Probationary periods - Whats the norm?

I think HR staff should also question what the complexity of the position is that they are hiring for. The amount of time it takes to adapt and learn a position, of course is dependent on the complexity of that position. The time needed to adapt, can vary not based on the individual that is hired, but also the position itself. 3 Months might be overboard and way too much time for a position that requires menial tasks. But for a position that involves in-depth and complex practices, 3 months really isn't particularly long at all (IMO). I speak from personal experience in environmental consulting, by 3 months, I was still learning every day and making mistakes and growing. If I had a clear probational period of just 3 months, I suspect I would have been fired. But by 6 months, things to a degree had changed for the better (IMO). I've seen this elsewhere as well. Situations where people are prematurely fired, while in the process of learning.

I would say value in an employee also comes down to what that employee is passionate about. You might have a slow learning person, who is adamant about the field in which they are working. And in the long run, they will certainly have a longer drive and will ultimately step-up in greater ways than fast learning employees who do not share that same drive. But on the surface, these two hypothetical people might both have a smile on their faces and may not be distinguishable between one another.

Just some thoughts.

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.

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