The so-called recency effect refers to the impression people have of recent events and the final judgment they make based on that impression.

Don't underestimate this phenomenon; it is actually everywhere in our lives. I remember during a training session, there was a colleague who had been performing poorly for a long time. He was not only late but also forgetful about his tasks, and he often went against the leadership, which led to a low impression of him and low scores from his superiors.

However, in the month leading up to the end of the year, he suddenly performed very well. Because of this good performance, people from other departments, who were unaware of the specific matters in our department, used the last month as the most important reference for the annual evaluation. In this case, he was rated as excellent. Ultimately, the department leader had to acknowledge his presence and accept the evaluation department's recognition of him, meaning that all his previous poor performances could be disregarded.

There were also some colleagues who were diligent and responsible in their work, not only efficient but also achieving good results, earning the respect of their peers. However, in the last month, due to family issues, one of them had to take a 5-day leave, which later turned into 7 days, meaning he took a week off to handle that matter. But this last month was also the most important evaluation period, meaning that it was acceptable to perform poorly in the previous 11 months because the human resources department used the last month as an important reference.

In this situation, the employee who usually performed excellently had to return home to deal with family emergencies. When he came back, he was deducted 30 points for the 7 days of leave, suddenly becoming a laggard. Given his previous good reputation, he was not rated the worst, but that was all.

Of course, the existence of this phenomenon is detrimental to the long-term development of enterprises because this evaluation method has significant flaws. Using one month, or specifically the last month, to generalize an entire year's performance is clearly contrary to the facts.

However, many human resources departments in companies have this problem, indicating that this phenomenon is not an isolated case; it is quite common. It also shows that the mechanisms within the human resources departments of companies have issues and are somewhat irresponsible.

Many years ago, when I was at a small company, there was a time when prizes were distributed, such as scissors, paper, and rock. For example, there were three people, and the top two winners could receive prizes, and the person who lost had no complaints.

But you know what? Small companies basically do not have a human resources department; they usually just have an administrative role that handles personnel matters, recruitment, and some basic administrative work, so this matter was handled by them.

When the results of the scissors, paper, rock game were announced, for example, if a and b both won, according to past practices, a and b would take the prizes, and c would have no complaints. However, upon seeing this result, the administrative person in this small company directly stated that this time, the person who won the most would not receive a prize, but the two who ranked lower would receive prizes. But think about it, the results have already been determined, and then you set the rules; what kind of human resources level is that?

So this is definitely unfair, but I don't know if this administrative person was confused or what, but they thought it was quite fair and creative. I won't mention which company this was; it’s already a rarity to recruit someone like that.

The reason I remember these events so vividly is that they contain intense contradictions. The intense contradictions within them can determine the future direction. For example, in the first company, the recency effect was so obvious that it overlooked the efforts of colleagues who had worked hard for a long time, allowing those who were good at opportunism to gain the most benefits. Just think about what the final result will be.

It is clear that when opportunistic and resourceful individuals gain the most benefits, it will reinforce their behavior, and this behavior will continue to be reinforced. The company's stated values will be completely undermined, becoming a form of formalism, and the entire company will become very utilitarian, leading to more backstabbing and making workplace politics very apparent.

In such an environment, it is easy to produce an economic effect where the inferior eliminates the superior, ultimately leading to high-quality assets being eliminated or exiting, while inferior assets remain. The final manifestation of this in terms of development is that the company's growth transitions from rapid growth to diminishing returns in the economic model, then to stagnation, and finally to negative growth, stabilizing at a relatively low level.

In the latter case, the administrative person in a small company, believing that such an obviously unfair rule is very creative and fair, what kind of result will that lead to?

These events happened many years ago, and I already know what the final outcome was, but we should still conduct a reasonable analysis of this behavior and phenomenon, and this reasonable analysis is consistent with the results that occurred afterward.

That administrative person did not stay in the company for long. Why do I say this? Everyone knows that a small company values what more? It values sales ability and sales results. As an administrative person, they also did some sales-related work, but they certainly did not perform as well as the salespeople, and in such an environment, they felt quite suppressed because they did not have the ability to stand out or perform better. I do not mean to belittle anyone, but when it comes to their work, it is hard to find better words. The final result was that they did not stay in this small company for long and left in less than six months.

What happened to the three salespeople in the end? The first person, who was the most disadvantaged, was not the first to leave; he left after exhausting all options. Among the other two, one left because he had a better project but did not gain the boss's trust, and the other person always wanted to achieve both fame and fortune in this company. This person stayed a bit longer and eventually obtained a higher position, but he also did not achieve more outstanding results in this company and ultimately left, and the company's final trajectory was one of near dissolution.

This phenomenon also tells us that whether in human resources work, business work, or as a leader, we should evaluate a person not solely based on their recent performance to cover their entire performance. This is not objective and is unfair to everyone.