Organisations appear to be pressured into constantly growing and to sell the most and be the biggest to be considered successful. I always understood the measure of success was being profitable and providing a reasonable return on investment. This includes providing sufficient reward to shareholders and staff, and being able to invest in research and development to maintain, but preferably improve, the product or service, and be profitable. These factors of success are not simply measured in terms of growth in sales.
It seems every business needs to sell more and increase market share. Vehicle manufacturers need to sell more than in previous years. Not every business can be number one, no matter how you measure it, and I would argue that in fact only one business can ever be number one for a given measure at a time. Does this mean a manufacturer selling fewer products than another is less successful, and would need to sell more and become number one or have to leave the industry? It simply doesn't work that way.
Efficient organisations producing what customers need using a minimum of inputs, builds products for their longevity, and sells the products or services for a reasonable return can be very successful. These certainly tend to be the lower volume and higher value products and services.
As an example, a local cafe where you purchase your coffee asks if you would like your usual coffee and then hands it to you with a few polite words would win my business every time. It doesn't need to be part of a chain and sell more coffee each month for me to purchase there. The business needs to be profitable so it will hopefully be there for years. Yes, the coffee needs to be excellent, but even if the coffee was more expensive, I would still buy there, but I would likely reduce the number of cups I would purchase a week. I would prefer they didn't grow too much or I would need to wait longer to be served or the baristas wouldn't know my order.
This approach works for other goods and services as well. I prefer to use an Apple MacBook rather than a laptop using Microsoft Windows. Apple doesn't have to sell the most laptops for me to consider buying their products. However, if they didn't sell sufficient or I wasn't able to buy them easily, I might look at alternatives. There are many factors involved in the decision to purchase, but generally selling the most or being number one, isn't a requirement. Selling sufficient to be profitable is.
This also applies to larger items such as motor vehicles. I would be unlikely to purchase a particular brand of motor vehicle if they weren't selling sufficient vehicles to be profitable, but they don't have to sell the most. I would need to be confident they were selling sufficient vehicles to continue to operate in Australia.