There is also a lack of regular, structured performance reviews during probation, and feedback is not always provided in a timely, balanced, or evidence-based way. Not working optimally with or feeling undermined by—a single colleague should not, in itself, equate to dismissal, particularly in an environment where there is no clear parity in ways of working across roles and disciplines. This dynamic can unintentionally create “demi-god” status for certain individuals, where subjective opinion outweighs objective delivery outcomes.
It is possible to deliver strong work, contribute consistently to the programme, and maintain positive working relationships with the wider client and delivery teams, yet be informed very close to the end of a six-month probation period—sometimes just days before—that you have not passed. This can occur without clear, documented concerns, agreed improvement actions, or transparent evidence, and in some cases based primarily on the opinion of a single colleague (e.g a Principle UX lead undermining BA output).
This approach can come as a significant shock and feels misaligned with a fair, supportive performance culture. More upfront performance management, regular check-ins, and structured feedback, particularly during probation, would give individuals the opportunity to address issues early, understand expectations, and succeed, while also supporting Triad in making more consistent and defensible decisions. Otherwise you end up with colleagues who are just echo chambers and you lose diversity of thought - which is crucial to innovation!
I've seen this happen a few times and it's uncomfortable to witness.
