Academic Probation Periods
Background to length of probation periods
The probation period for academic staff across institutions is markedly different to other categories
of staff, and to other occupations outside the Higher Education sector. The extended length of the
probationary period in universities is the result of the Academic and Related Salaries Settlement
which was an agreement made in 1974 between the University Authorities Panel and the
Association of University Teachers (AUT).
The working party that formed the agreement stated that the purpose of academic probation was
to decide, at the end of the probationary period whether a member of staff should be retained, and
that this decision is based upon "the long-term interests of the university itself, of the other
members of its staff, and of its students". The working group set out several criteria that a
probationer was expected to satisfy:
•
The probationer must have satisfactorily performed all teaching, tutorial, and supervisory
work assigned to him/her.
•
The probationer must have satisfactorily engaged in the research work in his/her subject.
•
The probationer must have properly carried out all examination and administrative duties
assigned to him/her.
•
The probationer must have shown promise, through his/her work, of continuing
development as teacher and scholar.
It was decided that in practice, evaluating whether a probationer satisfied such criteria would take at
least three years, although it was possible for it to take just one or two in rare, exceptional, cases.
Also stipulated by the agreement was the fact that completion of academic probation at one
university should count towards probation at other institutions, and that it was unreasonable to
impose second or third probationary periods.
However, this stipulation does not cover the shorter, one year, probationary period used by
universities that came after the FHA Act 1992. That shorter period resulted from a 1990/1991
agreement between teaching unions and the then polytechnics and colleges that were later to
become universities under the Act. It was modified by various local agreements with individual
institutions. In such universities, the focus of academic probation is less upon the performance in
research and other scholarly work, and more related to performance in teaching. In these cases the
universities typically require several formal observations of a probationer's teaching practices, for
assessment and review.
Currently 70% of Russell Group Universities continue to operate a probation period of between 3
and 5 years duration (the vast majority being of 3 years duration). Some universities (e.g. Leeds,
Newcastle) have adopted a 2 year probation period.
The Task and Finish Group expressed a majority view that probation and promotion should be decoupled and that probation should consist of a 2 year period for E & R staff, consistent with current
employment legislation qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims (Employment Rights Act 1996). It
should be noted, however, that there are significant exceptions to the general rule that two years'
service is required to claim unfair dismissal, as there are other claims linked to dismissal which have
no qualifying service requirement such as a claim that the dismissal was discriminatory. This means
that close scrutiny should be given to the reason for, and circumstances of, dismissal. It could be
tempting to fast track dismissal processes where the individual has less than two years' service,
however it is important that employers are mindful of the fact that there are exceptions to the
general principle and that additional protections provided to some categories of
individual. Employers should therefore always apply a robust process to terminating employment,
regardless of the length of service, and keep an appropriate record in order to demonstrate that the
reason for dismissal was not unlawful.
Recommendation: Determining the appropriate length of probation should therefore relate to the
criteria to be applied and what it would take to reasonably assess whether the criteria had been
met. It would therefore be prudent to agree the criteria first and then consider what a reasonable
time period would be to conduct an assessment of suitability before coming to a firm view about
the length of probation for this category of staff.
The purpose of probation
Currently there is no clear written statement set out for Exeter academic staff regarding the purpose
of probation, although the Terms and Conditions of Employment Probation statement does set out
periods of probation and procedure. Lecturers in Education and Research Job Family are treated
differently as they are informed that they are “initially appointed to a Professional Development
Programme (PDP) of up to five years and their appointment and progression to Senor Lecturer status
will be confirmed upon successful completion of the programmes”. It is recommended that the
process of probation and promotion for this staff group should be de-coupled to reduce the period
of uncertainty in employment stability for newly appointed staff and to ensure that the different
objectives of PDP and probation can be more appropriately and effectively addressed.
Recommendation: For the benefit of all staff it is recommended that a clear statement of the
purpose of probation should be set out to ensure that both probationers and those overseeing
their probationary period are clear about the focus of the process. Two examples of probation
statements are set out below:
Example 1 “The Probation process is a clear framework for assessing an individual’s capabilities,
reliability and suitability in respect of appointment and ensuring that probationary staff are given the
necessary support, guidance and appropriate professional development to carry out the role
effectively and to become a fully effective member of their department/college and of the
institution”.
Example 2 “The primary purpose of Probation is to:
-provide a period of development to enable them to gain appropriate experience, with advice and
guidance from senior colleagues in order for them to achieve the agreed standards and objectives.
-ensure that the individual staff member is able to work effectively as a member of the School team
in contributing to the School Plan.
Such a statement would make it clear that a process will be applied which involves assessment of
suitability of newly appointed lecturers in E&R focussed on meeting at least minimum performance
levels for teaching and research at lecturer level. This could differentiate the process from
promotion where a Balanced Scorecard approach could be adopted.
Operating a de-coupled probation process
The current PDP programme arrangements for Lecturers in the Education and Research Career
Pathway involves an academic mentor being assigned to each new Lecturer and meeting with the
Lecturer within the first three months of their appointment to agree a structured programme of
professional development . Guidance provided suggests using the documentation for PDR to
structure this discussion. Regular meetings are then held to provide ongoing support. The new
employee participates in the annual Performance and Development Review (PDR) process alongside
their probationary reviews.A formal interim review is conducted by the College Dean after 3 years
and then a final review is conducted after 5 years.
It is clearly desirable that management processes are effective but not over-bureaucratic .There is a
danger in decoupling current processes that multiple process of review are established taking place
concurrently with no clear connection made between them (i.e. PDR, PDP, Probation review). This
could prove confusing and onerous for those involved in the process.
It is recommended that during the E & R probation period these processes are conflated and a
document is produced which incorporates a probation record which relates to performance
against minimum criteria, and a development programme which has two component parts: 1.
Development and support for probation. 2. Development and support for promotion. The new
process would need to be mapped out and clear definition of roles should be set out so that
responsibility for implementing the process is clearly defined and communicated.
Some Universities have implemented changes, driven by HR, to ensure that the probation process is
more properly managed. For example: training for reviewers, improving the quality of information
on the probation processes, providing probation reminders, monitoring outputs by co-located HR
leads, web-based guidance on objective setting. These changes are reported to have been successful
in ensuring that the process is more effective. It is therefore recommended that a review of the HR
role in probation is conducted as part of any changes implemented.