360 Feedback Questions for Executive Coaching: A Practical Question Bank
360 feedback questions for executive coaching should describe behavior that a rater could have observed. “Communicates the decision and the reasoning behind it” is usable. “Is an inspiring leader” bundles several judgments, invites halo effects, and gives the client little to practice. The bank below is designed for development-focused executive coaching. It is not a validated psychometric instrument, a clinical assessment, or a promotion test. Select a short set that fits the role and outcome; do not send all forty-two items by default.
Use one scale with an exposure option
A five-point behavior-frequency scale is easier to interpret than vague agreement when the item is observable.
- 1 — Rarely demonstrates this behavior
- 2 — Demonstrates it inconsistently
- 3 — Demonstrates it in routine situations
- 4 — Demonstrates it consistently, including under pressure
- 5 — Demonstrates it consistently and helps others do the same
- Not enough exposure to rate Keep “not enough exposure” separate from the numeric average. A forced score from an unfamiliar rater is noise, not data.
Executive presence and clarity
- States the decision or recommendation before adding background detail.
2.Adapts the amount of detail to the audience and the decision required.
3.Explains trade-offs without becoming defensive or evasive.
4.Maintains a steady pace and clear message when challenged.
5.Distinguishes facts, assumptions, and judgments in discussion.
6.Closes important conversations with owners, decisions, and next steps.
Listening and communication
7.Checks understanding before responding to a different point.
8.Invites views from people who have not yet spoken.
9.Summarizes disagreement accurately, including views they do not share.
10.Gives feedback using specific behavior and impact rather than labels.
11.Makes difficult messages direct enough to act on.
12.Changes their communication approach when the audience is not following.
Decision quality
13.Clarifies which decision is being made and who owns it.
14.Seeks the minimum evidence needed before committing.
15.Names the main risk and the condition that would change the decision.
16.Makes timely decisions when further analysis has diminishing value.
17.Revisits a decision when material new evidence appears.
18.Explains how a decision connects to current priorities.
Influence and stakeholder management
20.Identifies affected stakeholders before a major decision is finalized.
21.Tests assumptions with people closest to the work.
22.Builds support without hiding legitimate disagreement.
23.Tailors the case to the stakeholder’s responsibilities and constraints.
24.Keeps commitments made in cross-functional work.
25.Repairs trust after a missed expectation or difficult exchange.
Delegation and accountability
26.Defines the outcome, boundaries, and decision rights when delegating.
27.Matches the level of oversight to the person and the risk.
28.Allows others to choose the method within agreed constraints.
29.Reviews progress at agreed points rather than through unplanned checking.
30.Addresses missed commitments directly and proportionately.
31.Gives credit to the person who owned the work or decision.
Resilience and learning
32.Recognizes when pressure is narrowing their options.
33.Regains focus after a setback without transferring urgency to the team.
34.Asks what their own behavior contributed to a difficult outcome.
35.Tests a new behavior after receiving credible feedback.
36.Distinguishes a one-off failure from a pattern that needs attention.
37.Makes a visible adjustment and explains it when appropriate.
Team enablement
38.Creates enough context for the team to make decisions independently.
39.Surfaces conflicts between priorities instead of passing both downstream.
40.Makes it safe to raise an operational concern early.
41.Uses meetings for decisions and coordination, not only information transfer.
42.Develops capability instead of repeatedly taking work back.
43.Removes a system obstacle when individual effort cannot solve it.
Five comment prompts worth keeping
1.What is one behavior this leader should continue because it materially helps the work?
2.What is one behavior that would increase their effectiveness if practiced more consistently?
3.Describe a recent situation that illustrates your answer, without sharing confidential or personal information.
4.Where has this leader made a visible improvement during the review period?
5.What context should the coach and client consider when interpreting your ratings?
How to select a short form
Start from the coaching outcome, not the size of the bank. Select six to twelve items: enough to triangulate the target behavior, short enough that raters can answer with care. Include no more than two or three domains unless the engagement is explicitly broad. Write the sponsor-safe outcome as an observable behavior. Choose three or four items that directly measure it. Add two adjacent items that test likely transfer or overuse. Remove any item that most raters cannot observe in normal work. Pilot the wording with someone who understands the role but is not a respondent. Repeat the same core items at midpoint or close; record any wording changes.
Review each item for avoidable bias
Remove double-barrelled items such as “listens and communicates clearly.” A rater may see strong listening and weak clarity but has only one box. Remove absolute words such as “always,” moral labels such as “cares,” and culture-loaded proxies such as “speaks up often” unless the role genuinely requires that behavior in a defined setting. Check that the item does not reward one leadership style by default. “Makes decisions quickly” can punish deliberate decisions; “makes a decision within the agreed time and explains what would reopen it” is more precise. Ask a diverse pilot group what behavior they thought each item described. Disagreement in the pilot is a wording problem worth fixing before launch.
Handle reverse scoring with caution
Reverse-worded items can catch automatic responding, but they also increase misreading and create awkward debriefs. In a short development pulse, direct wording is usually easier for raters and clients. If a validated instrument uses reverse scoring, follow its administration rules; do not modify the items casually.
Rater and anonymity rules
Select raters for exposure, not political balance. The Center for Creative Leadership recommends clarity about rater selection, anonymity, and data ownership, and notes that respondents need enough interaction with the leader to provide behavior-specific examples. Report category-level results only when the agreed minimum protects anonymity; do not infer a team view from one or two people. Written comments are especially identifying. Remove names and incidental details, but do not rewrite a comment into a stronger claim. When safe redaction is not possible, summarize the theme or withhold the quotation.
From scores to coaching work
Do not turn the highest and lowest averages into a personality verdict. Look first at rater coverage, spread, self–other gaps, context, and examples. Ask the client to choose one or two practices and define a real situation in which to test them. CCL guidance on interpreting 360 results similarly emphasizes reflection and a small number of development goals. CoachComet’s public assessment guide supports custom Likert assessments, staged repetition, and multi-rater aggregation. That can administer this kind of short form, but the software does not validate the questions or determine whether the sample is fair. Those remain human responsibilities.