Three parts. One conversation.
Most 360 feedback tools ask observers to rate the leader. This one does something different — it asks the leader to assess themselves first, independently, before seeing anything from their peers. Then it brings both sets of answers into a structured conversation. The gap between what you think you know about yourself and what your peers observe is where the most useful information lives.
"This tool is an act of generosity — from your peers to you, and from you to yourself. Write and receive it the way you'd want to if you genuinely wanted to grow."
Self-Assessment
Answer for how you typically show up — not your best day or your worst. Think about patterns over the last 90 days. The more honest this is, the more the conversation in Part 3 will give you.
How I navigate conflict
When there's real disagreement in the room — not just surface tension — what do you actually do? Do you move toward it, hold the tension, smooth it over, or defer? Be specific about a recent situation.
My direction & point of view
When does your direction feel clearest to you — and when does it waver? Think about moments when you held a strong POV under pressure vs. moments when a strong voice in the room shifted your position. Which is more common?
My bias awareness in decisions
Every leader has patterns. Which people, ideas, or arguments do you consistently over-weight? Which do you consistently discount? Think about the last three significant decisions you made — what shaped them beyond the evidence?
Do you have deliberate practices — people you ask, questions you force yourself to answer, processes that slow the decision — that interrupt your default patterns? Or do you mostly rely on noticing after the fact?
How I integrate my team's expertise
There's a difference between asking for input and genuinely being open to having your position changed by it. Think about a decision in the last 90 days where your team's expertise was relevant. Did their input change what you decided — or did you decide what you were going to decide anyway and look for confirmation?
Where I think I am on the maturity arc
Peer Feedback Form
This is an act of generosity. The most useful feedback is specific and honest — not softened to the point of carrying no signal, and not sharpened to the point of landing as a verdict. Write it the way you'd want to receive it if you genuinely wanted to grow.
Strength worth naming
Specific and behavioral — not a character description. Name something they do, not just who they are. The more precise, the more useful.
Conflict — how they actually show up
Grounded in a specific situation, not a general impression. Name the behavior, not the character. "In the Q3 planning meeting when X and Y disagreed, you…" is far more useful than "you tend to avoid conflict."
Direction, POV & bias filtering
Name a specific moment where their direction was clear and anchoring — and a specific moment where it wasn't. Both signals are useful. One without the other is incomplete.
This is the hardest section. Name a pattern — which voices, arguments, or types of information seem to reliably over-influence their decisions. Frame it as an observation, not an accusation.
Integration of team expertise
Name the difference between when you've felt genuinely heard — and when you've felt consulted but not listened to. This distinction matters enormously to team trust and it's often invisible to the leader.
What I'd most want this leader to hear
Name it as a behavior pattern, not a character judgment. "When you do X, the effect on the team is Y" — not "you are X." The goal is insight, not verdict.
Observable and actionable. Something you could notice them doing differently in the next 30 days. Not a disposition — a behavior.
Where I observe this leader on the maturity arc
The Conversation
The Johari Window only opens in the conversation — not in the forms. What neither person knew before becomes available when two perspectives meet honestly. This structure is designed to create the conditions for that.
–
0:05
–
0:20
–
0:35
–
0:55
–
1:00
Questions for the gap exploration
"We both noticed [X]. What does it tell us that we're seeing the same thing? Is that pattern serving us or costing us?"
"You experienced that as [X] and I experienced it as [Y]. What would need to be true for both of us to be right? What are we each responding to?"
"The difference between how I rate my conflict style and how you rated it is [X]. What specific situation most shaped your read? What did you need from me in that moment that you didn't get?"
"You experienced my direction as [X] in that situation. I experienced myself as [Y]. What's the gap between my intent and your experience — and what created it?"
"The bias pattern you named — [X] — is one I [do / don't] recognize in myself. If you're right and I'm not seeing it, what would I need to notice to catch it in real time?"
"The situation where you felt consulted but not integrated — what would genuinely integrated have looked like? What signal would have told you your expertise actually changed the decision?"
"You placed me at Stage [X] and I placed myself at Stage [Y]. The gap there is interesting. What behaviors led you to your read — and what would Stage [Y] look like to you from where you sit?"
"Is there something you noticed in completing this form — about me, about us, about how we work together — that surprised you? Something that didn't fit neatly into any of the sections?"
Don't share this over email or Slack. The feedback in this form is designed to be delivered in person — where tone, presence, and the ability to respond in real time are part of the message. Written feedback without a conversation is a broadcast. This is designed to be a dialogue.
After the conversation: the leader keeps their self-assessment. The observer keeps their form. What travels forward is only the commitment the leader made in the room — and whether it's kept.
The Johari window opens over time, not in one conversation. Schedule a follow-up in 60 days to revisit the commitment and ask whether the blind spots are shifting.