The Employment Rights Act: six months, no cap, no ceiling.

Why the stakes are higher for senior appointments

A senior appointment is a significant investment. When it fails, the cost extends beyond recruitment fees and salary. Leadership disruption, delayed decisions and the loss of key relationships can affect the whole organisation.

From 1 January 2027, the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal protection in Great Britain falls to six months, alongside removal of the cap on compensatory awards. The qualifying-period change concerns dismissals from that date. For highly paid leaders, where evidenced losses can be substantial, this creates potentially greater financial exposure. Awards will still depend on evidenced losses; removing the cap does not create an automatic payout.

The response starts before the appointment. Clear role requirements, robust assessment and expert interpretation provide a stronger basis for deciding who can succeed. Once appointed, focused onboarding and executive coaching help leaders establish themselves and address difficulties early.

Better people evidence supports better decisions. It works alongside sound employment advice and fair processes throughout the relationship, including when an appointment does not work out. It is not more interviews or more process for its own sake - it is better information, interpreted by people who know what they are looking at.

Here is what assessment can do about it.

Start before the brief is written.

A good role analysis goes well beyond the job description, defining the cognitive demands of the role, the behavioural profile most likely to succeed in it and the cultural conditions the person will be operating in from day one. With the qualifying period scheduled to shorten to six months, the quality of the brief we build before assessment begins is one of the most effective ways to make early decisions well. Get this right and everything that follows is sharper, better evidenced and less risky.

Use instruments that predict performance, not instruments that are familiar.

Psychometric assessment is already widespread, which is precisely why it is worth being specific about what the data is actually telling you. The instruments that predict performance reliably are those measuring cognitive ability and structured personality dimensions validated against occupational outcomes, because these produce data that maps directly to how someone is likely to perform in the role rather than simply describing who they are. Used well, that data answers the questions a shorter window demands: how does this person think under pressure, how do they lead when the situation is ambiguous, where are the conditions in which they are likely to struggle. Assessment informs the decision; it does not remove legal obligations or guarantee protection against claims.

Interpretation is where the value lives.

Collecting data is the straightforward part, knowing what to do with it is where an assessment process can fall short. The output of a psychometrically valid instrument, in the right hands, maps how this person is likely to think, lead, respond to pressure and behave when the role gets difficult, and it does so in a way that is grounded in evidence rather than assumption. That interpretation becomes the basis for better conversations at offer stage, clearer onboarding priorities and focused executive coaching - helping leaders establish themselves and address difficulties early.

Document everything, and do it properly.

Documentation is not the administrative afterthought it is often treated as. Assessment reports, structured interview notes, role analysis frameworks and onboarding reviews build a picture of the appointment that is traceable and grounded in process rather than preference. If an appointment does not work out, that record supports a fair process - alongside sound employment advice, not in place of it. With the compensation cap scheduled to be removed from January 2027, the quality of that record matters more than ever.

Think of the candidate, not just the role.

Rigorous assessment is as good for the candidate as it is for the organisation. A process that genuinely maps someone's strengths, working style and optimal conditions is one that places people well, sets them up to succeed and reduces the likelihood of an appointment unravelling early. The human cost of that unravelling - the failed probation, the managed exit, the impact on everyone involved - is real and often avoidable, and the forthcoming changes make its financial cost more visible.

The legislation is changing the stakes; the tools to respond have been available for years. The question is not whether robust assessment, onboarding and coaching are worth the investment, it is whether the cost of not doing them is finally visible enough to act on.

Want to reduce the risk of every senior appointment you make? So do we.

Start a conversation, reach out using the contact information below.

Last reviewed: 25 September 2026. Source: Government guidance on unfair dismissal changes.

Sources

• Employment Rights Act 2025, legislation.gov.uk. The primary legislation reducing the qualifying period for ordinary unfair dismissal to six months and removing the cap on compensatory awards, from 1 January 2027.
• UK Government guidance for employers on unfair dismissal changes.