Handling disagreement | In the meetings of the past three months, Ms. Becker addressed objections to her proposals. | All groups |
| 8 | Supporting development | In my last one-on-one review meeting, Ms. Becker talked with me about my development goals. | Team |
| 9 | Supporting development | In the past three months, Ms. Becker assigned me a task from which I could learn something new. | Team |
| 10 | Supporting development | When I made a mistake in the past three months, Ms. Becker discussed with me how I could avoid it in the future. | Team |

In addition, there are two open questions for all groups: "What should Ms. Becker keep doing at handovers?" and "What should Ms. Becker do differently at handovers?" Open formats are especially worthwhile where you still know too little to specify suitable answers (Werther 2015, p. 21).

A few tips for putting this into practice:

- **Self-assessment:** Ms. Becker answers the same questions in the first person, for example "In the team meetings of the past three months, I clearly stated at the end who would take on which task."
- **One topic per question:** "friendly and competent" is two questions. Werther (2015, p. 44) lists further rules, such as avoiding extremes.
- **Language and scale:** Use the language of your organization, so "manager" or "supervisor", whichever is common where you work, and use one scale for all questions (Werther 2015, pp. 43 and 45).
- **Length:** A questionnaire with 100 questions and a 30-page report doesn't automatically lead to more change than 20 questions and 3 pages (Werther 2015, p. 48).

I show in detail how to word individual questions well in [how to write good survey questions](/blog/writing-good-survey-questions/). You'll find more symmetric scales in our [list of common Likert scales](/blog/common-likert-scales/).

A word about open answers. Someone who writes "as I already told you on Tuesday in Installation" may be identifiable immediately. Point this out in the questionnaire, and decide in advance whether comments go into the report verbatim, summarized or not at all.

### Templates to adapt

If you don't want to start from scratch, you'll find three templates for 360-degree feedback in QUESTIONSTAR:

- [360° feedback for managers: standard (8 competency areas)](https://survey.questionstar.com/4fd8366f)
- [360° feedback coaching (qualitative): eight open questions](https://survey.questionstar.com/3896d24e)
- [360° feedback compact with rationale: 10 items and comment](https://survey.questionstar.com/2ec410cf)

You copy a template into your account with a button inside the opened template. If you don't have an account yet, register for free first. A template is a starting point. Check whether the questions fit the situations in your company and whether there's a separate "not observed" answer. You'll find all templates by use case under [Templates](/templates/).

By the way, in QUESTIONSTAR you can invite each rater by email with a personal link, even in an anonymous survey. Reminders then go only to those who haven't answered yet. If you ask at the start in which role someone is answering, you can compare the groups in the report with a crosstab. You decide which groups to show in the report you pass on, according to your reporting rule. Check group sizes and totals before you pass it on. If needed, you can export the raw data as an Excel, CSV or SPSS file. You'll find more on using QUESTIONSTAR in HR under [HR surveys](/use-cases/hr-surveys/).

**Start your 360-degree feedback with a template: free**

Choose one of the three templates, adapt the questions to the situations in your company and decide in advance on the minimum number of ratings required to report a group's results.

[Start for free](/order/?code=free)

## Anonymity and reporting by group

Showing groups separately helps with interpretation. However, the CCL guide *Choosing 360* names the trade-off with confidentiality: a finer breakdown can make individuals identifiable ([Van Velsor, Leslie and Fleenor, 1997, Step 12, p. 23](https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Choosing360.pdf)). A single supervisor doesn't become anonymous just because the row is labeled "Supervisors". Tell the supervisor this openly beforehand, or let them give their feedback directly in the conversation.

How large does a group need to be? Werther (2015, p. 49) gives as an example at least three to five people as the lowest level at which results are reported. For employee surveys, he cites a higher threshold of eight people (Werther 2015, p. 30). Linke (2018, p. 64) writes for employee surveys that there's no legally binding minimum number, and advises agreeing on the number with the employee representatives. My advice: set the threshold before the start, state it in the invitation and stick to it.

Why so strict? Werther (2015, p. 37) describes how much damage is done when anonymity is lifted after the fact or someone tries to attribute ratings to individuals. But only the answers stay confidential, not the process (Werther 2015, p. 49). Everyone involved knows in advance who gets the report and what happens next.

### Worked example: which results may be released

Let's look at Ms. Becker's made-up results for question 4, which all groups answered. Nine employees from her team and six colleagues from Sales and Installation were invited. Seven from the team responded, that's 7 / 9 ≈ 78%. Five from Sales and Installation responded, so 5 / 6 ≈ 83%. In each group, one person chose "not observed". Ms. Becker herself answered the same question in the first person with a 4 ("somewhat true").

| Group | Answers | of which "not observed" | Ratings | Individual values | Mean |
|------|------|------|------|------|------|
| Team | 7 | 1 | 6 | 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 4 | 24 / 6 = 4.0 |
| Sales and Installation | 5 | 1 | 4 | 2, 3, 2, 3 | 10 / 4 = 2.5 |
| All ratings by others | 12 | 2 | 10 |  | 34 / 10 = 3.4 |
| Self-assessment | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 |

The row "All ratings by others" combines the same question, but answers from different situations. The team is thinking of team meetings, Sales and Installation are thinking of order handovers. A total row like this hides exactly the difference that matters.

Let's assume the company decided beforehand: a group is reported only if there are at least five ratings. Sales and Installation have only four. So HR hides this row and shows only "Team" and "All ratings by others".

But that's not enough. The hidden row can be reconstructed from the two visible ones: 3.4 × 10 = 34 points in total, 4.0 × 6 = 24 points from the team, leaving 34 - 24 = 10 points from four ratings, so 10 / 4 = 2.5. Linke (2018, p. 62 and pp. 101-102) describes exactly this risk: answers become identifiable when overlapping reports are laid on top of each other. So whoever hides a group must also check every total that contains it. In this example, leave out the total row as well, so that the four ratings from Sales and Installation cannot be reconstructed.

And one more trap. Suppose "not observed" is counted as the midpoint, that is, as a 3. Then the team's value drops to (24 + 3) / 7 ≈ 3.9, and Sales and Installation rise to (10 + 3) / 5 = 2.6. In QUESTIONSTAR, an answer like that isn't counted in the mean. But if you export the data and continue calculating in Excel, SPSS or R, check how this answer is coded there so that it isn't counted as a scale value. By the way, many "not observed" answers are information in themselves: maybe the group was the wrong choice.

## Interpreting self-ratings and ratings by others

The following calculations only show what the analysis team can see in the complete data. Under the five-rating threshold set beforehand, neither the four ratings from Sales and Installation nor any group comparisons derived from them may be passed on to Ms. Becker. In this example, only the released results are available for her development conversation.

If you take all ratings by others together, Ms. Becker is at 3.4 and rates herself at 4.0. That looks like a slight overestimation of 0.6 points. Broken down by group, the picture changes. Her team sees her exactly as she sees herself, at 4.0. Sales and Installation are at 2.5. So the gap doesn't appear everywhere, but in one specific place: at handovers to other departments.

So don't interpret a gap between self-image and how others see a person as a diagnosis of poor self-awareness on its own. Opportunity to observe, frame of reference, wording and relationship can also contribute. In the conversation, first clarify what a difference in the released results could mean. A comparison alone doesn't lead to change (Werther 2015, p. 50).

Whoever does the analysis should also look at the individual values for small groups, not just at the mean. They don't belong in the report, because they would make people identifiable. With four ratings, a single answer shifts a lot. If one person in Sales and Installation had given a 4 instead of a 2, the mean would be (4 + 3 + 2 + 3) / 4 = 3.0, so 0.5 points higher. For employee surveys, Linke (2018, p. 64) advises showing only measures of central tendency such as the mean or median for small units, and the distribution only for large ones.

## Advantages, disadvantages and common mistakes

What are the advantages of 360-degree feedback? It brings in perspectives that are missing in everyday work. Colleagues from other departments experience situations the supervisor never sees. Differences between groups whose results meet the reporting rules can show where it's worth taking a closer look.

But there are also disadvantages and limits. Werther (2015, pp. 36-37) names two dangers. Either nothing changes after the feedback, for example because the follow-up processes are poorly planned. Or negative effects arise, for example when anonymity is lifted after the fact or the instrument is used to push through difficult decisions. Putting the benefit into numbers is hard and rarely possible in a clear-cut way (Werther 2015, p. 36). Small groups force you to choose between detail and protection. And 360-degree feedback takes up many people's time. If the same people are surveyed too often, the results become less meaningful (Werther 2015, p. 45).

Common mistakes are groups based on the org chart instead of on observation, "not observed" as the midpoint, and small groups that become identifiable through totals. Just as often, there's no conversation after the report, or results feed into pay decisions without anyone having said so beforehand.

My advice for practice: 360-degree feedback is worth it when a person wants to work on a concrete behavior and the company is willing to make a conversation and an experiment possible afterward.

## From results to development

In the development conversation, only results that have been released under the agreed rules are used. So Ms. Becker can ask: "What agreements would help us as a team to clearly record the next step at a handover?" A comparison with Sales and Installation hasn't been released with the ratings available so far. For that, there would first have to be enough valid ratings, and all reporting rules would have to be met. No original comments that could identify someone are passed on, and nobody is pressured to disclose their rating.

As her own improvement idea, Ms. Becker can try out a short wrap-up for every handover: the task, the person responsible and the next date are confirmed by both sides. That's a process idea, not a finding from the blocked group and not a mechanism the survey has proven to work.

After three months, she can collect feedback on the same situations from comparable people. Werther (2015, p. 19) names this comparison over time as a way to check for change. A smaller gap between self-image and how others see her isn't a goal in itself. The perspectives may remain different if they reflect different experiences.

### A worksheet to get started

First fill in the sheet for a single behavior. It shows early on what's missing and whether your questions can be answered. Here's what it would look like for Ms. Becker:

| Field | Example: Ms. Becker |
|------|------|
| Desired behavior | At every handover, it's clear who takes the next step |
| Typical situation | Handover of a changed order to Sales or Installation |
| Observers | Team and colleagues from Sales and Installation. Group comparisons only once the reporting rules are met |
| Time frame | past three months |
| Question | Question 4 from the table above, the same for all groups |
| Handling missing observation | "not observed" set apart, not in the mean, the count is reported |
| Reporting rule | Report a group only with at least five ratings. Check whether totals reveal suppressed results. |
| Conversation question | What agreements would help us as a team to clearly record the next step at a handover? |
| Agreed experiment | Every handover ends with the task, the person responsible and the next date |
| Checkpoint | New survey on the same situations after three months |

A worksheet alone doesn't make the feedback a success. But you'll see in black and white who experienced what and what you want to talk about in the conversation.

## Frequently asked questions about 360-degree feedback

### Who gives feedback in 360-degree feedback?

Supervisors, colleagues, direct reports and, depending on the job, customers or project partners, plus the self-assessment (Werther 2015, pp. 22-23). What matters is who has actually experienced the behavior.

### How many raters do you need?

There's no fixed number. Werther (2015, p. 49) gives as an example three to five people as the lowest level of analysis (see [Anonymity](#anonymity)). Invite more people per group than you need ratings, because not everyone answers, and some tick "not observed". A sample calculation with assumed values: you want five ratings per group, you expect 80% to respond, and you expect one in six people not to have observed the behavior. Then you need 5 / (0.8 × 5/6) = 7.5 invitations, rounded up to 8. That's planning based on the expected response, not a guarantee.

### Is 360-degree feedback anonymous?

For colleagues and direct reports it should be, and in such a way that answers can't be reconstructed through groups and totals either. A single supervisor, on the other hand, is usually identifiable in the report, even if their row is only labeled "Supervisors" (Van Velsor, Leslie and Fleenor 1997, p. 23). Before you start, set the minimum number of ratings required to report a group's results and decide who receives the report. Agree on these rules with the relevant employee representatives, where applicable, and whoever handles data protection in your organization.

### How often should you run 360-degree feedback?

I haven't found a fixed rule in my sources. Werther (2015, p. 48) links frequency and length. For feedback for managers, he writes: if you ask twice a year, you need a shorter questionnaire than if you ask every two years. My advice: ask again when the agreed experiment has had enough time to take effect, and ask about the same situations.

### Is 360-degree feedback suitable for pay or promotion decisions?

Not as an undisclosed secondary purpose of developmental feedback. Werther (2015, p. 19) assigns 360-degree feedback to development and names other instruments for decisions. He also warns against using feedback instruments to push through difficult decisions (Werther 2015, p. 37). If you want to use feedback for decisions, you have to say so beforehand and define its purpose, access rules and analysis accordingly, involving the relevant employee representatives where applicable.

### What's the difference between 180-degree and 360-degree feedback?

In practice, "180 degrees" refers to variants that include only some of these perspectives, for example only the self-assessment and direct reports. This resembles the form Werther (2015, p. 20) calls feedback for managers: direct reports give feedback, and the manager rates themselves. I haven't found a uniform definition of "180 degrees" in my sources. So ask which groups are meant.

## Sources

Werther, S. (2015). Einführung in Feedbackinstrumente in Organisationen. Vom 360°-Feedback bis hin zur Mitarbeiterbefragung [An introduction to feedback instruments in organizations: from 360° feedback to the employee survey]. Wiesbaden: Springer (essentials). In German. [DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-10497-9](https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10497-9). pp. 19-24 (goals, forms, feedback sources, self-image and others' views, dimensions), p. 26 (behavior-based questionnaires), p. 30 (minimum group size in employee surveys), pp. 36-37 (benefits and dangers), pp. 40-45 (procedure, questionnaire, timing, coordination), pp. 48-50 (length, confidentiality, comparisons).

Linke, R. (2018). Mitarbeiterbefragungen optimieren. Von der Befragung zum wirksamen Management-Instrument [Optimizing employee surveys: from the survey to an effective management tool]. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. In German. pp. 62-64 (reporting rules, minimum number of participants), p. 71 (works council), pp. 101-102 (anonymity with overlapping reports), p. 115 (360-degree feedback).

Thielsch, M. T., Lenzner, T. and Melles, T. (2012). Wie gestalte ich gute Items und Interviewfragen? [How do I design good items and interview questions?] In German. Section 4, pp. 231-232 (answerability, time frames).

Schumann, S. (2019). Repräsentative Umfrage. Praxisorientierte Einführung in empirische Methoden und statistische Analyseverfahren [Representative surveys: a practical introduction to empirical methods and statistical analysis] (7th ed.). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. In German. pp. 69-70 ("don't know" not as a middle answer).

Van Velsor, E., Leslie, J. B. and Fleenor, J. W. (1997). Choosing 360: A Guide to Evaluating Multi-rater Feedback Instruments for Management Development. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership. Step 12, p. 23. [PDF](https://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Choosing360.pdf)

**Ready for your first 360-degree feedback?**

Choose a template, adapt it and send it with personal links. Start for free, no credit card required.

[Start for free](/order/?code=free)

I wish you good conversations and every success with your 360-degree feedback!

**Related articles:**

- [How to write good survey questions](/blog/writing-good-survey-questions/)
- [Common Likert scales: examples with labels](/blog/common-likert-scales/)
- [Data protection in online surveys](/blog/data-protection-in-online-surveys/)

*Dr. Paul Marx*

Author: Dr. Paul Marx
Dr. Paul Marx is the founder and Managing Director of QUESTIONSTAR and was a professor of marketing at the University of Siegen.

## Related articles

- [writing-good-survey-questions](/blog/writing-good-survey-questions)
- [common-likert-scales](/blog/common-likert-scales)
- [data-protection-in-online-surveys](/blog/data-protection-in-online-surveys)

*Author: Dr. Paul Marx — see [About](/about).*