I’m prepping for a corporate strategy interview at a big tech company right now, and I’ve noticed something: most interview prep for strategy feels like it’s just consulting case prep with corporate jargon sprinkled in. It’s not.
I went through the usual suspects—case interview books, practice frameworks, the whole thing. But then I talked to someone who actually does strategy at the company level, and she completely reframed what the interview actually assesses.
Turns out, they want to see: (1) how you think when the problem is messy and there’s no clear answer, (2) how you operate when you don’t have all the data, and (3) how you’d actually partner with ops and business teams to make something happen—not just deliver a beautiful deck.
So I stopped memorizing frameworks and started actually reading their earnings calls, their investor letters, and their product roadmap decisions. I found patterns in how they approach trade-offs. Then I practiced articulating my thinking out loud—not in a polished presentation, but in the way someone explains something to a peer. Messy, iterative, open to pushback.
I also stopped leading with “here’s the answer” and started practicing “here’s how I’d think about this, tell me if I’m missing something.” That small shift changes the conversation from interrogation to collaboration.
The hardest part? They asked about a decision I thought was wrong. Instead of defending the company or pretending it was genius, I engaged honestly. I think that conversation—the one where I pushed back thoughtfully—mattered more than the polished case I’d prepped to death.
What’s your actual interview prep looking like? Are you finding that standard case prep translates, or are you hitting a wall too?
yeah the “we want to hear your thinking not the answer” line is something every interviewer says and half of them don’t actually mean it. what they usually mean is “have an answer but pretend you’re thinking it through for the first time.” that said, your instinct about reading the actual company strategy and earnings is correct—that’s the difference between people who do well and people who don’t.
the pushback thing is a trap tho—depends entirely on the interviewer. some want you to challenge them. others want you to demonstrate you can operate within their constraints. you gotta figure out which one you’re talking to before you lean into that move. sounds like u got lucky with someone open to it.
ok this is really helpful. so ur saying we should read like their annual reports and stuff before the interview? that makes total sense but i havent been doing that at all lol
also how do u practice the “thinking out loud” thing? like did u just talk to urself or did u practice with someone?
im saving this bc the part about pushback is wild. never thought about that as something that could actually help
One important caveat: the willingness to respectfully challenge depends heavily on the interviewer’s seniority and the company culture. At some orgs, that confidence reads as strategic thinking. At others, it reads as arrogance. The safest approach is to frame pushback as clarifying questions about assumptions rather than disagreement—‘I’m curious about the reasoning here’ often works better than ‘I think that’s wrong.’ That said, demonstrating you’ve actually thought critically about their strategy is almost universally valuable.
You’re going into this with such a thoughtful approach! Reading the company strategy and practicing collaborative thinking will definitely set you apart. You’ve got this!
I interviewed for a strategy role last year and did almost exactly what you’re describing. The moment it clicked for me was when I realized the interviewer wasn’t testing me on frameworks—they were testing whether I could actually think like someone already inside the org. So I started prepping by imagining I already worked there and was sitting in a meeting where we had to make a call with incomplete info. That mental shift changed everything about how I approached the interview.
Regarding the pushback approach: research suggests that candidates who frame critiques as collaborative inquiry rather than disagreement score higher on ‘cultural fit’ and ‘partnership ability’ assessments. The key distinction is positioning it as ‘what might we be missing’ rather than ‘here’s where you’re wrong.’ That framing preserves the collaborative tone while still demonstrating critical thinking.