Those two goals sound like they pull against each other. They do not. Most companies just manage one of them, and usually it is neither.
Most review systems fail for the same reason: they ask too much, arrive once a year, and produce a form nobody reads afterward. A lighter process that actually runs beats an elaborate one that stalls in March.
Goal-setting frameworks fail when goals are set once and never mentioned again, or when nobody can explain how an individual goal connects to what the company is trying to do.
A PIP written as a formality before a termination is worse than no PIP at all. Done right, it is a genuine attempt to fix the problem, and it produces the documentation you need if it does not work.
Your process is only as good as the person delivering it. Most managers were promoted for being good at the job, not for being good at telling someone their work is not landing.
Usually a sign the process asks for more than anyone has time to give, rather than a sign nobody cares.
When every review says meets expectations, the process has stopped telling you anything useful about anyone.
The decision was probably right. Proving it was right is a different problem, and it starts months earlier.
If a review contains news, the manager has been avoiding a conversation all year.
Almost always because they do not know how to start, not because they have not noticed.
High performers get left alone because they are not causing problems. That is exactly how you lose them.
A free consultation to talk through where performance management is breaking down and what would help.