3 ways to automate probation reviews

#1 - The basic check-in

Who it's for: Small businesses running the occasional trial review, where one manager hires a new starter now and then and just needs to record the decision somewhere other than their own memory.

What it is: A probation review is a short, structured check at the end of a trial period that decides whether a new starter stays on. This version is four fields on a phone, arranged in two groups: The starter (their name and their role) and The review (an honest summary of how they are doing against what the role needs, then the decision). Each completion is one dated record of who was reviewed and what was decided.

In practice: Take a four-van plumbing firm. The owner takes on an apprentice on a three-month trial. At the end of it, she opens the canvas, fills in The starter with the apprentice's name and "trainee plumber", then in The review writes a few lines: turns up early, good with customers, still slow on first-fix and needs to own that. Then she picks "Keep on". One dated record, filed the moment the decision was made, instead of a verdict that lived only in her head until payroll asked.

Why it works: The record is the discipline. Forcing the manager to type a summary against what the role needs, and then commit to one of three decisions, turns a vague feeling into something written down and dated. If the decision is ever questioned later, by the new starter, by an adviser, or at a tribunal, there is a contemporaneous note of what was said and when, not a reconstruction made months after the fact.

Steps included:

• The starter group: 2 text inputs (who is being reviewed, their role)
• The review group: 1 text input (how they are doing against expectations), 1 single-choice step (3 options: Keep on, Extend the trial, Not working out)

#2 - With written guidance

Who it's for: Businesses wanting a consistent review every time, where several managers run trials and each one currently does it their own way.

What it is: The same two groups as the basic check-in, but The review group now carries a guidance panel at each end. One sits before the summary prompt and coaches the manager on how to run a fair, two-way conversation. The other sits after the decision and spells out what to do for each of the three outcomes: keeping on, extending, or not working out. A first-time manager running their first review gets the same approach as a department head who has run fifty.

In practice: Take a 30-room hotel with separate heads for housekeeping, front desk, and kitchen. Three managers, three habits. Before, one gave warm chats with no clear outcome and another delivered a one-line verdict at the door. Now all three open the same canvas. The opening panel reminds them to bring specific examples and to let the new starter talk. The closing panel, once the head of kitchen picks "Extend the trial" for a commis chef, prompts him to be specific about what has to change and by when. The reviews stop depending on which manager you happened to get.

What it adds to the basic check-in:

1. A "how to run a fair review" panel at the start of The review group, prompting examples over gut feel and a two-way conversation.
2. A "what to do for each decision" panel at the end of The review group, giving a clear next action for keep on, extend, and not working out.
3. A consistent approach across managers without anyone having to be briefed in person before each review.

Why it works: Written guidance sits inline at the moment the manager is about to act. The "run it fairly" panel is on screen as the conversation is being framed, and the "what to do next" panel appears the instant the decision is picked, when the manager is deciding how to deliver it. It is not a policy document filed in a drive that nobody opens. It is on the screen at the moment of the task.

Steps included:

• The starter group: 2 text inputs (who is being reviewed, their role)
• The review group: 1 guidance panel (how to run a fair review), 1 text input (how they are doing against expectations), 1 single-choice step (decision), 1 guidance panel (what to do for each decision)

#3 - With sign-off

Who it's for: Businesses needing a signed record from both sides, where a review going wrong could end up in front of an adviser or a tribunal.

What it is: The basic check-in plus two on-screen signatures captured at the end of The review group: the reviewing manager signs, and then the team member signs. The team member is not signing that they agree with everything, only that the conversation took place. There is no guidance here, just the same two groups as the basic check-in with a manager signature and a team member signature added to the close of the review. Three parts on a single record: the typed summary, the decision, and two signatures, all captured in the room.

In practice: Take a regional cleaning contractor with eight teams across two counties. End-of-trial reviews are run by supervisors who rarely meet head office. Before, a "not working out" decision sometimes came back as "nobody ever told me", with no proof the conversation had happened. Now every review ends with the supervisor signing on the touchscreen, then handing the phone to the team member to sign. When one ex-starter later disputes their exit, head office pulls the record: a dated summary, the decision, and two signatures from the day. The dispute closes on the record instead of one word against another.

What it adds to the basic check-in:

1. A manager signature step at the end of The review group.
2. A team member signature step confirming the conversation took place, captured on the same touchscreen straight after.
3. A record signed by both sides, so a "this never happened" challenge meets a dated, two-way signed proof.

Why it works: The two signatures are what close the loop. The summary and the decision say a review happened and what was decided. The manager signature adds: I ran this and stand behind it. The team member signature adds: and I was in the room for it. Captured on the same device, at the same moment, in the same record, the two together are what an adviser or a tribunal expects to see when a trial ends in a hard call.

Steps included:

• The starter group: 2 text inputs (who is being reviewed, their role)
• The review group: 1 text input (how they are doing against expectations), 1 single-choice step (decision), 1 signature step (manager), 1 signature step (team member)

How to pick the right version

You do not need to know how the canvas builder works to pick the right version. You only need to answer two questions about how your team runs.

Is it just you running this, or do other people run it too?

If it is just you, the basic check-in (#1) is enough. You know how to run a fair conversation and you do not need the canvas to coach you through it.

If anyone else runs reviews (other managers, site supervisors, a growing team of leads), guidance (#2) is what stops the reviews depending on which manager you happened to get. You write it once; every manager reads it inline as they run the review.

Do you need proof the conversation happened, not just a written record of it?

If a decision is unlikely to be challenged, the typed record is enough. Stick with #1 or #2.

If a decision could later be disputed, by the new starter, an adviser, or at a tribunal, sign-off (#3) is the lock. Two signatures close the loop with a contemporaneous confirmation from both the manager and the team member, on the same record as the summary and the decision.

Need both guidance and sign-off? Open whichever matters more in the playground and add the other's steps yourself. That is how the product works anyway: every option here is the same review with steps added.

Related workflows

• Exit interviews
• Anonymous feedback
• Customer complaint log
• Job completion sign-off

Conclusion

A probation review is a short, structured check at the end of a trial that records who was reviewed, how they did against the role, and the decision to keep them, extend, or let them go. The version built for scrutiny ends every review with two signatures, so a disputed decision is met with dated, two-way proof instead of one word against another.

Pick the version that matches how your team runs today, not the most sophisticated one you can imagine running someday. Open each template in the playground above and try it on your next end-of-trial review.

→ Build your own probation review on Pilla.