Executive Assistant Probation Review Guide

Confirm the applicable process

Before scheduling a probation or introductory-period review, confirm the organization's employment process, review timing, required participants, documentation, notice, accommodation route, and applicable legal or contractual requirements. Different locations and arrangements may treat a probation label differently, so managers should not improvise consequences from the term alone. Use authorized people or legal guidance for employment decisions. Executive support leaders can prepare job evidence and operating context, but should not promise a result before the approved review. Tell the assistant the purpose, date, participants, material they may provide, and how questions or accessibility needs can be raised privately.

Return to the role that was actually offered

Use the accepted job description, onboarding plan, delegation matrix, and first-cycle outcomes as the baseline. Identify scope changes made after hire and who approved them. An assistant recruited for one executive should not be judged against unrecorded expectations from three leaders. Likewise, transition cleanup or temporary coverage should not silently become permanent capacity. List the workflows available long enough to assess and the ones still blocked by access, missing instructions, or executive availability. A fair review compares evidence with the work the person was told to perform, while allowing an authorized manager to set clearer prospective expectations when the business legitimately changes.

Collect representative work evidence

Sample normal work, peak demand, an exception, a correction, and a handoff. Useful evidence may include meeting readiness, calendar changes within rules, source-backed briefs, accepted follow-up, travel coordination, escalation records, and controlled access. Use the approved work systems rather than screenshots collected in a private file. Record the period and selection rule so the review does not contain only the most recent success or failure. Work volume alone is not quality. A long activity list may hide rework, while a small number of well-routed high-consequence items may demonstrate strong judgment and continuity.

Evaluate outcomes instead of visibility

Assess whether agreed outcomes were accepted: meetings had usable context, commitments reached owners, approved travel worked, sensitive requests followed boundaries, and exceptions became visible in time. Pair timeliness with accuracy and authority. An assistant who pauses an unsupported payment request may take longer while protecting the company. Do not reward calendar density, messages processed, hours online, or the executive's general sense of busyness. Ask which tasks reduced reconstruction for leaders and which created another review loop. Where measures are unavailable, state that limitation rather than converting preference into a score.

Review discretion with concrete examples

Discretion should be reviewed through observable cases, not a declaration that someone is trustworthy or lacks judgment. Choose examples involving an uncertain recipient, competing priority, confidential document, changed instruction, or request beyond authority. Record what information the assistant had, which rule applied, what they verified, when they escalated, and what correction followed. A safe refusal to share confidential context from a previous employer is not weak evidence. Avoid demanding private content as proof of discretion. The manager should distinguish a reasonable decision under incomplete facts from an action that ignored a known boundary.

Separate performance from broken inputs

Examine whether a gap arose from performance, unclear instruction, unreliable source, delayed approval, insufficient access, impossible volume, missing backup, or a dependency outside the role. More than one factor may apply. If calendar rules conflicted, preserve the conflicting sources and identify who was responsible for resolution. If the assistant lacked permission until late in the period, adjust what the evidence can support. This analysis does not remove accountability; it directs the remedy. Coaching cannot fix an authority design, and broader access cannot fix a skill gap. Review the operating system alongside the person's actions.

Give the assistant a fair account

Give the assistant the evidence and time to respond. Ask what outcome they understood, where the workflow differed from onboarding, which constraints affected the work, what support helped, and what they would change. Record material corrections and verify them at the source. Do not pressure the person to agree with every assessment. Separate factual dispute from a difference in expectation or recommendation. A review is stronger when a manager can explain why contrary evidence did or did not change the conclusion. Keep employee-sensitive discussion out of shared project channels and routine executive notes.

Write specific next expectations

Write the next period in observable terms: named workflows, expected outputs, authority, review cadence, evidence, support, and date. If improvement is required, specify the gap, relevant example, acceptable result, resources, checkpoint, and decision owner under the approved people process. Avoid instructions such as be more proactive without defining where initiative is permitted. An assistant should know when to act, draft, ask, or stop. Include workload tradeoffs; adding an expectation requires deciding what capacity it uses. Confirm the plan with the executive and any managers who can send competing work.

Route employment decisions correctly

The authorized manager, with required people or legal review, decides confirmation, extension where permitted, role change, further improvement process, or separation. Executive support colleagues may provide evidence but should not announce or infer the outcome. Do not use system access changes to signal a decision before the approved communication and security sequence, except where a qualified owner directs a protective action. If employment ends, activate the established handoff, records, asset, communication, and revocation plan. Preserve dignity and limit the reason for the decision to people authorized to know it.

Protect review records

Store the review, response, evidence references, decision, and next plan in the approved employment system with the correct access and retention. Avoid copying board material, customer data, executive correspondence, or health information into the review when a restricted source reference or coded example is sufficient. Check that shared links will remain available to authorized reviewers but not the wider team. Remove temporary exports and revoke panel access when the process closes. If a factual correction changes the record, preserve the approved version history instead of silently editing a signed or final review.

Improve onboarding from the evidence

After the decision, inspect what the first weeks reveal about role design. Repeated questions may show missing calendar rules; late corrections may expose weak source ownership; excessive review may show delegation was never established. Update onboarding, access sequencing, backup, examples, and manager cadence without turning one person's case into a public lesson. HireExecutiveTeam can help leaders define bounded executive assistant outcomes and operating expectations. The practical next step is to compare the original role brief with three representative workflows and repair any mismatch before the review meeting begins.

Related resources

• Executive assistant support
• Executive assistant first 90 days
• Executive assistant decision authority matrix

Frequently asked questions