In this article
Before you start
This page belongs to the engineering manager interview questions path. It is general information for the United States, not legal advice; employment law differs by state and country.
Why interviewers ask this
A manager who cannot end a poor fit hurts the rest of the team, and a manager who ends one carelessly hurts trust and exposes the company to legal risk. The question lets an interviewer see which of the two mistakes you are more likely to make. It sits in the people management round of an engineering manager loop.
Candidates report it often. One candidate in our question bank reported being asked about firing someone or putting them on a plan in most interviews of a single loop, and others reported a Netflix version about letting go someone who "wasn't in the wrong" but was not a stunning colleague. These are reports by candidates, not a public statement by any company.
A weak answer says "he was not performing, so I let him go," with no earlier feedback and no process. A strong answer shows the gap, the feedback, the support, the decision, the conversation and the lesson, in that order, and treats the person with respect throughout.
Letting someone go from first principles
- Keeper test
- The keeper test is a manager's check that asks "if this person wanted to leave, would I fight to keep them?", and treats a weak answer as a reason to part ways even when no rule was broken. Netflix describes it in its culture memo, and the answer is about fit and performance, not misconduct.
- Performance improvement plan
- A performance improvement plan (PIP) is a written, time-limited agreement that lists the gaps in an employee's work, the results expected, the support offered and the review dates. It tells the employee what must change and gives the manager a record of the outcome.
In plain words
Think of a coach on a sports team. The coach tells a player what to fix. The coach gives drills and checks progress. If the player still cannot play the position, the coach makes a roster decision.
The analogy breaks in one place. An employee has a livelihood and legal protections, so process and fairness matter far more than in a game.
In one precise sentence, letting someone go well means the person heard the problem early, got a fair chance and support to fix it, and still could not meet the role's needs, so you made and delivered the decision with care.
Step 1: Name the gap and show the feedback that came first
Start your story with the gap between what the role needed and what the person delivered. Be specific: missed design ownership, unreliable reviews, weak collaboration. Then say when and how you first told them.
Input: the role's expectations and the person's results. Output: a gap the person already knew about. The interviewer listens for the date of the first honest feedback, because a story where feedback arrives on decision day signals either avoidance or unfairness.
Show the channel too: your one-on-ones, written notes, examples of work. Netflix's memo encourages everyone to speak to their managers "about what's going well and what's not on a regular basis," which "helps avoid surprises" (Netflix, accessed October 2026). As the manager, you make that two-way: you say what is not working, early. You now have the first beat of the story: a named gap, and proof that the person was told.
Step 2: Show the support and the process
Next, say what you gave the person to succeed: clearer goals, a mentor, a smaller scope, time. If feedback alone did not change the results, describe the formal step, usually a performance improvement plan.
Lattice describes plans "typically 30, 60, or 90 days" long, with notes after each meeting and a documented outcome (Lattice, accessed October 2026). Input: the gap. Output: a record of what was asked, what help was given and what happened.
Lattice says a plan "isn't meant to punish employees". A strong answer says what you believe a plan is for, a genuine chance to improve or only a record, and shows it by what you did: did you want the person to succeed? Your approach to managing team performance belongs here too.
Step 3: Make the decision and name the test you used
State the decision and the question you asked yourself. For a performance case, the question is whether the standard is now met. For misconduct, the question is which rule was broken, and the facts come first.
For a person who was neither in the wrong nor a stunning colleague, Netflix's keeper test applies. Its current wording asks managers "if X wanted to leave, would I fight to keep them?" and "knowing everything I know today, would I hire X again?" (Netflix, accessed October 2026). If the answer is no, the memo says parting ways quickly is fairer to everyone. The memo's sports-team framing talks about having "the right player at every position" (Netflix, accessed October 2026).
The test has critics, and the memo itself admits the test "can sound scary." Say that you apply it with the whole record in view, not one bad month.
Step 4: Hold the conversation and respect the legal basics
Describe the conversation: private, short, clear, with human resources (HR) involved, no surprise about the outcome, and a plan for what the team hears next. Offer dignity: a clear exit date, a handover plan, severance where the company offers it.
Severance is pay offered on top of final wages when employment ends. In the United States it is a matter of agreement. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not require severance, a discharge notice or a reason for discharge, and wages it covers are due on the regular payday (U.S. Department of Labor, revised November 2023).
In the United States, employment where either side may end it without a formal cause, but not for an illegal reason, is called at-will employment, and the details differ by state (Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute). Firing because of race, sex, age of 40 or older, disability and similar traits is illegal, and so is retaliating against someone who complained about discrimination (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed October 2026). Rules differ by place, so say you worked with HR.
Step 5: Say what you changed afterwards
End with what you changed in how you work. This final sentence is what separates a mid-level answer from a Staff one, because it shows you treat a firing as a signal about your own process.
Good examples are specific. You wrote role expectations down at hiring time, so the gap was clearer; you gave feedback within a week of seeing a problem; you improved your hiring decisions; or you checked team health earlier. Bad examples are vague: "I learned communication is important."
Input: the whole story. Output: one concrete change, with its effect if you can name it. You now have the full shape of the answer.
In one line: a strong answer shows honest feedback before the decision. The decision names the test used, and the conversation follows the process. The answer ends with what the manager changed afterwards.
Step-by-step description
- Name the gap and the early feedback.
- Show the help and the process.
- Name the test you used.
- Hold it with HR and respect.
- End with one concrete change.
- A strong answer shows honest feedback before the decision.
- The decision names the test used, and the conversation follows the process.
- The answer ends with what the manager changed afterwards.
Knowing it is half the job. Saying it is the other half.
Interview Clozo is an AI interview copilot for real interview rounds: it hears the question and puts a strong answer on your screen, and you say it in your own words. See the features or how it works.
Start Free Trial →Worked example
Suppose your story includes a plan, and the interviewer asks how it ran. The numbers below are an illustrative schedule: plan lengths of 30, 60 and 90 days, check-ins every 7 or 14 days, and one closing review on the last day.1
A 90-day plan with weekly check-ins holds 13 meetings including the closing review. The same plan with biweekly check-ins holds 7. Weekly cadence gives more chances to correct course and more paperwork; biweekly is lighter but leaves two weeks between signals.
| Plan length | Weekly check-ins | Biweekly check-ins |
|---|---|---|
| 30 days | 5 | 3 |
| 60 days | 9 | 5 |
| 90 days | 13 | 7 |
Text description of the diagram
- A 90-day plan with weekly check-ins holds 13 meetings including the closing review.
- The same plan with biweekly check-ins holds 7.
Now the same case as two spoken answers (illustrative example).
- Weak (wrong): "Yes. He was not performing, so after a few weeks I let him go and HR handled it."
- Strong (right): "Yes. His design ownership stayed below what the role needed. I gave feedback for two months, paired him with a mentor and ran a formal plan with weekly check-ins. At the closing review the plan's goals were still unmet, so I recommended ending his employment, held the conversation with HR, and afterwards wrote expectations down at hiring time."
The strong version has a dated gap, support, a decision against the standard, a conversation and a change. The rubric below shows the difference.
| Dimension | Weak answer | Strong answer | Staff answer |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feedback | Arrives at the decision | Given early, in one-on-ones | Early, written, with examples |
| Process | None mentioned | Plan and support | Plan, support, HR and counsel |
| Fairness | Blames the person | Respects the person | Checks bias and the whole record |
| Lesson | Vague | One change | A change in hiring or expectations |
Trade-offs and edge cases
Not every exit is the same, and naming which one your story was shows judgment. Misconduct asks which rule was broken. A performance gap asks whether the standard is met. The keeper test asks whether you would fight to keep the person.
Text description of the diagram
- Misconduct asks which rule was broken.
- A performance gap asks whether the standard is met.
- The keeper test asks whether you would fight to keep the person.
The keeper test has a cost. It was first introduced in Netflix's 2009 culture memo (Benzinga, June 2024). Reed Hastings told National Public Radio (NPR) in 2020 that the memo "says things like, adequate performance gets a generous severance package" (NPR, September 2020). The same NPR reporter, Bobby Allyn, said the culture had some employees "constantly looking over their shoulder". The 2024 memo softens the framing: it stresses regular feedback, sticking with employees through short-term bumps and judging people on their whole record (Netflix, accessed October 2026).
Two points are often misstated: Netflix's memo says it sticks "with employees through short-term bumps", and the FLSA does not require severance.
Other edge cases: if you have never fired anyone, say so and describe a plan or a hard exit you were part of. If the person was well liked, say how you told the team. If the decision was made above you, say what you did to treat the person well. The wider craft is covered in growing engineers.
How to answer it in an interview
Have you ever fired someone?
Yes, once. An engineer was dependable on small tasks but never took ownership of design, which the role required. For two months I gave direct feedback in our one-on-ones, wrote the expectations down and paired him with a senior mentor. When little changed, I started a formal plan with weekly check-ins. At the end of the plan the design-ownership goals were still not met, so I recommended ending his employment. With human resources I held the conversation, offered severance and agreed what the team would hear. Afterwards I began writing role expectations at hiring time and giving feedback within a week.
Use your own true case; the answer above is an illustrative composite. The spoken structure: gap, feedback, support, decision and test, conversation, what you changed.
Common mistakes
- "I let him go as soon as I saw the problem." (wrong) It skips feedback and support. (right) "I told him early, gave support and a plan, then decided."
- "HR did it, I was not involved." (wrong) It hides your role. (right) "I made the case, HR advised on process, and I held the conversation."
- "He was a bad person." (wrong) It signals contempt. (right) "He was not the right fit for this role, and I wanted him to land well."
- "I have fired many people." (wrong) It sounds careless. (right) "Each case was a last step after feedback and support."
- "I will describe a case I invented." (wrong) Follow-ups expose it. (right) Use a real plan, a hard exit you took part in, or say honestly you have not.
Follow-up questions
Have you ever had to let someone go?
Answer yes or no first. If yes, give the five-step story in about a minute, and end with what you changed afterwards.
Have you had to let someone go who wasn't in the wrong but wasn't a stunning colleague?
The "not in the wrong but not stunning" question is the keeper-test case. Say you asked whether you would fight to keep the person and whether you would hire them again, show the earlier feedback, and describe how you helped them land well. A sayable line: "I asked whether I would fight to keep him, and the honest answer was no." Reported by candidates for Netflix, not confirmed by the company.
Have you ever fired someone or gave feedback to someone that was underperforming?
If you have not fired anyone, describe the feedback and support you gave and the result. The question is about your handling of the gap, so a case that ended in improvement is a valid answer; see handling a low performer.
What if you have never fired anyone?
Say so plainly, then describe a plan you ran, a hard conversation you held, or how you would approach it using the steps above. Do not invent a case.
Do you need a performance improvement plan before letting someone go?
Not by federal law in the United States, where at-will employment is the usual default, though state rules differ (Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute), but a plan is common practice and gives the person a fair chance and you a record. Say you follow your company's process and HR's advice.
Is severance required by law?
Under the federal FLSA, no; it is a matter of agreement between employer and employee (U.S. Department of Labor, revised November 2023). State law, contracts and company policy can differ.
- Name the gap and show feedback that came before the decision.
- Show support, a plan and a record, not just the outcome.
- Say which kind of exit it was and which test you used.
- Respect the legal basics and the person: HR, counsel and dignity.
- End with one concrete change in how you work.
Sources
- The Best Work of Our Lives (Netflix culture memo) — Netflix Jobs, 24 Jun 2024
- Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act — U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 1 Nov 2023
- Prohibited Employment Policies/Practices — U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 26 Oct 2026
- Employment at will doctrine — Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, 26 Oct 2026
- Hastings on No Rules Rules (transcript) — NPR, All Things Considered, 15 Sep 2020
- Netflix alters keeper test in corporate culture memo — Benzinga, 25 Jun 2024
- Performance Improvement Plan Process: A Documentation Guide — Lattice, 26 Oct 2026
