Probationary period review

[MB911]

Hi all,
Our company has a standard 6 month probationary period for all new starters. It is designed to have progress meetings at 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks with the line manager and employee going through progress and signing off on various areas of their performance.
It turns out that a middle level manager has now been with us for just short of three months and has not had any of the reviews so far. It looks like the line managing director has now asked about this after the two of them had a very low level 'conversation and disagreement' over some lines of communications.
Looking at it, the employee wasn't advised of the reviews being required to take place and so has said they shouldn't be held to them on this basis half way through the probation period.
There is a concern that the Director could be using this as reason to criticise because of this specific event.
My question is, is the procedure null and void if two of the 4 meetings have been missed out?
The employee is also saying that they have had a lack of support from the director and less than promised access to him so has had to get on with things as best they can. I have sympathy for them on this as we are going through a structural change in various departments and people are getting pulled in different directions.
I would be thinking that a revised probationary action should be taken due to the oversight and perhaps both sides should be able to comment more fully on the action areas rather than going through the 6 weekly tick box exercise?

Any thoughts most welcome

 

[Newchodge]

The procedure is not null and void.

The person at fault is the person who should have carried out the reviews, not the probationary employee.

There is a need for proper supervision of the new employee and fair and frank discussion of any problems, with a documented plan for any identified improvements.

 

[MB911]

Does this then mean that those reviews that have been missed are just left out and the next review is simply made to cover the whole period to that point? The concern for me here is that, if the new employee has not been given a review as per the correct schedule, and therefore had no option to make comment or see if any improvement points would have been raised at 6 or 12 weeks, can an 18 week review really hold its validity as there is blame on the reviewing manager not to have raised anything in the previous period. I'm obviously guessing that something could be raised, it may not though. I will find out once the paperwork is filled in and sent down to file

 

[Newchodge]

Can I ask what your role is in this?

 

[MB911]

I'm a senior manager who is appointed as mentor to the employee in question, I therefore am here to assist and oversee what happens during their integration to the company but want to clarify what is happening here before discussing it internally further

 

[carl.atkinson]

It looks like the business has failed to apply the correct procedure. My advice would be to try to get the situation back "on track" by agreeing a way forward with the employee. That could be one review covering the whole period to date or something else entirely - they key point would be to agree a way to regularise the situation and put the employee in a position where it will be difficult for he/she to argue that the business has failed to comply with the contractual obligations to support and train

There is some learning here for the business about how these review are recorded and monitored.

Best wishes

 

[billmccallum1957]

A simplistic viewpoint would be that the Director has let things go awry, if one of his/her roles is to undertake periodic review, but fails miserably, then the MD needs to sort him/her out and get things back on track, but need to ensure new employee is not penalised for the failures of others.

 

[obscure]

Al employees (including Directors and Managers) have tasks and responsibilities as part of their employment.

A new employee is required to do as instructed by their managers. If they are doing something wrong they would be expected to remedy once informed of the problem.

A manager is responsible for managing their employees and communicating with them. Your company has a specific probation/review system in place to help ensure this happens. Conducting these reviews is the responsibility of the management and as such they have failed to do their job. - This needs to be addressed by their line manager or HR.

Given thet the specific job the management failed to perform is to hold an appraisal and inform the staff member of any performance issues it is hardly fair to penalise the employee over these issues.

The remaining meetings should be held in accordance with company policy but the first of these should be treated as if it is the first such meeting (which of course it is). Inform the staff member of any issues in a positive way and then monitor properly going forward.

 

[The Byre]

I'm a senior manager who is appointed as mentor to the employee in question, I therefore am here to assist and oversee what happens during their integration to the company but want to clarify what is happening here before discussing it internally further

1. So in the end, if what you say is true, it is down to you!

2. You are talking here about internal company procedures (games?) and it would appear that it was your job to get them right, or at least to spot what was happening when they were not adhered to.

3. This smells of a lot of silly box-ticking and possibly some junior managers do not take this exercise in what that possibly regard as futility, seriously.

4. It is not unusual in larger companies, for someone in charge to start thinking more like a civil servant and less like a business manager and introduce structure and procedure where none is required (or even where such measures are destructive). In your role as senior manager, you might like to think about the possibility of replacing "progress meetings at 6, 12, 18 and 24 weeks with the line manager and employee going through progress and signing off on various areas of their performance" with some common sense.