Onboarding Buddy Feedback Survey

It measures whether the buddy was reachable, useful, and supportive during onboarding. The questions focus on three engagement drivers for the program: availability and responsiveness, practical help with unwritten norms and tools, and cultural integration and belonging. It also captures an overall value rating plus the primary reason behind that score. That combination helps you see both the outcome and the cause.

Send it after the new hire has had enough time to interact with the buddy meaningfully, not on day one. Many teams use a 2- to 6-week window, or a short pulse after the first month, so the respondent can judge real interactions rather than first impressions alone. If your buddy program runs across the full onboarding period, you can also repeat it at a later milestone to compare early and late experiences. Keep the cadence light to avoid survey fatigue.

The new hire should complete it, because they are the only person who can judge whether the buddy was actually helpful and easy to approach. If you want manager or buddy input, collect that in a separate workflow so you do not blur perspectives. This template is designed for the recipient of the buddy program, not the buddy themselves. That keeps the feedback focused on the experience produced by the pairing.

Yes, anonymity should be the default unless there is a clear reason to identify respondents. New hires are more likely to give honest feedback about responsiveness, inclusion, or awkward interactions when they know their answers are protected. If you need to follow up on a low score, use a separate opt-in contact field rather than tying identity to the survey by default. That preserves trust and improves response rate.

A common mistake is asking only whether the buddy was "good" without separating responsiveness, practical support, and belonging. Another is skipping the open follow-up for ratings of 3 or below, which is where the most actionable detail usually lives. Teams also sometimes collect demographics before the core questions, which can make anonymity feel less real. Finally, avoid turning this into a long annual survey; it works best as a focused onboarding pulse.

You can tailor the wording to match your onboarding model, such as peer buddy, onboarding mentor, or onboarding guide. If your program has formal expectations, add one question about whether the buddy followed the expected cadence or scope. If different cohorts have different needs, you can add a role-specific item about tools, systems, or cross-functional introductions. Keep the core structure intact so you can compare results across cohorts.

Yes, it can be paired with HRIS, onboarding checklists, or workflow tools so feedback is routed to the right owner. For example, low scores on responsiveness may go to the program coordinator, while low scores on practical support may go to the buddy manager or onboarding owner. You can also tag results by cohort, department, or location for trend analysis. Just keep any optional demographic fields at the end to reduce collection bias.

Ad hoc feedback is easy to miss, hard to compare, and often biased toward the loudest experiences. This template standardizes the questions so you can compare buddy effectiveness across cohorts and identify recurring gaps in support, belonging, or follow-through. It also gives you a consistent open-ended reason for the overall rating, which is much more actionable than a casual conversation alone. In practice, that makes it easier to improve the program instead of just reacting to anecdotes.