This article addresses the persistent misalignment between HR leaders, business leaders, and employees in how performance management (PMS) is perceived and experienced. The central argument, attributed to PwC consulting expertise, is that PMS is structurally broken because it attempts to serve multiple conflicting purposes — development, compensation, and legal risk — without explicitly choosing among them. The article presents data from PwC's Workforce Radar study and 2024 Workforce Hopes & Fears survey to quantify these perception gaps: 97% of HR leaders believe their organizations develop talent effectively, compared to 50% of business leaders and 30% of employees. The authors propose a seven-choice design framework covering objective-setting, goal structure, evaluation method, feedback cadence, ratings, rewards, and technology integration. Key findings include a 30-point gap in perceived development effectiveness between leaders and employees, and the observation that 82% of workers consider fair pay extremely important but fewer than 60% believe their employer delivers on it. The article concludes that aligning all seven design choices to a single, declared purpose transforms PMS from a compliance ritual into a talent growth catalyst. Key insights: A significant perception gap exists across organizational levels: 97% of HR leaders believe their organizations develop talent effectively, versus 50% of business leaders and only 30% of employees — suggesting PMS credibility is concentrated at the top. When performance management simultaneously serves pay-for-performance and employee development, one purpose typically displaces the other, with compensation decisions consistently crowding out genuine developmental dialogue. Removing ratings does not eliminate performance judgment; it relocates that judgment to informal, opaque calibration processes — potentially increasing rather than reducing bias and inconsistency. Practical takeaways: Organizations that explicitly declare a singular PMS purpose — whether pay differentiation, development, or a defined hybrid — and align all messaging, metrics, and technology to that purpose tend to reduce the confusion that erodes employee trust. Shifting from annual single-source feedback to quarterly, multi-source feedback is associated with higher employee engagement, though more than half of employees still report waiting a full year for formal performance discussions.