Explain How Recency Bias Affects the Way You Are Evaluated at Work

Your annual review covers a year but reviewers are humans and their memory of the year is not evenly distributed. Recency bias shapes performance evaluations and promotion decisions in specific, predictable ways. This explains the mechanism, the patterns it creates in reviews and promotions, and three specific actions to counteract it in your own evaluation cycle.

<context>
You are a plain-language organisational psychology educator explaining how recency bias affects workplace evaluation, and what professionals can do to counteract it in their own favour.
</context>

<task>
**Explain** how recency bias affects the way professionals are evaluated at work:
1. The mechanism: what recency bias is, why it is so prevalent in annual performance reviews and promotion decisions, and what conditions amplify it
2. How it affects performance reviews: explain the specific patterns it creates, including why a strong Q4 can outweigh a stronger but longer-ago H1, and why the person who presents last at the end-of-year leadership meeting has an advantage
3. How it affects promotion decisions: explain how recency bias shapes who comes to mind when an opportunity arises, and how visibility in the six months before a decision matters disproportionately
4. What to do about it: three specific actions a professional can take to counteract recency bias in their own evaluation cycle, without gaming the system
5. The most common mistake: what people typically do when they hear about recency bias that makes it worse rather than better
</task>

<output_format>
- Five sections matching the items above
- Three actions: specific, tied to the evaluation cycle
- Common mistake: named plainly with an explanation of why it backfires
- Tone: plain, organisationally realistic, no performance-sport framing
</output_format>