Rethinking the concept of probation period
I have a different take on the concept of the probation period. This could basically be a legacy left behind by the British decades ago. In the good old days, customer databases, communication, etc., were manual or depended on printed documents. With the explosion of modes of communication changing the way we connect with people, the probation period for experienced individuals should not be mandatory for six months. Probation is required for those who are completely new to the workforce, i.e., from campus to corporate. However, for those with work experience shifting from one job to another, why have a probation period at all? If a person with 5 years of experience in sales changes jobs, how much time does he require to get to know the customer base, organization culture, processes, systems, etc.? One month? In an era where people are tech-savvy, why does one need six months to prove their skills? Are we not using the probation period as an excuse for poor performance?
The need for change in probation periods
In a time of rapid change, where we emphasize speed in processors in PCs, mobile phones, connectivity, pizza delivery, 108 ambulance services, why not expect a newcomer to an organization to perform and prove themselves within one or two months? I am opening a Pandora's box here for people to share their opinions.
Case study: Logistics firm in Doha
Last January, I was in Doha, Qatar, advising a 30-year-old logistics firm. They had an issue with employees leaving at short notice, even within the six-month probation period, despite having vast experience in their roles. I suggested reducing the probation period to just one month to assess the person's abilities. They were pleased with my recommendation.
Best wishes