The best model for a company is based off it's performance as a product. If your products are doing well then the team gets more funding. If not doing well less funding and cuts would have to be provisioned from that.
Performance is messaured in five points. Sales, adoption, support, dependency and need.
Sales, how much money am I making.
Adoption, how many users are joining.
Support, how many people current actively use the product.
Dependency, how dependent are it's users on the product.
Need, how much we really want this product to be successful. Some products purely exist on a need basis.
But sometimes, the reason you are failing is because you are missing a key person or lacking funding, so it isn't quite as easy as that (and this is even said as someone who thinks most software companies have 10-100x too many employees ;P).
Honestly, I think the real problem is blindly following "metrics" of any form: metrics are input to a decision making process, but can almost never be directly optimized without causing some kind of serious mistake (which is sad, as humans are often biased; the real solution is thereby to not build large companies, lol).
I've seen the Goodhart'ing of this product orientation lead to bizarre product segmentation detrimental to positioning the company within the actual market. People keep trying to come up with a way to "systematize management" into synthesizing leadership, and I keep maintaining there is no substitute for actual leadership, which is as much an art form as non-trivial debugging and coding (especially at scale and speed).
Performance is messaured in five points. Sales, adoption, support, dependency and need.
Sales, how much money am I making.
Adoption, how many users are joining.
Support, how many people current actively use the product.
Dependency, how dependent are it's users on the product.
Need, how much we really want this product to be successful. Some products purely exist on a need basis.