The UK’s three-year probations are needless and counterproductive

So you have spent months advertising a role, shortlisting, interviewing, selecting and then negotiating, perhaps even persuading the favoured candidate that you are the best choice among a range of other suitors. And then you place that person on a three-year probation. Does this strike you as odd?

This scenario occurs in UK universities all the time, especially for academic posts in the Russell Group. This is largely because of an agreement between universities and what was then the Association of University Teachers struck way back in the 1970s. Yet the purpose of a sociological imagination is to question things that might seem obvious or just the way things are done. To me, such long probation periods seem highly unusual and counterproductive.

In other industries, even a probationary period as long as one year – as is more typical in post-92 institutions – is extremely unusual, even for very senior roles. Yet in Russell Group universities, three years is common even for permanent entry-level academic posts (which in many fields are already highly competitive). Often, there are also stipulations that this period may be extended further if the employee is not meeting agreed standards. So while those appointed might consider themselves fortunate to have moved beyond temporary postdoctoral contracts, they still have only one foot in the door – and sometimes still can’t get a mortgage.

It is true that, in my several years of sector experience, now in a management role, probation failures are uncommon. But even if people sail through, they rarely do so without considerable personal anxiety. I have seen even very high performers exhibit great relief when their permanent employment is confirmed.

Despite its obvious relevance to universities’ own practice, research about the efficacy of academic probation is hard to find. Most academic literature on probation relates, instead, to criminal offender rehabilitation. And that connotation is part of the problem. Words are powerful. Talk of probation implies that someone might be a risk, requires close monitoring and might need to be reprimanded. It makes them feel unsafe.

Unlike academic probation, there is a fair bit of research on psychological safety. We know that psychologically safe work environments, in which employees feel free to take interpersonal risks, better facilitate the creation of new ideas: precisely the purpose of universities. As a manager and a leader, I rely on constructive challenge to improve my performance and that of my team. Team members need to feel able to deviate from the normal ways things are done and push the boundaries of what is possible. Yet pursuing conformity is exactly what most probationers feel they need to do to be confirmed.

Working on a short leash poses further challenges. A lot can happen in three years. People can have or adopt children, sometimes multiple times. Most of us are likely to fall ill at least once, some of us for an extended period. Those close to us can also become unwell, require long-term care and even die. A diverse team will likely be composed of those with such experiences, and diverse teams are what we want because team performance greatly relies on access to a wide range of knowledge, skills and abilities. Yet such personal challenges, alongside the stress of the probation itself, might overwhelm some people. They might feel less able than regular staff in the same roles to pull away from work commitments to focus on overcoming them.

There are a few easy fixes here. First, let’s stop talking about “probation” and instead talk about “orientation”. This should be about supporting people to do their best work for themselves, their teams and their organisations. It should not be about reminding them that their behaviour and performance is being more closely monitored than that of their colleagues and that it might yet be decided that they are not a good fit.

Second, let’s shorten the length of probation. We know far more about what we are getting from new hires than most sectors do. They typically come with degrees that are highly specific to their role and often have significant research training, too – not to mention passion for their work. So they arguably carry significantly less risk than new hires in other industries, who might have had no prior exposure to the field.

Moreover, dismissals in the first two years of employment are generally not unlawful in the UK (unless through discrimination). So why do we feel the need to reinforce the sense that new hires’ employment is vulnerable by labelling them probationers?

Third, let’s ensure that there are clear expectations of the employer as well as of the employee during the probation period, and that managers are trained to apply the criteria fairly and consistently. A requirement to offer opportunities for development will ensure that the process favours the employee.

By supporting new hires to thrive, rather than just survive, universities will be doing right not only by those new hires but also by the funders and taxpayers who support higher education institutions to be engines of innovation and progress.

The author is a manager at a Russell Group university.