An employee evaluation of a manager template is a structured form employees can use to assess a manager’s communication, support, fairness, and leadership with specific examples. Use the blank template below as a starting point, then adapt its questions and response method to your workplace and the purpose of the review.
What an Employee Evaluation of a Manager Covers
A manager evaluation gathers employees’ observations about how a manager leads and supports the people they supervise. It is different from a manager’s evaluation of an employee: the focus is on the manager’s behavior and its effect on the team, not on rating an employee’s performance. Organizations may collect feedback through a recurring review, an engagement process, a team discussion, or a targeted assessment after a change in leadership.
A useful form asks about observable actions rather than personality. “My manager gives clear priorities” is easier to assess than “My manager is a good person.” The form can combine scaled responses with optional written examples, giving employees a consistent way to respond while leaving room to explain what is working or what needs attention.
The template is not a universal standard. Teams differ in their responsibilities, manager roles, and workplace norms. A question about coaching may be relevant for a developing team, while a question about coordinating across groups may matter more in a role with shared projects. Keep the form focused on behaviors the manager can reasonably influence.
Employee Evaluation of Manager Template
Blank template: Choose a response scale before distributing the form. For example, use 1 for “strongly disagree” and 5 for “strongly agree,” with “not observed” as a separate option. Employees may leave identifying details blank if the process allows it.
| Review field or question | Rating or response | Specific example or comment |
|---|---|---|
| Review period and team | ||
| My manager communicates priorities clearly. | ||
| My manager listens to questions and concerns. | ||
| My manager gives useful, timely feedback. | ||
| My manager treats team members consistently and respectfully. | ||
| My manager supports my development and provides appropriate guidance. | ||
| My manager helps the team address obstacles and make decisions. | ||
| One thing my manager should continue doing | ||
| One change that would help the team |
Fictional sample: Review period and team: April–June, North Team. “My manager communicates priorities clearly”: 4 of 5. Example: “At the Monday check-in, she explains which deadline takes priority when requests conflict.” Continue doing: “Share brief written project summaries.” Change: “Give feedback closer to the time a task is completed.” These details are invented to demonstrate how to complete the form.
How to Use the Template
Before sending the form, explain why feedback is being collected, who will review it, how responses will be summarized, and what follow-up employees can expect. State whether responses are anonymous or confidential only if that is genuinely how the process works. Avoid promising complete anonymity when a small team, identifying examples, or the collection method could reveal who responded.
Employees should answer from their direct experience during the stated review period. A short example makes a rating more useful: instead of writing “communication is poor,” describe a work-related situation, its impact, and what would have helped. Feedback does not need to be lengthy, but it should be respectful, relevant, and specific enough for someone to understand.
Managers or facilitators can review patterns across responses, separate recurring themes from isolated impressions, and identify practical next steps. The form should not be treated as a vote on whether someone is liked. Its purpose is to clarify which leadership behaviors help the team and where a change could improve day-to-day work.
What to Evaluate
Choose a manageable set of topics that reflects the manager’s responsibilities. A long list can make a form burdensome and encourage rushed answers. These dimensions are common starting points; select only those employees can reasonably observe:
- Communication: Does the manager explain goals, changes, decisions, and expectations clearly? Do employees know where to raise questions?
- Listening and availability: Does the manager make time for work-related concerns, ask clarifying questions, and respond within reasonable expectations?
- Feedback and coaching: Does feedback arrive in time to be useful, include actionable guidance, and recognize effective work as well as areas to improve?
- Fairness and respect: Does the manager apply expectations consistently, invite different viewpoints, and address disagreements professionally?
- Direction and decision-making: Are priorities clear, and does the manager explain decisions when appropriate? Can the team move forward when priorities compete?
- Support and development: Does the manager help remove work obstacles, delegate appropriately, and discuss opportunities to build relevant skills?
Questions should distinguish between what employees have observed and what they are guessing. For example, employees may be able to evaluate whether a manager explains a schedule change, but may not know the private constraints behind that decision. Avoid asking employees to assess motives, personal circumstances, or matters outside their knowledge.
Choosing Ratings and Question Types
A rating scale makes it easier to compare answers, but it does not explain why a rating was given. A five-point agreement scale is familiar to many respondents, yet its labels should be written out so that each number has a clear meaning. A “not observed” or “not applicable” option is important: without it, employees may select a middle score simply because they lack enough experience to answer.
Keep each question focused on one behavior. “My manager listens and gives clear feedback” combines two ideas; an employee might agree with one half and disagree with the other. Split it into separate prompts. Also avoid leading wording such as “How helpful is your excellent manager?” Neutral wording makes it easier to give candid responses without signaling a preferred answer.
Open-ended questions add context, but too many can discourage completion and produce repetitive comments. Two or three focused prompts are often more practical than a page of broad writing questions. Useful prompts include “What should this manager continue doing?” and “What one change would make your work easier?”
Confidentiality, Candor, and Fairness
Employees may hesitate to be direct if they fear retaliation or believe their comments will be identifiable. Set expectations honestly and use an appropriate collection process for the organization. If responses are gathered in a small group, explain that details in written examples could still identify a respondent. Do not imply anonymity unless the process can support that claim.
Ask respondents to focus on work-related behavior, its impact, and a constructive request. “The team did not know which task was urgent after the deadline changed” is more actionable than a personal label. If a comment describes a serious concern, a general feedback form may not be the right or only channel; employees should be told where to raise urgent or sensitive matters under workplace procedures.
Fairness also means considering context. A manager may have limited authority over staffing, deadlines, or decisions made elsewhere. Employees can still describe how the manager communicated or responded, but the form should not assign responsibility for outcomes beyond the manager’s control. Reviewing several examples and perspectives helps avoid overreacting to a single event or letting one recent incident define an entire period.
Common Problems and How to Avoid Them
- Vague comments: Ask for a brief situation and its work impact. “Needs to communicate better” offers little direction; “A written summary after priority changes would help” identifies a possible action.
- Questions that combine topics: Separate communication, fairness, and coaching into distinct items so a response has a clear meaning.
- Too many questions: Remove items that do not match the manager’s role or that employees cannot observe. A concise form is easier to complete thoughtfully.
- Confusing anonymity with confidentiality: Describe the actual process and its limits instead of using these terms as if they guarantee the same thing.
- Using feedback as a popularity contest: Look for behavior-based evidence and patterns, not personal preference or isolated ratings without context.
- No visible follow-up: When employees share feedback and hear nothing afterward, they may doubt that the process matters. Report themes and planned actions where appropriate, while protecting individuals’ privacy.
Turning Feedback Into Useful Follow-Up
Feedback is most useful when it leads to a manageable next step. A manager can choose one or two recurring themes, define a behavior to change, and set a date to revisit progress. For example, if employees report that priorities shift without explanation, the manager might summarize changes and their reasons during a regular team check-in. The next review can ask whether the new practice improved clarity.
Not every request can be adopted. A manager may need to explain constraints, distinguish an individual preference from a shared need, or ask for clarification before choosing a response. Acknowledging feedback does not require agreeing with every interpretation. It does require considering the evidence and communicating what will happen next, even when the answer is that a suggestion cannot be acted on now.
Organizations should also consider the manager’s opportunity to respond and obtain support. Patterns may point to a skill-development need, unclear authority, conflicting expectations, or an organizational obstacle. Treating every concern as an individual failing can miss those wider causes. Follow-up should match the issue and the manager’s role.
When to Use a Template or Another Format
A written template works well when the organization wants consistent questions across a team or review period. It can also help employees prepare for a structured conversation. For a small team, a facilitated discussion may reveal context that a form cannot capture, though a facilitator should set ground rules and make clear how notes will be used.
A manager’s self-assessment, a peer review, or a broader team survey can complement employee feedback, but each answers a different question. Self-assessment records the manager’s own view; peer feedback reflects colleagues’ interactions; team surveys may cover conditions beyond one manager’s control. These formats should not be treated as interchangeable, and the collection method should fit the decision the organization needs to make.
Frequently Asked Questions
What should I write in an evaluation of my manager?
Describe a work-related behavior, give a brief example, and explain its effect. Add a practical suggestion when possible. Avoid personal attacks, speculation about motives, or claims you cannot support with your own observations.
Should an employee manager evaluation be anonymous?
That depends on the organization’s process, team size, and purpose. Anonymity can encourage candor, but it should not be promised unless responses cannot reasonably be linked to individuals. Explain how feedback is collected and shared.
How often should employees evaluate their manager?
There is no single schedule that suits every workplace. A recurring review can reveal changes over time, while a one-time assessment may fit a specific transition. Choose a cadence that allows employees enough direct experience to give informed feedback.
What rating scale should a manager evaluation use?
A clearly labeled scale, such as five levels from strongly disagree to strongly agree, is one option. Include “not observed” where appropriate, and pair ratings with examples so scores are not interpreted without context.
What if I have a serious concern about my manager?
A routine evaluation form may not be the right channel for an urgent or sensitive issue. Follow the workplace’s designated reporting or support process, and describe the concern factually through the appropriate route.