Banishment in the workplace just got more tricky
Simon Allison says good leaders should try channeling Claudia Winkleman when managing new employees
If you’ve watched BBC1’s The Traitors, you’ll know it’s a workplace team-building exercise gone spectacularly wrong. Faithfuls try to collaborate while Traitors quietly sabotage them. There’s paranoia, whispering and dramatic cloak-swishing. A fairly accurate depiction of some offices on a really, really bad day.
From 1 January 2027, employees will be able to challenge their workplace “banishment” much earlier – as the Employment Rights Act 2025 is due to reduce the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. Similarly, employers will have considerably less time to make a decision before “the round table”. For leaders, that puts the spotlight on how they manage new employees.
In light of this change, managers must place a new emphasis on trust and culture. In The Traitors, suspicion spreads faster than staff-room gossip. The same happens in workplaces when communication is poor or leadership inconsistent. Transparency and fairness are more effective than hoods and secret meetings in the Traitor’s Turret.
Good leadership starts with explaining what success looks like. New employees need clear priorities, support and regular conversations about progress. They should know where they stand without interpreting their manager’s ominous silence over breakfast.
With a shorter qualifying period, leaders cannot leave probation management to a calendar reminder at month six. Arrange early reviews, give specific feedback and follow up. “I’m 100 per cent Faithful” is not a substitute for assessing performance. Self-assessment has its limits.
Claudia Winkleman somehow stays composed and fabulous while everyone else implodes. Managers could learn from that calm authority. Openness and fairness breed trust. Mystery and fear breed chaos.
When concerns arise, explain the problem, listen to the employee’s perspective and consider what support could help. “You’re not quite the right fit” is about as useful as “You’ve got Traitor energy”. Neither tells someone what to do differently on Monday.
Good leaders have difficult conversations early enough for employees to act on them. They recognise improvement and record progress. An employee should not discover months of unspoken concerns in their dismissal meeting.
That includes resisting groupthink. At The Traitors’ round table, a confident theory quickly becomes fact. Speaking up is defensive. Staying quiet is suspicious. Crying is manipulative. Not crying is worse.
Leaders should not outsource their judgement to the loudest person in the room. Once someone is labelled “difficult”, every reasonable question becomes defiance, every explanation an excuse.
Before reaching a conclusion, take a step back. What evidence supports the concern? Have you spoken to the employee and heard their account? A view repeated often enough can start to sound like a fact, but good leaders test assumptions before acting on them.
The move to a six-month qualifying period makes these conversations more important than ever. Employers will have less time to identify concerns, provide feedback and support improvement before ordinary unfair dismissal protection applies. Probation periods remain useful management tools, but extending probation does not extend the statutory qualifying period
The first six months offer no immunity from discrimination, relevant automatically unfair dismissal claims or contractual claims. A shield may protect you from murder. It offers surprisingly little protection against an ET1.
So, leaders should leave the banishments and dramatic pauses to the BBC. Have the difficult conversations before month six. But by all means borrow Claudia’s composure.
Meanwhile, I’ll be glued to my TV for the next episode… partly for the drama, mostly for the leadership lessons… and maybe (just a little) for the cloaks.
Simon Allison is a Partner, Blackadders