Many questionnaires contain a standard set of items geared toward general populations such as senior managers, supervisors, project leaders, or individual contributors. However, instruments targeted at specific individuals or functions in an organization are being developed all the time. Examples can be seen in Resource A. The existence of so many different instruments is another indication of how many different uses organizations have found for multi-rater feedback.¹

Some questionnaires also include open-ended questions that call for written comments from the respondents. Questions such as: “What does this person do that is most effective in this area of behavior?” or “What could this person do that would be more effective?” enable respondents to elaborate on the quantitative answers they have given. Because additional questions mean it will take longer to complete the questionnaire, we often recommend having a single open-ended item at the end of the questionnaire. Including just one item such as: “What can this person do to be more effective when working with you?” can add enormously to the value of the feedback without making it much longer.

In a recent discussion to review his feedback report, a client provided a resounding recommendation for the use of open-ended items. As he analyzed his quantitative data, he was perplexed. In the past he had always been told that he was a good team player, but his results for Cross-Organizational Advocacy were among his lowest overall scores. In addition to feeling confused, he felt somewhat defensive and considered ignoring the data. As he moved into the comments from the open-ended questions, he got greater clarity on the messages the feedback report held. Yes, he was a good team player—he managed conflict effectively, he supported his peers, and he was always willing to answer questions and provide feedback to junior members in the department. However, when it came to supporting cross-department efforts and making himself available for organization-wide initiatives, he was seen as less cooperative and involved. This clarification enabled him to leverage his strengths as a team player and fine-tune development objectives related to cross-functional behaviors.