hi!!
This is more of an ethical issue than a professional one. It is upto the department head to understand how to train his team to make them perform to his expectations. For eg. in IT it is almost impossible to expect a fresh BE graduate with absolutely no exposure to programming to start developing complicated algorithms in his first week of duty without any training.
The probation period itself is to help the employer and the employee match each other 's expectations. In this case the employer should wait till the probation period is over and then decide whether to confirm the services of the employee or not. This is what is usually mentioned in standard appointment letters also. So the employee will also be well aware of the fact that he will be asked to leave if he doesnt perform in the given time. If the organisation is not in a financial position to wait for the same, then it should not hire a candidate who will not meet their expectations.
My point here is that the employee should be given a realistic amount of time to perform and this should be communicated to the employee at the time of joining. Terminating an employee during probation is pretty unethical and will ensure that the attrition rate of the company will shoot up and reduce the overall morale of other employees.
This is what we experienced in my previous company. One of the employees was asked to resign within 3 months(during probation) though she was not a below average performer per say (management decision of course). I (as the HR) did try fighting tooth and nail for her retention with the management and I was given the answer that the organisation is not there for charity. I did not say anything further but knew that this will spell further trouble. The employee left with tears in her eyes becoz she was the only earning member of the family. But within a very short span of time she got an excellent break with a leading IT company. What she did was refer all our key players here to her new company. In the process the company lost not only the so called non performer but also most of its star performers. This in fact made the company in a financialy worse position. Had they retained her the loss wouldve been much lesser than what it is today!!
well think about this ...
Regards,
Prathitha
This is more of an ethical issue than a professional one. It is upto the department head to understand how to train his team to make them perform to his expectations. For eg. in IT it is almost impossible to expect a fresh BE graduate with absolutely no exposure to programming to start developing complicated algorithms in his first week of duty without any training.
The probation period itself is to help the employer and the employee match each other 's expectations. In this case the employer should wait till the probation period is over and then decide whether to confirm the services of the employee or not. This is what is usually mentioned in standard appointment letters also. So the employee will also be well aware of the fact that he will be asked to leave if he doesnt perform in the given time. If the organisation is not in a financial position to wait for the same, then it should not hire a candidate who will not meet their expectations.
My point here is that the employee should be given a realistic amount of time to perform and this should be communicated to the employee at the time of joining. Terminating an employee during probation is pretty unethical and will ensure that the attrition rate of the company will shoot up and reduce the overall morale of other employees.
This is what we experienced in my previous company. One of the employees was asked to resign within 3 months(during probation) though she was not a below average performer per say (management decision of course). I (as the HR) did try fighting tooth and nail for her retention with the management and I was given the answer that the organisation is not there for charity. I did not say anything further but knew that this will spell further trouble. The employee left with tears in her eyes becoz she was the only earning member of the family. But within a very short span of time she got an excellent break with a leading IT company. What she did was refer all our key players here to her new company. In the process the company lost not only the so called non performer but also most of its star performers. This in fact made the company in a financialy worse position. Had they retained her the loss wouldve been much lesser than what it is today!!
well think about this ...
Regards,
Prathitha