Strategy is one of the most frequently addressed and central concepts in the management and organizational literature; nevertheless, there is still no full academic consensus regarding its definition, scope, and boundaries. Scholars working in this field argue that both strategy and the strategy-making process have evolved through different theoretical traditions, practical applications, and historical contexts. As a result, strategy has acquired a pluralistic character that encompasses organizational positioning, performance outcomes, and alignment with internal values and culture. Early contributions to the strategy literature primarily focused on a rational approach to strategy formation, emphasizing that strategies should be deliberately and systematically formulated. This perspective conceptualizes strategy making as an analytical and functional design activity and views strategies as instruments that provide order, direction, and coherence to organizations. Within this framework, strategy formulation and implementation are treated as sequential stages, and strategic success is largely associated with effective planning and control. Nevertheless, a substantial body of empirical and conceptual research demonstrates that the rational strategy model does not closely correspond to actual organizational practices. In organizational contexts characterized by uncertainty and complexity, the implementation of fully predetermined strategies often proves problematic. This discrepancy has led to growing criticism of rational and prescriptive approaches and has paved the way for alternative perspectives on strategy. In this context, the incremental approach conceptualizes strategy making as a process of learning and gradual change, emphasizing that strategy is not a one-time planning exercise but a dynamic process over time. Accordingly, this chapter examines different understandings of strategy and highlights the need to approach strategy as a context-sensitive analytical construct rather than a universal prescription.