What do you do if you doubt someone on probation?

Turn the doubt into concrete observations: what works, what does not, on which tasks. A decision on facts is predictable; a decision on a general impression is a lottery.

Why an improvement plan, if it is easier to part ways?

The plan shows whether the problem is really in the person or in the onboarding. Often a couple of checkpoints are enough to tell honestly — and not lose someone who was simply slow to get into the project.

Is this still about recruitment?

It is about the fact that hiring does not end at the offer. If a person leaves during probation, the search starts again. So we help at this stage too — it is part of the cost of hiring.

Who runs the conversation with the employee?

The manager and the team lead. We help gather the facts and frame the criteria, but the assessment and the decision stay with the company — that is its area of responsibility.

Doubts during probation: decide on facts, not feelings

Towards the end of probation the client developed doubts about a developer: "he seems not autonomous enough". On the table lay two equally bad options — part ways on emotion, or drag the uncertainty out hoping it would clear up on its own. We helped choose a third.

A real case from our practice. Names, cities and identifying details are changed and figures are given as ranges (Russian data-protection law); published with the client's consent, any resemblance is coincidental.

Why probation doubts are dangerous to settle on emotion

"Not autonomous enough" is a feeling, not a fact. On that basis you can dismiss a good person who was simply slow to get into an unfamiliar codebase, or keep someone who genuinely is not coping. Until the doubt is broken down into concrete observations, any decision is a lottery, and both sides feel it.

How we moved the question to facts

We gathered structured feedback from the team lead: not "like it or not", but what specifically works, what does not, and on which tasks. We named the growth areas in words the employee could understand. We agreed a short improvement plan with checkpoints — what should change and by when. That gave the conversation a footing: it became clear what was actually being discussed.

What happened

The decision became predictable for both sides. The employee had a clear plan and the criteria they were judged on; the client had grounds for a decision rather than a general impression. Without threats or abrupt moves: the question stopped being personal and became a work matter.

What follows from this

Probation doubts are better worked through with facts and an improvement plan. Then, however it ends — continuation or parting — it is predictable and leaves no resentment. "Autonomy" and "engagement" are worth translating into concrete observations before HR decisions are made on them.

✉

Probation

Doubts about someone on probation?

We will help move the question from feelings to facts: criteria, feedback, a plan. Email [email protected] or message @Vasiliadi on Telegram — we will look at your situation.

Email Anastasia →