Probationary periods - Whats the norm?

Hi all,

Thanks for all your responses and details of your experiences. All worth considering and passing on to management.
Thanks

My own opinion is that probationary periods in themselves are a largely- archaic and a generally needless requirement.
It is constantly pointed out in these Forums that probationary periods are not recognised at all as a concept in employment law: specifying any probationary period doesn't in any way affect the legitimacy or otherwise of eg dismissal as a result of an employee 'failing' their imposed period of probation.
Proponents of probationary periods often say things like 'it's necessary to try out new starters in order to evaluate whether or not they're suitable for the role they were hired to do'. Of course it is, but you don't need probationary periods in order to do this! In reality, it's usually apparent within the period of a week or so - if not a working day or two - whether or not a new starter is going to be an effective member of staff. So, why bother at all with probationary periods of many months duration? If the new staff member is being effectively managed, their performance should be constantly evaluated and regular feedback and continuous improvement planning and support given - there really ought to be 'no surprises' as they say, in this regard.
And if the employee once they've started proves so dire and very clearly totally unsuitable, they should be so informed, and if needs be shown the door without undue delay, which will only compound the problem and prolong the agony. For all involved Often, if conventional probationary periods do apply, it's considered necessary by some / even many to see out the full, specified duration before ever contemplating dismissal – which IMHO is just plain daft, but some still appear to espouse this view.
Similarly, some think they can apply probationary periods to existing staff who change jobs eg through internal transfers / promotions. Not so! – provided these staff have long enough service length for unfair dismissal protection and given that probationary periods have no standing or effect on that fact, you can only dismiss them for a ‘potentially fair reason’ and failing probation is certainly not one of these. And even if employer sought to demote them or revert to former job, that might well amount to constructive dismissal. Of course, normal ‘capability’ considerations can and should apply, and if someone proves unsuitable in these circumstances they should be pursued.
Probationary periods can and do underline that the employee’s capability is being subjected to special or particular scrutiny, but that should be happening as a matter of course and as stated above there should be ‘no surprises’ throughout.
Probationary periods are used too in order to ensure that new starters don’t start immediately on eg the sick pay or holiday or notice or whatever terms applicable to longer-serving employees. That can be an entirely sensible thing to do, but you can still provide for all that in contractual terms and conditions without tarring everything with the same probationary period brush. For example, you can apply different service qualification periods to different benefits, so it can all be more flexible.
In employment law, even if a new employee has ‘passed’ whatever probationary period applies, they still risk dismissal, even whimsically or otherwise unfairly on the part of the employer until they clock up 103 weeks continuous employment. Thus, in this important sense, every new employee is on a probationary period of 103 weeks, so what’s the point of needlessly complicating that overarching fact?
Just a few musings…..

I believe the probation period is a great tool with which to set expectations of the new staff members as well as existing staff members and if it doesnt work out, it isnt seen as quite as harsh by existing members of staff. Forget the legal stuff - the benefit of the probation has nothing to do with dismissing fairly, it is about setting expetation and company reputation.

I think it's a pretty needless and useless tool, Lucy, bearing in mind that it's entirely possible to set expectations and monitor performance etc completely without hiding behind it or being a slave to it. And that it's usually totally obvious right from the outset whether or not a new hire is going to make the grade.

This is the one positive I can find:

In an ideal world, anyone who manages people would see motivating and developing their staff to create a high-performing team as an important part of their jobs and would be providing on-going constructive feedback unprompted.

In this imperfect world where we still come across people who have been promoted into management positions for their technical skills (this came up in another thread recently) and who still see themselves as primarily managing a process while also having to manage those pesky, unpredictable, time-consuming b----y people that get in the way of them doing their job, those managers that think appraisals and such were invented by HR to make work for them on top of their jobs, for those managers the probationary period can serve to direct their attention to helping someone get up to speed, especially if those do-gooders in Human Remains email them to say the new recruit is now half-way through their probationary period and how are they getting on.

David i completely agree that we dont need a name for the period of time at the start of employment, we should consider our actions rather than concentrating on putting labels on things, but if that label wasnt there i do believe that expectations would not be set for some people. There are people that do not perceive a failure of probation as tantamount to a termination and that where the fact of giving a name to this period of time is very helpful. I do also believe that if someone isnt great from day one, rather than it be totally obvious that they'll fail probation, that we are fair to them and give them a chance beyond day 1. Their job is their source of income. I also tend to agree with Elizabeth, although i do have sympathy for managers who have the title 'manager' but actually they have a complete job role separate to that, and they are expected to manage on top of all of their other duties, hence dont always prioritise the 'manager' side of things.

David i completely agree that we dont need a name for the period of time at the start of employment, we should consider our actions rather than concentrating on putting labels on things, but if that label wasnt there i do believe that expectations would not be set for some people. There are people that do not perceive a failure of probation as tantamount to a termination and that where the fact of giving a name to this period of time is very helpful. I do also believe that if someone isnt great from day one, rather than it be totally obvious that they'll fail probation, that we are fair to them and give them a chance beyond day 1. Their job is their source of income. I also tend to agree with Elizabeth, although i do have sympathy for managers who have the title 'manager' but actually they have a complete job role separate to that, and they are expected to manage on top of all of their other duties, hence dont always prioritise the 'manager' side of things.

Understand your point of view, Lucy - even though past experience seriously inhibits me from endorsing the practice.