Mind the confidence gap! How to make a success of probationary periods

In our recent Brightmine webinar, which explored the impact of the forthcoming legal change and how organisations can better support managers, more than one-third (38.4%) of organisations said the change could increase the risk of disputes or employment tribunal claims. This risk is underpinned by the limited preparation given to line managers, despite their central role in probation outcomes.

This piece explores insights from the Brightmine probationary period research and webinar discussions, examining how probation is currently managed in practice and the support managers need to succeed.

A manager-dependent process?

Our recent webinar revealed a recurring theme: probation is not defined by the quality of an organisation’s written policy, but by how effectively individual managers apply the process and use it as a genuine development tool.

Many pointed out that probation, on its own, does not determine whether an employee is a successful hire – it is the manager’s judgment that makes the difference. As one attendee noted: “I’m not sure that probationary periods are what determines whether someone is a good, bad or indifferent hire. It’s the manager who makes that call – and the more capable the manager, the better the outcome.” When managed well, probation can deliver real value, but only if managers set expectations early, hold regular check-ins and follow the process consistently. Without this, outcomes risk reflecting managerial style more than organisational intent.

Or, as one contributor summarised it pithily: “Probation is only as good as the line manager who applies it.”

The confidence gap

This is where the organisational blind spot lies. While organisations acknowledge that probation is heavily manager-dependent, too few are equipping managers with the skills or confidence to deliver it effectively. This gap is starkly evident in our data.

From our survey of 349 organisations, line manager training emerged as one of the least used approaches to probation, with fewer than half of organisations offering it. At the same time, employers reported that their top challenge was managers’ lack of confidence in giving feedback.

The numbers reinforce the point:

This is the confidence gap. Organisations recognise that managers are struggling with the skills and time to manage probation well, yet fewer than half (45.5%) invest in targeted training that would directly build managers’ capability.

What failure looks like in practice

The confidence gap is not just theoretical, it plays out in the day-to-day reality of probation. When line managers lack the right training and support, the probation process drifts from a structured and developmental tool to a reactive exercise. In practice, this can mean:

• Structured check-ins are skipped or inconsistently applied, leaving employees without clarity on expectations and progress.
• Managers hesitate to address underperformance early, allowing issues to escalate rather than be managed constructively.
• Meetings and support are poorly documented, exposing organisations to appeals and legal risks.
• Reviews are delayed until dismissal or when extension is already on the table, meaning opportunities for support are lost.

Left unaddressed, these practices weaken probation outcomes, undermine fairness for employees and expose organisations to greater risk.

Best practice in managing probation

Drawing on best practice guidance, the Brightmine probationary period line manager training guide recommends:

Probation must be recognised as a developmental process built on dialogue. For employees, it provides a fair chance to succeed; for organisations, an opportunity to assess fit. Yet, the reality is that the success of probation ultimately depends on line managers having the confidence and skills to manage it well.

Probation really is only as good as the line manager who applies it.