Consulting & AdvisoryFree
Mini 360 Feedback Question Builder
Every question traces to one goal, goes only to people positioned to see it, and the change is measured on the raters who answered twice.
River reads the agreed goals first and derives the question set from them, one question per goal, each written as an act somebody could have watched inside a stated window. Beside each new question sits the baseline item it re-asks, quoted from the original instrument, because a question written this month buys relevance and costs you the comparison. Each question is then routed only to the people positioned to observe it, and everybody else is recorded as a deliberate skip rather than as a silence.
Search this and you get a question bank. Twelve items on communication, ten on influence, a five-point scale and a note to keep it short. Every one of them would work for anybody, which is the whole problem. Five months into an engagement the coachee is working on three named things, and a bank item about communication cannot tell you whether any of the three moved. What comes back answers a question nobody in the engagement asked.
Built for the coach or advisor running a mid-engagement check without commissioning a second full cycle. Month four or five is about right, once enough time has passed for something to have visibly changed and while there is still engagement left to change it in. It takes the goals and the attribution threshold from the coaching engagement pack, re-asks items from the report you worked through in the debrief, and hands what comes back to next session's opening line. Consent wording for a named panel sits in the stakeholder interview programme pack.
The two figures a small panel gets wrong
A goal like be less of a bottleneck is not something anybody can rate, and the federal rules on selection procedures already say what to do about that. 29 CFR 1607.14 provides that where work behaviours are not observable, the analysis identifies and analyses the aspects of the behaviour that can be observed, plus the observed work products. Turned into a coaching question that means naming an act and a window. Whether a roadmap change you raised in the last ninety days got decided without going to her.
Then route it, because a rater who cannot see the behaviour returns a guess or a blank, and the blank reads as a question that failed. Federal statistical standards are exact about this. An item response rate divides by the responders who were asked, which is all responders minus the ones with a valid skip. Sylvie Bertrand's feedback question went to her product managers alone. Four of the six responders were asked and four answered, so the rate is a hundred percent rather than the sixty-seven a flat denominator prints.
The change figure is the one that misleads, and the same standards compute a longitudinal rate from the cases carrying data in every wave. The reason shows up immediately here. Across the whole June panel her timely-decisions score moved from 2.55 to 2.50, which reads as nothing happening. Across the four people who answered both rounds it moved from 2.50 to 3.25. Two June raters had never rated her and both started working with her after the baseline, so their scores are a first impression.
How it works
Send the goals
The agreed development goals, in the wording the coachee and the sponsor signed off.
Add the baseline
The prior report and, where you have it, the exact wording of the items it used.
List the panel
Who they are, how each one works with this person, and since when.
Read the register
Every question with its goal, its routing, its base, and whether a change is reportable.
What you get
- One question per goal, each naming an act somebody could have watched
- The baseline item re-asked word for word beside it, or a row saying none exists
- A routing list per question, so nobody is asked about what they cannot see
- Deliberate skips kept out of the denominator, so a routed question is not marked failed
- Change computed twice, across the whole panel and across the raters who answered both
- The request message, carrying the window, the routing and what the coachee will see
Common questions
Why not just use a standard mini 360 instrument?
Because the coachee is working on three named things and the instrument has no idea what they are. A bank item about communication cannot tell you whether roadmap changes now get decided without her. What the instrument does buy is a norm group, which is worth having at baseline and worth very little five months in.
What do you lose by writing your own questions?
Comparability, and the register prices it rather than hiding it. A question written this month has no prior reading, so it reports a level and never a change. That is why each goal also carries its baseline item re-asked word for word. One question for relevance, one for the comparison, and the sheet says which is which.
Six raters is a small base. Is any of it worth reading?
It is worth reading if you say what it rests on. Sylvie's escalation question came back at a hundred percent item response on a base of one person, and the rater the goal is actually about never replied at all. The rate looks perfect and the goal is unmeasured, which is why every row carries its base.
Why compute the change twice?
Because the two answers disagree and only one of them is about her. The whole panel moved her timely-decisions score from 2.55 to 2.50. The four raters who answered both rounds moved it from 2.50 to 3.25. The gap is two people who had never rated her, both of whom started working with her after the baseline.
What about people who were on the baseline but not the panel?
They are why the whole-panel comparison drifts. Seven of the eleven January raters were not re-asked, and on the feedback item they averaged 3.29 against 2.50 for the four who were. Comparing June against a baseline that still includes them measures who left the panel rather than what the coachee changed.
Can the sponsor see the responses?
Only on whatever the engagement agreement set, and the sheet is built to hold a threshold. A theme carried by one of six named raters is an identification however the header is worded. Both the attribution rule and the consent wording for the panel sit upstream in the engagement agreement.
Mini 360 Feedback Question Builder
Fill in the form and your workspace opens with the work already underway.