Performance review templates
360 feedback form template: one form for every rater, with completed examples
One 360 feedback form for every rater group — manager, peers, direct reports, other stakeholders and the person themselves — with a shared rating scale, an example behind every rating, two open questions and three completed forms.
By the CLEAR Talent team
A 360 feedback form asks the people who work with someone — their manager, peers, direct reports and others who see their work closely — to rate how they work and to back each rating with something they saw. Set beside the person’s own answers, it shows how their work looks from every side, including the sides their manager never sees.
The form decides whether that happens. A long list of open questions gets a few hurried sentences; a rating with no example gets a number nobody can act on. This template keeps one short form for every rater group, so results compare like with like: four to six competencies written as behaviours, a defined scale with a “not observed” option, an example for each rating and two open questions at the end.
Before you send it
How to design a 360 feedback form raters will finish
Raters answer a 360 on top of their own work, often for several colleagues in the same cycle. Every choice below makes the form quicker to complete and the results easier to use.
Four design choices
Four to six competencies, not the whole framework
Choose the competencies that matter most for the role. A rater asked about twenty things tends to rate them all the same.
Behaviours, not traits
Describe each competency as something a colleague could see: “explains decisions and the reasons behind them”, not “good communicator”.
A “not observed” option
A direct report may never see how their manager works with senior stakeholders. Letting them say so keeps guesses out of the results.
The same form for every group
The manager, peers, direct reports and the person themselves answer the same rows, so the results can be compared group by group.
Anonymity matters as much as the form. Group results by rater relationship, and show a group only once enough people in it have answered that no single response can be traced back. Tell raters how their answers will be grouped before they start.
The 360 feedback form template
Template
360 feedback form
Send one copy to each rater with the details filled in, and ask for a rating and an example on every competency row. The two open questions come at the end.
| Field | What to write |
|---|---|
| Form details | |
| Feedback for | Name and role of the person the feedback is about. |
| Rater relationship | Manager, peer, direct report, other stakeholder or self. Recorded so results can be grouped; the rater’s name is not reported with their answers. |
| Feedback period | The months the rater should think about, usually the last six or twelve. |
| Rating scale | Each point with its definition, plus “not observed” for anything the rater has not seen. |
| What should they keep doing? | One thing this person does that helps you or the team, with an example. |
| What one change would make them more effective? | One specific, practical suggestion: something they could start doing next week. |
| For each competency (up to 6) | |
| Competency | The competency, written as a behaviour a colleague could observe. |
| Rating | A point on the scale, or “not observed”. |
| Example | One situation you saw: what happened and the effect. For “not observed”, say briefly why. |
As a spreadsheet
One row per competency. Copy the grid below and paste it into the first cell of a spreadsheet, or download the CSV.
| # | Competency | Rating | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | |||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | |||
| 4 | |||
| 5 | |||
| 6 |
Show the plain-text template
360 FEEDBACK FORM Feedback for: Rater relationship: Feedback period: Rating scale: What should they keep doing?: What one change would make them more effective?: COMPETENCY 1 Competency: Rating: Example: COMPETENCY 2 Competency: Rating: Example: COMPETENCY 3 Competency: Rating: Example: COMPETENCY 4 Competency: Rating: Example: COMPETENCY 5 Competency: Rating: Example: COMPETENCY 6 Competency: Rating: Example:
Nothing here is gated: the spreadsheet and the text file hold exactly the fields shown above, with six blank competency rows. Change the fields to suit your process — the form is a starting point, not a validated instrument.
How to run a 360 with this form
The steps cover one person’s 360. For a team, run them in parallel with the same competencies, so the results can be read together.
Choose the competencies
Pick four to six from the role profile, write each as an observable behaviour and fix the rating scale. Every rater gets the same form.
Agree the raters
The person proposes raters from each group — their manager, peers, direct reports and stakeholders — and their manager checks the list for balance before anyone is asked.
Brief raters on anonymity and examples
Tell raters how answers will be grouped and who will see the results, and ask for one specific example behind each rating.
Group the results
Combine answers by rater group, leave out any group with too few responses to stay anonymous, and set the person’s own ratings beside the others.
Turn the results into a plan
Discuss the results with the person, agree the one or two competencies that matter most and write them into their development plan.
Three completed 360 feedback forms for one team lead
Three forms about the same hypothetical customer support team lead — from a peer, from a support agent in their team and from the team lead themselves. Read together, they show why each group sees a different part of the work.
These forms were filled in for this page to show a workable level of detail. They describe no real employee or CLEAR Talent customer, and every figure in them is an illustrative placeholder, not a benchmark.
Peer
Example 1: from a peer team lead
Another team lead in the same support department, who shares the escalation rota with the person.
- Feedback for
- Customer support team lead
- Rater relationship
- Peer
- Feedback period
- The last twelve months
- Rating scale
- Rarely, sometimes, usually, consistently — or not observed
- What should they keep doing?
- Writing up every major incident the same day, so the rest of us learn from it before the next shift.
- What one change would make them more effective?
- Hand more escalations to their senior agents instead of taking them all personally.
| Competency | Rating | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Explains decisions and the reasons behind them | Consistently | When we changed the escalation rota in the spring, they wrote down why and answered every question in the team channel. |
| Shares knowledge with other teams | Consistently | Their incident write-ups are the ones my team reads; two of their fixes are now in our own runbook. |
| Develops the people in their team | Sometimes | Their senior agents rarely lead an escalation — the team lead steps in, so the agents do not get the practice. |
| Manages workload under pressure | Usually | Kept the queue under control through the autumn launch, though they worked late most of that month. |
Direct report
Example 2: from a support agent in their team
An agent who has reported to the team lead for eighteen months, using “not observed” where they have not seen the work.
- Feedback for
- Customer support team lead
- Rater relationship
- Direct report
- Feedback period
- The last twelve months
- Rating scale
- Rarely, sometimes, usually, consistently — or not observed
- What should they keep doing?
- The weekly fifteen minutes where we go through hard tickets together. It is where I learn most.
- What one change would make them more effective?
- Tell us earlier when a process changes; we sometimes hear about it from customers first.
| Competency | Rating | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Explains decisions and the reasons behind them | Usually | Explains most changes at the weekly meeting, but the new refund rule in August reached us after customers had started asking about it. |
| Shares knowledge with other teams | Not observed | Not observed — I do not see how they work with the other teams. |
| Develops the people in their team | Usually | Paired me with a senior agent for my first escalations and gave me feedback after each call. |
| Manages workload under pressure | Consistently | During the launch they rebalanced the queue every day, so nobody was left with all the hardest tickets. |
Self
Example 3: the team lead’s own form
The team lead rates themselves on the same form before seeing anyone else’s answers.
- Feedback for
- Customer support team lead (self)
- Rater relationship
- Self
- Feedback period
- The last twelve months
- Rating scale
- Rarely, sometimes, usually, consistently — or not observed
- What should they keep doing?
- The same-day incident write-ups.
- What one change would make them more effective?
- Delegating escalations. I know I take too many of them myself.
| Competency | Rating | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Explains decisions and the reasons behind them | Consistently | I write down the reason for every process change and post it before the change takes effect. |
| Shares knowledge with other teams | Usually | I write up major incidents, but I rarely check whether the other teams have used them. |
| Develops the people in their team | Usually | I run the weekly ticket review and pair every new agent with a senior one. |
| Manages workload under pressure | Usually | The launch went well for the team, but I covered the gaps with my own hours, which is not sustainable. |
From form to 360 report
Running 360 feedback in CLEAR Talent
In CLEAR Talent the 360° runs against your competency framework. Employees nominate their raters, managers approve the list, and each rater scores a targeted set of competencies with optional written evidence. Raters are anonymised within their group — peers, direct reports, stakeholders — and minimum-rater thresholds are enforced, so a group’s results only appear once enough people have responded.
The report sets out strengths, blind spots and development priorities, and suggests an individual development plan built from the lowest-scoring, highest-importance competencies, as a PDF or a shareable link. A 360° can run on its own cadence or inside a review cycle, where its results feed the review alongside goal scores and competency ratings, weighted by your policy.