Growth strategy framework

Hi there,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your question:

• First of all, the "organic/inorganic" concept is more about how you implement your levers, so it may be a meaningful aspect to consider in any growth case study that focuses on specific levers.
• Moreover, and contrary to what other coaches have said, while I would also not advise you to force-fit a case study into a framework, when you only have 2-3 minutes to develop a meaningful initial structure, you need to have concepts or "building blocks" in your memory to get it done.
• Lastly, given your rather fundamental question, I would strongly advise you to consider working with an experienced coach like me on your structuring skills. I developed the "Case Structuring Program" to help exactly such candidates like you who struggle with case study structures.

You can find more on this topic here: How to succeed in the final interview round.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare your application files, for your upcoming pre-interview assessments and/or interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Hi there 👋

When it comes to Growth Strategy I can think of two main use-cases:

1) Type of opportunity (most commonly used): (a) Organic development means growth through whatever is in the Company core i.e. doing more of the same or trying a new things vs (b) inorganic being M&A activities - instead of waiting years of gaining market share through organic development you can buy a competitor with x% share

2) Financing activities (rare, PE / financial cases): another case where I  see this organic / inorganic distinction is how you would like to finance your Company development, you can do that using (a) your own money - organic (equity) or (b) using debt financing / IPO, etc. (money from banks, inwestors - inorganic way)

Hope that will help, best of luck!

Hi there,

In general, avoid defaulting to “typical” frameworks or over-generalising your approach. Every case is unique, and the framework should be tailored to the specific context, objectives, and constraints presented in the prompt.

For example:

• Don’t use organic vs. inorganic just because it’s a growth case — only do so if the prompt explicitly or implicitly signals that external levers like M&A or partnerships are viable or expected.
• Avoid rigidly applying the price × volume tree if the case is more strategic, like entering a new market, launching a new business model, or responding to disruption.

Instead, build your structure from first principles, guided by:

• The goal (e.g., revenue, market share, profitability, competitive positioning)
• The context (e.g., market maturity, urgency, internal capabilities, external options)
• The client’s constraints and levers (e.g., brand strength, capital availability, ecosystem access)

This not only shows that you're thinking like a consultant, not a casebot, but also allows you to adapt dynamically when the case twists — as they often do.

Let me know if you need further help!

Best,

Evelina 

Hello there,

this is a very broad question, it will depend on the type of case you get.

Usually inorganic growth (merging with another company, acquiring a competitor, or forming a strategic alliance with a partner - JV) happens considering time to market, opportunities at hand, lack of expertise, access to new markets and resources, immediate increases in market share, etc. Again, it will depend on the case.

Also, see that the organic growth you have mentioned (price * quantity) is a quantitative way to look at the problem, I suggest you to consider other types of break downs or additional layers depending on the context, e.g.: the Ansoff matrix.

Best,
Mari

I strongly discourage memorising “frameworks”. There is no situation in which a framework “works”. At the highest level, you won’t find cases that fits a singular framework. 

Focus on what makes sense for the specific case you are doing. Frameworks should only be used as reference for elements/themes you could consider. 

See examples of two responses candidates give and you can quickly tell who’s trying to force for a framework (assume there’s info that could suggest organic not having been useful):

Candidate A: I think we can approach this by looking at organic vs inorganic growth. For inorganic xxx…for organic xxx

Candidate B: It seems our client has little success in organically growing, I think we can approach this considering a few alternative growth approaches, namely

•xxx

•xxx

•xxx

Great question - and one that most casebook answers get totally wrong.

Let’s get something straight:

Organic vs. Inorganic is NOT a growth lever.

And including it next to real levers like pricing, customer segments, or volume drivers will immediately flag you as someone who’s memorizing frameworks, not solving problems.

Here’s what you need to understand:

Organic and Inorganic are not what you do.
They’re how you do it.

They’re modes of execution - not categories of growth.

For example:
→ You want to enter a new geography?
You can build (organic) or acquire (inorganic).

→ You want to launch a new product?
You can develop it in-house (organic) or buy a player with the capability (inorganic).

Literally any growth lever - price, volume, segments, products, geographies -
can be pursued either organically or inorganically.

So what’s the better structure?

Start by breaking down the actual growth levers:

• → Launch new offerings
• → Expand into new segments
• → Enter new markets
• → Increase penetration
• → Adjust pricing
• → Improve retention

Once you've mapped those out,
then layer the execution mode (organic vs. inorganic) on top as an overlay dimension.

That’s how top-tier candidates think.

Hope that helps.
Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné

Former Senior Engagement Manager & Interviewer at McKinsey | Former Senior Consultant at BCG | Co-Founder of The MBB Offer Machine™

Hi,

I would highly discourage to use the typical framework you are mentioning. The exact framwork you need to use is depending on the case and goal. Best way to determine is by asking clear clarification questions. Note that there are other growth levers like product, distibution channel, location ...

I have some real cases focusing on growth strategy and all have a different framework.

Let me know if you would like to practice together.

Mattijs

Hi there, 

Please provide us with a bit more context so we can give you a helpful answer. 

In general, I would avoid any 'typical' situations or frameworks or any means of generalising the frameworks. If you are aiming for a distinctive performance - which you should, considering how competitive these interviews are - then you should be focused on tailoring and first principles thinking.

Best,

Cristian