Posted on: 15/07/2026

Thought Leadership

The forthcoming changes to unfair dismissal rights are prompting many organisations to rethink how they manage probationary periods. Lorna Wells explores whether the real issue is probation itself, or the need for stronger people management from day one. She considers the implications for HR professionals, recruitment, onboarding and employee development, arguing that continuous support and fair performance management create better outcomes for both employees and organisations.

By Lorna Wells, LLM FCIPD, principal HR consultant at West Midlands Employers

You get the inevitable phone call……

Five and a half months into a six month probationary period, a manager tells you they are not happy with a new employee’s performance and want to end the contract on the basis that they have not passed probation.

A few questions later, the familiar picture emerges. There has been no clarity on expectations, no regular or documented reviews, issues have not been highlighted, and no support or targets have been introduced. The employee has had a lot of absence, but this has not been discussed as an issue. The list goes on.

For many HR professionals, this scenario is all too familiar. The difference is that we have now entered the window where the reduction in the qualifying period for unfair dismissal will have a real impact. New employees starting a traditional six month probationary period will be entitled to claim unfair dismissal if they are dismissed after 1 January 2027.

Are we asking the right question?

There has been much discussion about the importance of tightening up and changing the way in which probationary periods are managed. Is this really the answer? Will simply asking managers to bring forward reviews work if they are not effectively supporting, reviewing and managing new employees now?

Much of the debate has focused on how probationary periods should be managed under the new framework. But perhaps this is the wrong question. If organisations are not effectively managing performance, attendance and conduct from day one now, will simply shortening timescales or increasing the number of probation reviews really solve the problem? The challenge is not that probationary periods are disappearing. The challenge is that many organisations have relied upon them as a substitute for effective people management.

A case for a more disciplined approach

A dominant view is that as unfair dismissal protection moves much closer to the start of employment, employers need a structured mechanism to assess suitability, set expectations and address concerns early. Rather than being a formality, probation becomes a disciplined assessment period with regular reviews, documented feedback and clear decision points.

The problem still remains that where probation is treated as a tick-box exercise, it holds no value. There is also no longer the two-year “safety net”. It goes without saying that, as HR professionals, our view would always be that length of service should not influence how people matters are dealt with. Performance should be supported, issues should be appropriately addressed and managed, and any termination of contract should follow a fair procedure.

Where probation is to be used as an effective people management strategy, the new ERA provisions lead to the argument that: • probation should be shorter and more structured;

• Managers should conduct formal review meetings;
• Poor performance or other issues should be identified and addressed quickly;
• Decisions about employment should be made within the specified policy and properly evidenced.

Is probation the issue?

A more provocative view is that probation is largely artificial.

After all, there is no statutory requirement for probation periods. They are contractual arrangements created by employers. Probation does and never has removed protection from discrimination, whistleblowing, trade union detriment, health and safety activities, pregnancy related dismissals, or other automatically unfair reasons.

Advocates of this view argue:

• Good performance management should begin immediately.
• Expectations should be clear from the recruitment stage.
• Regular feedback should occur throughout employment.
• Employees should not experience a sudden switch from "probation management" to "normal management."

In other words:

 "If your performance management system only works during probation, your performance management system isn't working." 

In all likelihood many dismissals before a 6-month period of employment will not have given sufficient time to address many issues and support development in the role.

Moving towards a continuous assessment

This does not mean that early support is unimportant. Establishing a sound grounding for new employees is crucial to success. Perhaps rather that a formal “probationary period” a better model could be a move towards a continuous assessment model.

Such an approach could include the following as a skeleton outline:

e advantage is that everyone receives the same management approach. It would still leave room for decisions relating to more serious matters to be addressed if they are done so promptly.

This model is increasingly aligned with contemporary thinking on employee experience and high-performance cultures, where feedback is continuous rather than episodic.

Recruitment, onboarding and Public Sector realities

A final consideration is whether the real issue is not probation at all. Before redesigning probation processes, organisations should also ask a more fundamental question: is the quality of recruitment and assessment of suitability at that stage sufficient?

The CIPD has repeatedly emphasised the need for stronger recruitment processes, clearer role requirements, realistic job previews and better onboarding.

The reality is that poor hiring decisions create probation problems.

No amount of review meetings or documentation can fully compensate for unclear job requirements, weak selection processes or inadequate onboarding.If recruitment, induction, onboarding and early support are improved, the need to rely on probation as a risk management mechanism decreases significantly.

This is a particularly relevant point for public sector organisations struggling with recruitment and retention. At a time when recruitment markets remain challenging, skills shortages persist and organisations are competing heavily for talent, employers must balance risk management with creating an attractive and supportive employee experience.

From probation to supported transition

It is also important to create a collaborative onboarding experience. Do we stop talking about "probation" altogether.

The language of probation can imply negativity and foster mistrust and a feeling of surveillance. It does not always build an environment which allows employees to thrive.

Moving towards a culture where the first six to twelve months become, a supported transition period with coaching conversations, wellbeing checks, skills development and clear objective setting

Performance concerns are still managed, but within a framework focused on success rather than assessment.

This aligns strongly with public sector values around development, inclusion and employee wellbeing.

The future debate

No matter whether an employee has been employed for six months or six years, consistency in treatment, fairness and following the correct procedure to address and manage issues is at the heart of the employee relations side of HR.

Whether organisations retain probationary periods or move towards a model of continuous assessment and development, one principle remains unchanged. Fairness, consistency and good people management should not begin when an employee reaches a particular length of service.

The Employment Rights reforms may force employers to confront an uncomfortable truth: probationary periods have often compensated for weaknesses elsewhere in the employment relationship. Organisations that thrive in the new landscape are likely to be those that stop viewing probation as a standalone process and instead focus on getting the fundamentals right from day one, recruiting effectively, setting clear expectations, providing meaningful support, addressing concerns early and managing performance consistently throughout employment.

Ultimately, the future debate may not be about how we manage probation better. It may be about whether we need probation at all.