WTF is a “keeper test”?
The “keeper test” has become one of the most divisive talent management practices in business. Made famous by executives of Netflix, it puts a deceptively simple question to management: “Which of my people, if they told me they were leaving for a similar job at a competitor, would I fight hard to keep?”
According to recent research from TestGorilla, which provides pre-employment assessment, the keeper test — which gained popularity after it went viral years ago — continues to carry risks employers may want to consider before they try it.
What is it?
The keeper test operates on the premise that companies should function like professional sports teams rather than families. Just as coaches make hard decisions about which players best serve the team, managers are expected to prioritize only their highest performers, regardless of tenure or personal relationships.
The process works both ways — employees are also encouraged to ask their managers directly: “If I told you I was leaving to work for a competitor, how hard would you fight to keep me?” That creates what is seen as reciprocal feedback between management and staff.
The upside for employers
TestGorilla’s analysis reveals several reasons why leaders continue adopting the approach.
It forces managers to focus attention on top performers, potentially improving retention of high-value employees. It can also drive improved performance across teams, as job security becomes directly tied to results.
Howard Cleveland, principal and cofounder of PeopleCap Advisors, a professional development firm focused on the private equity industry, and the author of “Running the Gauntlet: Proven Strategies for High-Growth Leaders,” sees additional benefits from his 25+ years of executive coaching experience.
“Over time, leaders tolerate certain behaviors and performance that aren’t consistent with their goals or the culture they are trying to maintain,” he said. “When I ask my coaching clients a version of this question, it gives them permission to look at things with a blank canvas. It reframes their perspective and puts them in a more objective and data-driven mindset.”
Cleveland emphasizes that the keeper test can elevate talent across organizations. “A team can’t outperform its talent,” he added. “Regularly asking the keeper question keeps performance at the forefront and allows leaders to identify when there are needs and opportunities to elevate talent.”
From a financial perspective, organizations can redirect resources from underperformers to top talent while eliminating lengthy performance improvement processes, as the thinking goes.
During organizational crises, keeper test offers what appears to be an objective metric for making difficult staffing decisions — a seemingly rational approach when cuts become necessary.
The hidden costs
TestGorilla’s research identifies significant downsides, meanwhile.
The most significant concern is the creation of a fear-based work environment. When employees operate under constant threat of termination, they experience increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, performance anxiety and stress-related health issues.
That fear undermines psychological safety — a critical component of high-performing teams. Employees become reluctant to share ideas, raise concerns or admit mistakes, ultimately stifling innovation and collaboration. One former Netflix executive assistant described the experience as “terrifying, with anxiety 24/7” in a Glassdoor review cited by TestGorilla.
The approach also treats employees as disposable assets, damaging both morale and organizational reputation. That can create recruitment challenges, as word spreads about the company’s approach to talent management.
Cleveland identifies additional operational concerns from his coaching practice.
“Asking the keeper question can help leaders identify their highest and lowest performers,” he said. “But unlike a coach of a sports team where the roster is completely reset after each season, leaders often can’t immediately fire employees who are a hard ‘no’ to the keeper question.” That can result in employees being marginalized and tolerated rather than developed.
He also warns of self-fulfilling prophecies: “When a leader asks the keeper question, there can be a tendency to view the ‘yes’ employees as the team and give them more opportunities, while not investing in the ‘no’ employees. The question can lead to favoritism that reinforces the answer and stifles employee development.”
Bias and equity concerns
Perhaps most troubling, the keeper test is susceptible to unconscious bias.
When managers make subjective decisions about who to fight for, their judgments may be influenced by factors unrelated to performance — including gender, ethnicity, neurodiversity or other characteristics.
TestGorilla’s analysis indicates that this creates particular challenges for inclusive hiring efforts. The constant pressure to prove worthiness is especially difficult for neurodivergent employees or those managing mental health conditions, effectively excluding talented individuals who could contribute significantly with proper support.
Cleveland adds another dimension to bias concerns: “Leaders may overlook team players and more reserved employees” who contribute significantly but don’t promote themselves as visibly as others.
When it works (and when it doesn’t)
The effectiveness of the keeper test may depend heavily on organizational context, according to Shveta Miglani, a professional coach and the author of “Navigate Your Career: Strategies for Success in New Roles and Promotions.”
“The keeper test works best in fast-paced environments where innovation and adaptability take center stage,” Miglani said. “But in workplaces built on stability, teamwork, and employee well-being, it can do more harm than good — fueling anxiety and turnover instead of progress.”
This contextual consideration adds another layer to the debate. While tech companies like Netflix may thrive with constant performance pressure, organizations in healthcare, education or manufacturing —where stability and collaboration are paramount — may find the approach counterproductive.
Miglani poses a critical question for leaders considering the approach: “Companies thinking about using it need to ask themselves a bigger question: Is performance alone worth the potential hit to culture? Striking a balance between high expectations and genuine support is the real key to long-term success.”
A more nuanced approach
Cleveland suggests that while the keeper test has flaws, it can be valuable when used properly as a leadership development tool. The real power, he argues, lies in the follow-up questions leaders ask themselves.
“Answering the question can be insightful, but the keeper question’s greatest impact is that it provides a foundation for deeper reflection,” he said.
If the answer is “no,” he recommends that leaders ask themselves: “What role have I played in the answer being ‘no’ for this person? What part of this answer do I need to own? What can I do as a leader to help change the answer to ‘yes’?”
If the answer is “yes,” the questions then become: “Does this person know I value them and their contribution enough to fight for them?” “What role have I played in the answer being ‘yes’?” “What are the common characteristics of the employees I would fight for?”
“While answering the keeper question provides perspective and information,” as Cleveland put it, “answering the questions behind the keeper question can help leaders become stronger and more effective.”
A better path forward
Rather than relying on fear-based evaluation, TestGorilla recommends these evidence-based alternatives for healthy talent management:
Prioritize skills development. Instead of asking who to keep, ask what support employees need to succeed. Upskilling and reskilling programs cost less than constant hiring while demonstrating organizational investment in people.
Foster inclusive culture. Companies with highly inclusive cultures generate better financial results than less inclusive counterparts. When employees feel valued for their unique perspectives, they deliver better results.
Implement regular performance conversations. Replace all-or-nothing evaluations with ongoing dialogue. Regular one-on-ones with clear improvement roadmaps and skills-based assessments reduce bias while supporting growth.
Handle transitions respectfully. When layoffs become necessary, use skills mapping rather than subjective judgments. Communicate transparently with all staff and provide meaningful support to departing employees.
Improve hiring practices. Skills-based hiring reduces mis-hires by focusing on demonstrated capabilities rather than credentials. TestGorilla’s research found that nearly 9 in 10 employers using skills-based methods saw decreased hiring errors.
The takeaway
While the keeper test may seem efficient, its long-term costs often exceed short-term gains. Fear-based environments ultimately reduce the performance they are designed to improve, while creating legal, reputational and retention risks.
Cleveland’s perspective suggests a middle path: using the keeper test as an internal leadership reflection tool rather than an organizational policy. When leaders ask themselves these questions privately and follow up with deeper self-examination about their role in employee performance, the exercise can drive meaningful leadership development.
The most successful organizations are those that invest in their people’s growth rather than constantly evaluating their disposability, the research suggests. As Miglani said, the key lies in “striking a balance between high expectations and genuine support” — recognizing that sustainable high performance comes from creating environments where people can thrive, not just survive.