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 not only arrived late but also often forgot his tasks and frequently clashed with the leadership, which led to a low impression of him and poor ratings.

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 overlooked.

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 extended to 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 a key 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, using rock-paper-scissors. For example, there were three people, and the top two winners could receive prizes, while the one who lost had no complaints.

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

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

So this is definitely unfair, but it’s unclear whether this administrative lady was confused or what, as she thought it was quite fair and creative. I won’t mention which company this was, but recruiting such people is indeed a rarity.

The reason I remember these events so vividly is that they contain intense contradictions. The intense contradictions within 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 become non-existent, turning into a form of formalism, and the entire company will become very utilitarian, leading to more backstabbing and evident workplace politics.

In such an environment, it is easy to produce an economic effect where the inferior eliminates the superior, ultimately leading to 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 economic models, then to stagnation and finally to negative growth, stabilizing at a relatively low level.

In the latter case, the administration of a small company considers such an obviously unfair rule to be very creative and fair. What results will this lead to?

These events happened many years ago, and I already know what the final outcome was. However, 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 lady 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 administrator, she also did some sales-related work, but she certainly did not perform as well as those salespeople. Moreover, in such an environment, she felt quite repressed because she lacked the ability to stand out and perform better. I do not mean to belittle anyone, but it is hard to find better words to describe her work. The final result was that she did not stay in this small company for long and left in less than six months.

What was the situation regarding the three salespeople's stay or departure? 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. 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 outstanding results in this company and ultimately left, leading to the company's 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 neither objective nor fair to everyone.