In a typical first round of eight, I hear "our strategy should be to grow" from three or four candidates. That sentence is a goal wearing a strategy costume. The interviewer is not scoring vocabulary. They are listening for a numbered choice: where you play, how you win, and what you refuse.
Three primary sources say the same thing in different accents. Michael Porter's What Is Strategy? (HBR, 1996) separates operational effectiveness from a unique position with trade-offs. Richard Rumelt's Good Strategy Bad Strategy (Crown, 2011) insists on a kernel: diagnosis, guiding policy, coherent action. A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin define strategy as choice in Playing to Win: where to play and how to win, not a planning binder. After this piece you should be able to audit any recommendation in a case and turn a vague aspiration into one defensible choice with numbers.
Three definitions that agree on one thing
Porter's line that candidates misremember as "be different" is sharper. Strategy is "the creation of a unique and valuable position, involving a different set of activities." Operational effectiveness — doing the same activities better — is necessary and not enough, because best practices diffuse. Harvard's Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness restates the triad: uniqueness, trade-offs (choosing what not to do), and fit across activities. If a rival could copy your "strategy" without abandoning their activity system, Porter would call it an operational program, not a position.
Rumelt's attack is on fluff: goals and slogans dressed as direction. The kernel has three parts — a diagnosis that names the critical challenge, a guiding policy that channels effort (and rules options out), and coherent actions that reinforce each other. "Increase share 20%" is a target. "The crux is ease-of-install, not price, so we narrow to professional installers and kill DIY packaging" is the start of a kernel.
Lafley and Martin compress strategy into five linked choices: winning aspiration, where to play, how to win, capabilities, and management systems. Martin is blunt: strategy is choice, not a planning document. In a case, where-to-play and how-to-win only work as a pair. "Enter Asia" without a theory of advantage is an arena. "Be the quality leader" without a customer and channel is a slogan.
| Source | Core claim | Interview translation |
|---|---|---|
| Porter (1996) | Unique position + trade-offs + activity fit | Name what you will not do, and why the system holds |
| Rumelt (2011) | Diagnosis + guiding policy + coherent action | Name the crux before the recommendation |
| Lafley & Martin (2013) | Strategy is an integrated set of choices | Pair where-to-play with how-to-win |
You do not need to cite authors in the room. You need the shared idea: a strategy is a choice under constraints, not an outcome you would like.
How "strategy" gets misused in a case
Firms do not publish a line item for "confused goals with strategy." They reward a clear recommendation with rationale and risks. What I mark down looks like this.
Aspiration as recommendation. "Become the market leader in renewable HVAC" is Lafley and Martin's top box — a winning aspiration — not a full strategy. No segment, channel, or cost/differentiation logic.
Operational laundry list. "Cut SG&A 8%, renegotiate freight, launch a loyalty app" can be coherent actions under a guiding policy. Alone they are a project list. Porter would score them as operational effectiveness unless they create a different activity system.
Framework names as answers. "Five forces look attractive, so we enter" is diagnosis material, not a strategy. Entry still needs where and how.
Competitor mirroring. "Match their price and expand the sales force" races to the same position. If there is one ideal way to compete, Porter's point is that there is no strategy — only a productivity race.
In my estimate, half of weak synthesis moments fail this filter: the candidate restates the client's ambition, adds two initiatives, and calls it a strategy. The sheet rewards a choice the client could disagree with.
The thirty-second test: strategy or goal?
Use this before you close any case. Read your recommendation aloud. Then ask four questions.
| Question | Pass | Fail (you have a goal or a plan) |
|---|---|---|
| What arena did you pick? | Named customers, geo, product, or channel | "Grow the business" |
| What is the advantage? | Cost, differentiation, or focus a buyer will pay for | "Be the best / innovative / customer-centric" |
| What trade-off did you accept? | Explicit no: segment, feature, channel, or SKU killed | Serve everyone; do all three options |
| Could a rival adopt this without changing who they are? | No — it forces activity-system change | Yes — it is a best practice or a target |
A goal states a desired result ("raise contribution margin to 35%"). A plan lists moves ("open two plants, hire 40 reps"). A strategy explains why a particular system of choices should create advantage in a named arena, given a diagnosed challenge.
Ned's rule. If your closing sentence still works after you delete every noun that names a customer, channel, or trade-off, you delivered a goal. Put the nouns back, number the choice, and only then stop talking.
Worked example: HarborLite turns "grow" into a numbered choice
Prompt. HarborLite sells LED marine navigation lights to recreational boat owners through big-box retailers and a thin dealer network. Revenue $42m. ASP $85. Variable cost $38. Contribution $47 per unit. Volume 494k units. Fixed costs $16m. Operating profit ~$7.2m. Category volume in the U.S. recreational channel is about 2.1m units; HarborLite's share is ~24%. Management's brief: "Our strategy is to grow revenue 25% in two years and become the brand boaters trust."
That brief fails the test. Revenue +25% is a goal. "Brand boaters trust" is an aspiration. There is no arena narrowing, no how-to-win, no trade-off.
Diagnosis (Rumelt's first box). Exhibit data (invented for practice): DIY big-box buyers return 11% of units for "hard to mount"; dealer-installed units return 3%. Dealer ASP is $98 with $8 install kit attach; big-box ASP is $79 with almost no attach. Contribution on dealer path: ($98 − $38) + ($22 − $9 kit COGS) ≈ $73 vs $41 on a typical big-box unit after returns and freight. The crux is not insufficient brand awareness. The crux is that growth through the current mix dilutes economics: big-box volume is cheaper to win and worse to keep.
Where to play / how to win (Lafley & Martin). Three candidate pairs:
- Mass big-box share fight. Push share from 24% to 30% in big-box with promotions. Incremental volume ~126k units at ~$41 net contribution ≈ $5.2m, minus $1.8m promo and slotting ≈ $3.4m year-1. Trade-off refused: none — you deepen the weak economics.
- Dealer-first professional install. Target independent marine dealers and yacht clubs; raise dealer mix from 28% of units to 45%; hold big-box flat. Shift 84k units from big-box economics to dealer economics and add 40k net-new dealer units. Contribution lift: 84k × ($73 − $41) + 40k × $73 ≈ $2.7m + $2.9m = $5.6m, minus $1.2m dealer training and inventory = ~$4.4m. Trade-off: decline exclusive big-box private-label bids; accept slower top-line optics for better mix.
- Premium "smart light" for OEMs. New SKU for boat builders. Attractive story, thin evidence, 18-month design-in. Park for a growth sequence case unless the prompt forces OEM.
Numbered recommendation. Choose option 2 as the strategy: HarborLite will win with professional installers and clubs by making mounting foolproof and bundling install kits, and will not chase private-label big-box volume that trains customers to treat the light as a commodity. Coherent actions: rewrite packaging for dealer install only, fund a 90-day mount certification for 120 top dealers, kill the two lowest-ASP big-box SKUs, and measure success on dealer mix and return rate, not raw units.
| Statement | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "Grow revenue 25% and become the trusted brand" | Goal / aspiration | Outcome and slogan; no arena or trade-off |
| "Hire reps, cut price 5%, refresh the website" | Plan | Actions without a guiding policy |
| "Win with dealers and clubs on install reliability; refuse private-label big-box expansion" | Strategy | Where, how, and what not to do — with economics |
Reproduce the arithmetic: contribution gap ($73 − $41) × mix shift + new dealer volume − program cost. If the gap closes, the strategy fails the numbers even if the story sounds strategic. That is the interview skill: choice plus math, not poetry.
What the scoring sheet actually rewards
Strategy cases (market entry, growth, competitive response, sometimes M&A) reward four moves:
- Diagnose before you choose. Rumelt's kernel. If volume is up and margin is down, "growth strategy" is the wrong tree.
- Force a trade-off. Porter's non-negotiable. "Do A and B and C" usually leaks points unless you sequence and kill one.
- Pair arena and advantage. Lafley and Martin. Geography without how-to-win is incomplete; a capability story without a customer is incomplete.
- Close with coherent next steps. Two or three actions that only make sense if the choice is right — so the interviewer can falsify your logic.
On synthesis, I listen for nouns: segment, channel, price architecture, capability you will build or refuse. Adjectives ("agile," "customer-centric") are free and usually worthless.
CoachNed is not affiliated with McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Deloitte, or any firm named in recruiting materials.
Drill the choice muscle today
Take any growth or market-entry prompt. Write the client's opening sentence. Cross out every word that is a goal or an aspiration. Replace it with one where-to-play and one how-to-win sentence, plus one explicit "we will not." Put a rough contribution or payback on the choice. Then run a timed structure rep so the habit sticks under clock pressure.
Everything on CoachNed is open for seven days, no card; then $120 for a recruiting season or $49 a month. If you want the full loop — structure, exhibits, math, synthesis — take the five-minute first case at /start or the live voice case at /interview.
Frequently asked questions
What is strategy in simple terms?
Strategy is a coherent set of choices about where you compete, how you win there, and what you refuse to do, grounded in a clear diagnosis of the problem. A goal is a result you want; a plan is a list of actions; a strategy is the logic that makes those actions create advantage.
What is the difference between a strategy and a goal?
A goal names an outcome ("raise share to 30%"). A strategy names the arena, the source of advantage, and the trade-offs that make that outcome plausible. If deleting the customer and channel nouns leaves a sentence that still sounds fine, you wrote a goal.
What did Michael Porter mean by strategy in 1996?
Firms do not publish a line item for "confused goals with strategy." They reward a clear recommendation with rationale and risks. What I mark down looks like this.
In [What Is Strategy?](https://hbr.org/1996/11/what-is-strategy), Porter argued that operational effectiveness is not strategy. Strategy means creating a unique and valuable position through a different set of activities, protected by trade-offs and reinforced by fit among those activities.?
Firms do not publish a line item for "confused goals with strategy." They reward a clear recommendation with rationale and risks. What I mark down looks like this.
How do Lafley and Martin define strategy?
In Playing to Win, they define strategy as an integrated set of choices — especially where to play and how to win — supported by capabilities and management systems. Roger Martin summarizes it as: strategy is choice, not a planning document.
How should I use "strategy" in a case interview recommendation?
State a diagnosis in one sentence, then a numbered choice (where and how), one trade-off, and two coherent next steps with rough economics. Avoid "our strategy is to grow" unless you immediately specify the segment you will win and the segment you will leave.
Sources
- What Is Strategy? — Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review (Nov–Dec 1996) — operational effectiveness vs strategic positioning, trade-offs, and activity fit. Checked 2026-09-24.
- Strategy Explained — Institute for Strategy & Competitiveness, Harvard Business School — uniqueness, trade-offs, fit; competing to be unique vs best. Checked 2026-09-24.
- Good Strategy Bad Strategy — Richard Rumelt (Crown / Penguin Random House) — kernel of diagnosis, guiding policy, and coherent action; critique of goals-as-strategy. Checked 2026-09-24.
- Strategy — Roger L. Martin — strategy as choice; five questions of the Strategy Choice Cascade from Playing to Win. Checked 2026-09-24.
- Playing to Win — A.G. Lafley and Roger Martin (Harvard Business Review Press) — where to play / how to win as the heart of strategy. Checked 2026-09-24.