Is Probation Still Needed Today, Especially for Senior Employees? Let's Discuss!

What are your views on the concept of probation? Do you think it is required in today's times? Why should we have a probation period? Is it not just a legacy? Should we not just do away with it, at least for senior people... say anyone 5 years and above?

Ready for some brainstorming???

In the majority of cases, probation is meaningless unless one's recruitment/selection process is so poor that it becomes necessary. In only exceptional cases, companies adopt the probation option.

Regards,
LEO LINGHAM

It is a good idea for a fresher recruitment to keep the new recruit on their toes and ensure they perform. However, for senior and experienced executives, it does not make much sense as hardly any company exercises this option. Since it does not cost anything to the company or the employee, it makes no difference. Nevertheless, employees seeking stability or security may not choose a job with an extended probation period.

Ajmal M
Email: mirza_ajmal@yahoo.com

Dear Colleagues,

I would align with the notion that probation is old school but with some reservations.

The purpose of probation goes beyond the risk involved in employment, stability, capabilities, strength, and effectiveness.

But at times, it is a period for such line managers involved to also study their subordinate to know if they would actually fit in for the job or be moved to another department or unit.

For instance, an employee is brought in for HR duties but during the course of probation, management finds him useful in marketing—hence he gets moved to that department and eventually likes it.

However, the reservation I have is that probation has to be graded according to the entry point or status of the new entrant.

I would not expect a new General Manager of a company to be put under probation even for one day, as he is expected to make serious business decisions right from the onset.

For freshers/trainees, as mentioned earlier, probation is okay but should not be overstretched—say a maximum of 3 months.

Thanks.

I think probation at the commencement of a career (for new and fresh entrants) is okay and justifiable, but to me, it is more meaningful in the case of mid-senior level positions. The rationale behind probation is monitoring and evaluating one's conduct and performance over a certain time period. I believe this can be avoided if our recruitment system is effective and flawless. If the recruitment system ensures the hiring of the best people, I don't think there is any need for probation.

I totally disagree, a probation is a must, an absolute necessity in any organization at any level. I mean right from CEO to the peon. 😱

There are a few common characteristics that every human individual follows. If these characteristics and skill sets do not complement the job, then the company should have an easy backdoor to throw the misfit out. Well, no need for me to be polite here, was there? Hehehhe!

I don't care who comments what after this response, but the fact is, if you treat the company like your own and do not employ only by reference, then you would understand that there is an absolute necessity to throw out the bad before one bad apple spoils the rest of the basket. If the new individual does not fit into the existing structure of the company, it's time to bid them goodbye, and the best, easiest way to do it would be by utilizing the probation period. 😈

Hi,

I believe a probation period is essential for the following reasons:

1. You can determine whether the employee is able to adapt to your work culture.
2. You can assess whether his expectations in terms of knowledge enhancement are being met, or if the company is able to derive the right job performance from him.
3. As technology keeps changing rapidly, it is important for management to evaluate employees based on related skills rather than just the exact skills (as finding an employee with exact skills may be challenging). Therefore, within a span of 3 to 6 months, both Management and the Employee can observe whether the employee's presence is beneficial for the company or not.

For all the reasons mentioned above, a probationary period is essential.

Regards,
N. Neelam

Hi,

I disagree with the statement that in case an employee is a misfit, then probably just throw them out. When an employer recruits an employee for a given post, there are certain requirements within the job profile that the recruited person must match in terms of skill sets and knowledge. The probation period is a time where an employer assesses the detailed working style and adaptability of the new employee. If the employer decides that the employee still needs to work on their skills, they can be sent for retraining, thus extending the probation period.

Dear All,

Probation is really the thing which must be eliminated from the Appointment Letter because this is not required at all in the present scenario. I also do not see any legal compulsion in this. When you have selected someone for a particular job, then how can he be assessed in six months only.

Regards,

Ashok Kumar
Email: ashokchy_1@rediffmail.com

Probation is necessary since we do not know the mindset of the candidate during the process of interview. Behavioral issues might come up during the initial stages of the career of the employee till he understands the work environment and gets adjusted to the requirements of the job and gets along with people around. There will be instances wherein because of the behavioral aspects companies need to initiate action immediately without disturbing the work environment.
Even from the employee's perspective, getting adjusted to work environment due to lack of co-operation from the team, what is promised at the time of interview in terms of work may not be found while working, might force him too to look at other options elsewhere.
Hence, having probation is good for both employer and employee.
AR Sai.

Hi,

My opinion is that probation loses relevance after a certain level/grade. It is applicable and should be enforced for entry-level and junior-level executives where turnover is higher, job performance is to be checked and evaluated, etc.

However, beyond the middle level, when you are expected to take responsibilities and deliver results from day one, then probation loses relevance. Moreover, it builds insecurity in any employee who looks at a change, leaving a confirmed job with benefits and going into probation again. (Somewhere I have seen a 1-year probation for a sales manager with 8 years of experience - now isn't that really strange? Would you give him 1 year to show performance? Definitely not, a day more than probably a month at max.)

So, I feel that probation needs to be relooked at and decided grade-wise at the time of hiring itself.

Cheers! Pooja

*Ahem*, clears his throat.

Well, I've given my 2 cents of advice before, and I wouldn't care to reply to anyone else's opinion. Each one is entitled to their own opinion, and most opinions here are just a matter of raising post counts. I know it all, don't I? :-)

Umm, Pooja, about that sales manager's seat with 8 years of experience but 1 year's probation... PERFECT 1-year probation period, I say God damn the HR people at that company know their job perfectly well.

Do let me know the name of that company so I can pat them on their backs.

Allow me to explain, the saga continues like this.

You and I may have 8+ years of experience (yep, 8+) but then if, at a new job, the candidate cannot deliver what is expected for a period of 1 year, there is no use of such a candidate profile on the bench.

What is the company hiring an individual for? Past performance or future expected performance?

If past performance, then expect that company to give you a Rs 500 addition for scoring 10 marks on your 5th standard test also.

If future performance, then who cares about the past? Past is gone, maybe the candidate performed due to good guidance of the senior management and opportunities of that sector at that given period of time. Who knows? And who cares at the current job?

Well, senior or junior, all positions expect you to deliver results, and if for some companies the performance benchmark is a year of deliverable results so be it. New jobs hire you for delivering results, not what benchmarks you made in the past. Hope this clears the doubts of a good reason for probation.

I rest my case here. All above and below replies will be reviewed once a week, so junta feel free to add on your comments.

Hi,

I agree with Pooja that probation is not required after a certain level. People at the entry level of their careers may stick to the probation period, but trying to enforce the probation period for mid-career and top-level managers will only result in underperformance and lack of interest.

Vijetha Kishore

Hi, I don't quite agree with POOJA. PROBATION IS NECESSARY AT WHATEVER LEVEL OF MANAGEMENT. Even top managers are people who are likely to falter in their work. This period prepares one for the task ahead. Sometimes interviews alone are not enough for vetting someone completely. Remember, people are always at their best when it comes to interviews; performance is another issue that leaves question marks needing to be answered during this period.