Probationary period research 2025

Author: Vernujaa Nagandiram

With the Employment Rights Bill set to strengthen day-one rights, probationary periods are under greater scrutiny. We explore how organisations are responding and reflect on the challenges they face in making probation both fair and effective.

Probationary periods have long been used by organisations as a structured way to assess whether new employees are suited to their roles. The forthcoming Employment Rights Bill brings a new focus on how probation is managed. The Bill proposes the removal of the current two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal, replacing it with day-one protection from dismissal and the introduction of a statutory probation period. As a result, employers may need to update their probation policies and practices, placing a greater emphasis on how performance will be managed and on the "lighter-touch" dismissal procedure that will apply during this period.

This report explores how organisations are responding to these approaching changes and reflects on the challenges employers face due to tightening probation practices.  Our HR & Compliance Centre research is based on the probationary period survey, which collected insights from 349 organisations, representing 1,017,292 employees. 

Probation today: structures and practices

Most organisations use a six-month probationary period, with around six in 10 employers favouring this timeframe (62.2%). Just over a quarter (28.4%) prefer three months, while very few extend beyond this to nine (0.6%) or 12 months (0.9%). Only a small minority have no probationary period at all (4.3%).

To support new hires, organisations are making use of a range of measures. The extension process for underperformance is the most prevalent practice, used by more than eight in 10 organisations. Other widely adopted practices include a formal end-of-probation review and structured review points during probation, both of which ensure regular performance monitoring and early intervention where issues arise.

In contrast, formal training and guidance for line managers on probation management is less common, used by fewer than half of organisations. Similarly, pre-probation checklists or onboarding guidance are used by only one-third of employers. While these tools can help set clear expectations and support new hires to integrate quickly, it appears that they are widely underused and perhaps underestimated. This highlights an opportunity for organisations to place greater emphasis on structured onboarding as part of probation to ensure both managers and employees are well prepared.

Chart 1: Current approaches to managing and assessing probationary periods for new employees  

There are a range of key challenges that organisations are currently facing when managing probation. The most common relates to line managers, particularly around confidence and the consistency of the probationary process. This is further underlined by the finding that only 35.6% of employers feel that their managers are confident in handling underperformance during probation, pointing to a gap in skills and support. Without this confidence, probation risks becoming a missed opportunity to address issues early and ensure fairness in decision making.

Fewer respondents identified challenges around a lack of tools or resources to support the process (7.5%); legal uncertainty around dismissals (6.9%); probation not being seen as a strategic priority (10.5%); or the difficulty of ending employment during the probationary period (11.4%). While mentioned less often, these areas remain important considerations for some organisations.

Chart 2: Top three challenges organisations face in managing probationary periods for new employees  

Probation effectiveness and outcomes

Overall, probation is widely seen as an effective mechanism for assessing new hires, with more than seven in 10 organisations (77.6%) agreeing that it serves this purpose. More than half (56.9%) also believe it reduces the risk of poor hiring decisions.

This is reflected in current probationary outcomes, where extensions are more common than terminations. Extensions are frequent, with 78.4% of organisations extending probation periods at least occasionally, while 17.1% rarely or never do so. In comparison, 65.0% of organisations have terminated employment during probation, but almost one-third (30.5%) report they rarely or never take this step.

Fewer terminations than extensions during probation may reflect effective screening at the recruitment stage. However, it could also suggest some hesitancy to act on poor fit, with underperformance in certain cases perhaps being managed through extensions rather than dismissal. This perspective is reinforced by the fact that 43.1% of organisations are neutral or disagree that their probation process reduces the risk of poor hiring decisions. As the Employment Rights Bill places greater emphasis on fairness and clarity in probation, organisations may benefit from reviewing how consistently their processes are applied, ensuring extensions are used purposefully and not as a substitute for timely decisions on long-term fit.

Chart 3: Frequency of probation extensions and terminations

Readiness for the Employment Rights Bill

With the Employment Rights Bill set to introduce statutory requirements for probation, many organisations are adopting a "wait and see" approach. Only one in five (19.5%) have already begun reviewing or drafting updated policies. The majority either plan to act closer to implementation (35.8%) or are still monitoring developments (37.2%). A smaller group, (7.4%) currently have no plans in place.

Looking ahead: risks and opportunities

A sizeable proportion of employers expect challenges under the Employment Rights Bill. More than one-third (38.4%) believe the changes could increase the risk of disputes or tribunal claims, while many remain unsure (31.5%).

The Bill therefore represents both risk and an opportunity. If probation processes become overly compliance-driven, there is a risk they lose their value as a tool for assessing new hires. Managed well, however, probation can act as a safety net against poor hiring decisions and a foundation for long-term employee success.

Analysis of open-text responses highlights the areas employers view as the most critical to get right during probation under the Employment Rights Bill, reflecting both compliance pressures and opportunities to strengthen practice:

• Clear expectations. With the Employment Rights Bill strengthening day-one rights, organisations see clarity as non-negotiable. Setting "clear objectives in regard to performance, behaviours and attitude from the start" ensures employees understand expectations and reduces the risk of disputes.
• Manager capability. The Bill increases pressure on line managers, whose confidence and consistency will determine whether probation supports fair outcomes or creates legal risk. As one person noted, "line managers must get better at conducting difficult conversations and not accepting sub-standard performance during probationary periods." 
• Performance management. Employers highlighted the need for proactive management, with many stressing that issues should be addressed transparently by "monitoring performance from the start" rather than waiting until review points.
• Process and documentation. To evidence fairness and protect against disputes, employers underlined the importance of "clear evidence-based paperwork" to demonstrate compliance if challenged.
• Regular reviews and feedback. Organisations recognised that the Employment Rights Bills could heighten scrutiny of how fairly probation is managed. Structured one-to-ones were therefore seen as essential. Employees should know how they are progressing and that there are "no surprises at the end of the probationary period."
• Employee support. Organisations emphasised that probation should not feel like a trap, but rather an opportunity to coach and support employees.
• Training and communication. Employers highlighted that written policies are not enough under the new Bill. They stressed the need for "training and guidance for managers to ensure effective reviews" so that compliance with the Employment Rights Bill also enhances employee experience.
• Legal compliance. Employers emphasised the value for robust, accessible policies to "mitigate significant increases in tribunal applications" and ensure dismissals are handled fairly.
• Right hire. It was acknowledged that probation cannot compensate for poor recruitment. As one person noted: "Hiring the right person is a major factor in whether an individual is successful in their probation," while another cautioned that "hiring the wrong one is even more costly than it was."

Chart 4: Key themes employers see as most important to get right during probation under the Employment Rights Bill

Preparing for the Employment Rights Bill

Probationary periods are widely viewed as a useful tool for assessing new hires and supporting decision making. Poll results from a recent Brightmine webinar reflect this: most employers (47.2%) reported they typically know within three months whether a hire is right, underlining the importance of early structure and review. Meanwhile, 36.1% of organisations consider their probationary periods as "effective", while almost half (44.4%) describe them as "somewhat effective." This suggests that although probation works in principle, there is clear scope to make outcomes more consistent.

With the extension of unfair dismissal protection to all employees from day-one and the accompanying introduction of a statutory probationary period due to take effect in 2027, organisations have time to refine their probation policies and prepare managers, ensuring that these processes are both compliant and effective.

Our research

Related resources

• Probation policy
• Probationary periods - line manager training
• How to manage probationary periods