I expect a few of you who are HR experts to potentially disagree with my views on this, but I come at this from an angle of what actual purpose they serve in the current climate rather than any legal stance.
This comes off the back of a couple of discussions this week regarding employees and said review process. Do they serve the employee? Do they serve the employer? I am unsure if they actually serve either.
You see, a probationary period is intended to be a trial of skills and attitude, usually for three months, at which point the employee under the spotlight is given the proverbial thumbs up to proceed with their employment satisfactory that they have passed the test.
In cases, this can create a scenario where the employee acts differently to normal (works harder, longer, is nicer etc) to showcase their worth before passing and often reverting to who they actually are. In some cases, not good enough.
Is the probationary period there as a back-up to the interview process not being done thoroughly enough? I suspect so.
Whilst loyalty is a value that is high on my list, I don’t believe that being loyal when an employee isn’t cutting the mustard serves either party. If somebody isn't stepping up after say a month (presuming you have given them the induction, training, tools, coaching etc.) and you know deep down that they aren’t going to fit in, waiting another two months is pointless. It costs time, energy and money you can’t afford to lose.
Equally, if they are stepping up and showing real promise (and you believe it is genuine and sustainable), what’s the point of putting them through the agony of waiting to see if they have passed?