This article was originally published on davidohnstad.info. I cross-post here to reach the Dev.to community.
Myth #1: Mid-Year Reviews Should Focus on Performance Measurement
Most managers treat mid-year performance reviews as scorecards. They pull up metrics, review KPIs against targets, and deliver a verdict: you're on track, slightly behind, or exceeding expectations. The conversation follows a template. The employee nods. Everyone walks away having checked a box. According to Gartner's 2023 research on performance management practices, 58% of HR leaders reported that their mid-year review process "creates compliance documentation but minimal behavior change." That's the problem in one sentence.
This myth persists because organizations conflate evaluation with development. HR systems are built around rating scales, calibration meetings, and documentation requirements. Managers receive templates that guide them toward assessment language: "meets expectations in most areas," "needs improvement in stakeholder communication," "demonstrates strong technical skills." The structure of the review process itself—numerical ratings, comparison to peers, formal documentation—trains managers to think like auditors, not mentors. The toolkit determines the behavior.
What's actually true: mid-year reviews are the highest-leverage mentorship moment most managers get all year. Unlike annual reviews, which carry compensation weight and force managers into justification mode, mid-year conversations happen when there's still time to redirect, experiment, and course-correct. David Ohnstad, who has managed product teams at Veeam Software, sees this window as fundamentally different: "The annual review is about what happened. The mid-year review is about what could happen—if you use it that way." The distinction matters. A mentorship conversation asks different questions than an evaluation: Where is this person trying to go? What's blocking them that they can't see? What capability, if developed now, would change their trajectory in the second half of the year?
The shift in framing changes everything. Instead of "Your dashboard adoption metric is at 62%, below the 75% target," a mentorship approach asks: "What would need to be true for your dashboard to become indispensable to the sales team by Q4?" The first statement closes the conversation. The second opens it. One measures the past. The other builds capacity for the future. The metrics still matter—you're not ignoring performance—but they become diagnostic tools for development rather than verdict statements.
Myth #2: Good Feedback Is Clear, Direct, and specific
This is the advice every manager has heard: be specific, tie feedback to behaviors, make it specific. Don't say "improve communication." Say "join the weekly standup on time and provide a written update when you can't attend." The logic is sound. Vague feedback doesn't drive change. But something gets lost in the translation. Managers deliver perfectly structured feedback—clear problem statement, specific example, recommended action—and watch nothing improve. According to MIT Sloan's 2024 study on managerial effectiveness, teams with "highly structured feedback processes" showed only marginal improvement over teams with no formal process at all when measuring actual skill development over six months. The gap isn't in clarity. It's in context.
The myth survives because it's partially true. Vague feedback is useless. But the remedy—hyper-specific behavioral correction—treats the employee like a machine with a misconfigured setting. Adjust this parameter, get this output. People don't work that way. Behavioral change requires understanding why the current behavior exists, what trade-off the person is making, and whether the prescribed action aligns with how they actually think and work. A manager who tells a data analyst to "be more proactive in stakeholder meetings" without understanding that the analyst has been burned twice for speaking up in front of senior leaders is prescribing a solution to the wrong problem.
What works instead: feedback as collaborative diagnosis. David Ohnstad's approach with underperforming team members starts with a question, not a prescription: "Walk me through what happened in that stakeholder meeting. What were you trying to accomplish? Where did it go sideways from your perspective?" The analyst might say: "I had data that contradicted the VP's assumption, but I wasn't sure if I should surface it in the room or send it in a follow-up email. I chose email. It got ignored." Now you have something real to work with. The issue isn't lack of proactivity. It's uncertainty about when and how to challenge authority with data. The solution isn't "speak up more"—it's role-playing how to present contradictory data in real-time without triggering defensiveness, or identifying which battles are worth fighting in public versus private channels.
This takes longer than delivering a bullet-pointed action plan. It requires the manager to be genuinely curious about the employee's perspective rather than rushing to fix the problem. But the payoff is sustainable behavior change rather than short-term compliance. The employee doesn't just do the thing you told them to do—they understand the principle behind it and can apply it to new situations. That's the difference between feedback and mentorship.
The Redirect-Before-Remediate Framework
Most managers approach underperformance with a remediation mindset: identify the gap, assign training, track improvement. It's logical. It's also backwards in most cases. The Redirect-Before-Remediate Framework flips the sequence. Before you fix the skill deficit, make sure the person is working on problems they're wired to solve. This matters especially in mid-year reviews, when there's enough time to redirect someone toward better-fit work rather than spending six months trying to force capability development in an area where they'll always struggle.
Step 1: Map Current Work to Energizers vs. Drainers. In the review conversation, ask the employee to categorize their current projects and responsibilities into two lists: work that energizes them (they'd do more of it if given the choice) and work that drains them (they procrastinate, it feels like a grind, they're relieved when it's done). Don't ask them to justify or explain yet—just map it. David Ohnstad used this with a product manager who was underperforming on stakeholder communication but excelling at data architecture work. The PM's energizer list was 80% technical problem-solving; the drainer list was 80% meetings and presentations. The performance problem wasn't a skill gap. It was a role misfit.
Step 2: Identify the Highest-Leverage Energizer That Solves a Real Problem. Most people's energizer list includes work that matters to the organization—it's just not weighted heavily in their current role. Find the energizer activity that, if the person did more of it, would deliver measurable value. For the underperforming PM, that was designing data integration architecture for cross-functional product teams. The company needed that. The PM was good at it and wanted to do it. But it was treated as a side project while the core role demanded 30 hours a week of stakeholder alignment work the PM hated and was mediocre at. The fix wasn't communication training. It was role redesign.
Step 3: Negotiate a Role Shift with the Employee and Their Stakeholders. This is the hard part. You're not pulling someone off their current work entirely—you're rebalancing the portfolio toward the energizer work while finding other ways to cover the drainer work. Sometimes that means redistributing responsibilities across the team. Sometimes it means hiring differently for the next open role. Sometimes it means acknowledging that this person's current role isn't the right long-term fit and exploring internal transfers. The conversation requires honesty: "You're struggling with X because you don't want to do X and you're not built for it. That's okay. Let's figure out how to get you doing more Y, because you're exceptional at Y and we need more of it." According to Pragmatic Institute's 2023 Product Management Survey, teams that allowed role specialization based on natural strengths reported 34% higher employee retention and 28% faster time-to-proficiency for new hires than teams that enforced uniform "full-stack PM" role expectations.
Step 4: Set a 90-Day Experiment with Clear Success Metrics. Don't make this a permanent change immediately. Frame it as a pilot: "For the next 90 days, you're spending 60% of your time on data architecture work and 40% on stakeholder communication instead of the reverse. We'll measure impact by integration delivery timelines and stakeholder satisfaction scores. If it works, we formalize it. If it doesn't, we revisit." This removes the fear of making an irreversible mistake and gives both sides a clear evaluation window. The employee knows what success looks like. The manager has a decision point. The organization gets to test whether the redirect actually improves performance before committing resources.
The framework is counterintuitive because it suggests that sometimes the right response to underperformance is not to fix the person but to change what they're working on. Managers resist this because it feels like letting someone off the hook—they're not developing the hard skill, they're just avoiding it. But here's the reality: if someone has been underperforming in an area for six months despite feedback and support, forcing another six months of remediation rarely works. Redirecting them toward work they're genuinely capable of excelling at creates immediate performance improvement and frees up capacity to hire or develop someone else who's energized by the work the first person was struggling with. That's a win for the employee, the team, and the business. Mentorship isn't about making everyone good at everything. It's about helping people find the problems they're built to solve and getting out of their way.
Myth #3: Development Plans Should Focus on Closing Skill Gaps
Every development plan David Ohnstad has seen follows the same structure: assess current capabilities, identify gaps relative to the target role, assign training or stretch projects to close those gaps. The employee finishes the mid-year review with a list of courses to complete, certifications to earn, or skills to practice. The manager checks the "development planning" box. Six months later, the employee has completed two of the five courses, hasn't applied anything, and the skill gaps remain. According to Deloitte's 2024 Human Capital Trends report, 72% of employees reported having a formal development plan, but only 19% said their plan "significantly influenced their actual skill development or career progression." The mismatch is structural, not motivational.
The myth persists because gap-based development feels rigorous and objective. You can measure it: the employee can't do X, we train them on X, now they can do X. It maps neatly to competency frameworks and job leveling rubrics. HR can track completion rates. Managers can report progress in calibration meetings. But the underlying assumption is flawed: that career progression is primarily about acquiring missing skills. It's not. Most high performers don't advance because they became competent at everything—they advanced because they became exceptionally good at a few high-value things while finding ways to delegate, automate, or restructure work that required skills they didn't have and didn't want to develop.
What actually drives career velocity: doubling down on signature strengths and building capability stacks that are rare in combination. A data product manager who is excellent at SQL, stakeholder negotiation, and technical writing doesn't need to become great at visual design or machine learning engineering to advance. That combination—technical depth, communication clarity, and business translation—is already rare and highly valued. Spending six months closing a gap in data visualization skills adds marginal value. Spending six months becoming the best in the organization at turning ambiguous executive asks into scoped, shipped data products creates exponential value. The difference is focusing development energy on extending leads rather than patching weaknesses.
David Ohnstad's mid-year development conversations ask a different question: "What could you become the go-to person for in this organization by the end of the year?" Not "What skills are you missing?" but "What unique value could you own?" For a junior analyst struggling with executive presentations, the gap-based plan would assign public speaking training. The strength-based plan asks: what if this person became the best on the team at translating messy data into written executive summaries that get read and acted on? That leverages their writing strength, delivers immediate value, and positions them as indispensable without requiring them to become a confident public speaker. If the organization needs someone who can present live to executives, hire or develop that person separately. Let this analyst own the written communication lane.
This approach requires managers to resist the urge to make everyone well-rounded. Most development plans are secretly designed to sand down edges and create interchangeable team members. That's a mistake. The highest-value employees are not the ones who can do everything reasonably well—they're the ones who can do a few things exceptionally well that nobody else can. Mid-year reviews are the moment to identify what those few things should be and clear the path for the employee to pursue them without distraction. That's mentorship. Everything else is just performance management.
Myth #4: Mentorship Is About Giving Advice
The standard image of mentorship: a senior leader shares hard-won wisdom with a junior employee. "Here's what I learned when I was in your position. Here's what I wish I'd known. Here's what I'd do if I were you." The employee nods, takes notes, and walks away with a clearer sense of direction. It feels productive. It's also the least effective form of mentorship for most people in most situations. According to Harvard Business Review's 2023 analysis of mentorship programs across 150 companies, mentorship relationships rated as "highly valuable" by participants were characterized by questions asked rather than advice given, with a 4:1 ratio of inquiry to prescription in the most successful pairings.
The advice-giving model persists because it's efficient and it makes the mentor feel useful. Sharing lessons learned is faster than helping someone figure out their own answer. It also reinforces the mentor's expertise—they get to be the person with the answers. But advice is context-dependent, and the mentor's context is almost never identical to the mentee's. What worked for a senior PM navigating a product roadmap conflict at a 500-person company in 2019 may be irrelevant for a junior PM facing a stakeholder alignment problem at a 50-person startup in 2026. The variables are different: company stage, team dynamics, leadership style, market conditions, technical constraints. Advice that ignores context is noise.
What transforms mid-year reviews into genuine mentorship moments: asking questions that force the employee to articulate their own mental model of the problem. David Ohnstad's default in these conversations is: "Talk me through your decision-making process on that project. What did you consider? What did you dismiss? What would you do differently now?" The employee has to reconstruct their thinking, identify where it broke down, and propose their own correction. The manager's job is to notice gaps in the reasoning, surface assumptions the employee didn't examine, and ask follow-up questions that push the analysis deeper. "You said you dismissed the API integration approach because it was too complex. What specifically made it complex? Was that a technical constraint or a timeline constraint? If you had another two weeks, would that have changed your decision?" This is harder than giving advice. It's also more durable. The employee doesn't walk away with a prescription—they walk away with a better process for making the next decision on their own.
The shift from advice to inquiry doesn't mean the manager never shares their own experience. But when they do, it's framed as data, not prescription: "When I faced a similar stakeholder conflict, I tried X and it backfired because of Y. I don't know if that's relevant to your situation, but it's something to consider." The employee gets the benefit of the mentor's pattern-matching without being told what to do. They can take the lesson or leave it. The locus of decision-making stays with the mentee. That's what builds independent judgment over time. Employees who are mentored through inquiry become leaders who can think through novel problems. Employees who are mentored through advice become followers who wait for someone to tell them the answer.
How do you structure a mid-year performance review as a mentorship conversation?
Start with the employee's self-assessment of what's working and what's not, then shift to forward-looking questions: where do they want to grow, what's blocking them, and what experiment could they run in the next 90 days to build a new capability or test a role shift? Focus on capability development and trajectory rather than performance scoring.
What's the difference between feedback and mentorship in a performance review?
Feedback evaluates past behavior and prescribes corrections. Mentorship diagnoses why the behavior occurred, explores the employee's thinking, and helps them build better decision-making frameworks for future situations. Feedback is transactional; mentorship is developmental and compounds over time as the employee internalizes the reasoning process.
Why do most development plans fail to drive actual skill growth?
Most development plans focus on closing skill gaps rather than amplifying strengths. Gap-based plans feel rigorous but lack motivational pull—employees complete courses without applying them. Strength-based plans identify what the employee could become uniquely excellent at and clear obstacles to deep practice in that area, creating immediate value and career differentiation.
When Mentorship Breaks the Performance Review Script
The most effective mid-year review David Ohnstad ever conducted lasted 90 minutes and covered none of the template questions HR provided. The employee was a data engineer who had missed three delivery deadlines in Q1 and was flagged as underperforming. The standard playbook would have been: review the missed milestones, discuss accountability, set clear expectations for Q3 and Q4, document the conversation. Instead, David Ohnstad opened with: "What's the most interesting technical problem you've worked on in the last six months?" The engineer lit up talking about a pipeline optimization experiment he'd run on his own time that reduced query runtime by 40%. It wasn't on his official project list. It wasn't tied to any OKR. But it was the work he was actually energized by and excellent at.
The conversation shifted to why that work wasn't part of his core role. The engineer explained that his assigned projects were integration tasks—connecting systems, debugging API calls, writing glue code. Necessary work, but not the kind of problem-solving that motivated him. He was slow on those projects because he was disengaged, not because he lacked capability. The solution wasn't a performance improvement plan. It was a role conversation: could his responsibilities shift toward infrastructure optimization and performance tuning, with integration work redistributed to a teammate who preferred that type of problem? The answer was yes. Within 90 days, the engineer was back on track, the team's infrastructure performance improved measurably, and the integration backlog cleared faster because it was assigned to someone who didn't view it as grunt work.
That outcome required the manager to ignore the script and treat the review as a diagnostic conversation, not a judgment session. It required believing that underperformance is often a signal of misalignment rather than incompetence. And it required the willingness to redesign work rather than just demand better execution. Most managers don't have the flexibility or the trust from leadership to make those calls. But the ones who do—and who use mid-year reviews as redirection opportunities rather than scorecard sessions—build teams where people stay, grow, and do their best work. That's the legacy piece. Not the quarterly numbers. The people who look back five years later and say, "That conversation changed my career."
For leaders: ask yourself whether your mid-year review process creates space for that kind of conversation or just enforces compliance with a template. If it's the latter, the process is working against you. For individual contributors: if your manager opens with a scorecard, redirect the conversation. Ask the questions you need answered: "What could I become uniquely good at here? What's blocking me from doing my best work? What experiment could I run in the next 90 days that would prove I'm capable of more than my current role allows?" Those questions turn a performance review into a mentorship session, regardless of what the manager came prepared to discuss. The best career moves David Ohnstad has seen didn't come from following the development plan HR approved. They came from mid-year conversations where someone asked a better question than the one on the form.
Here's the question to ask in your next mid-year review, whether you're the manager or the employee: What would need to change about this person's work—not their behavior, but their work—for them to be performing at the next level six months from now? If the answer is "nothing, they just need to execute better," you're missing the real opportunity. Execution problems are usually symptoms. Mentorship finds the cause.
For more on how David Ohnstad's data product management writing connects technical decision-making to leadership development, or to explore his Minnesota-based perspective on building remote-first product teams, visit David Ohnstad Minnesota. His approach to career development decisions leadership emphasizes redirecting energy toward strengths rather than patching weaknesses, and his work on rotational programs career development explores how cross-functional exposure builds the pattern-matching capability that separates good mentors from advice-dispensers. Additional resources on team-building and development strategy can be found at Leadership, Mentorship & Career Development.
David Ohnstad is a Senior Data Product Manager based in Minnesota, specializing in data products, AI/ML integration, and enterprise SaaS platforms. Follow his work at github.com/davidohnstad40-netizen.
Top comments (0)