Many companies conduct group discussion after the
written test so as to check on your interactive skills
and how good you are at communicating with other people.
The GD is to check how you behave, participate and
contribute in a group, how much importance do you
give to the group objective as well as your own, how
well do you listen to viewpoints of others and how
open-minded are you in accepting views contrary to
your own. The aspects which make up a GD are verbal
communication, non-verbal behaviour, conformation
to norms, decision-making ability and cooperation.
You should try to be as true as possible to these
aspects.
1. In a group discussion what should
my objectives be and how should I achieve them?
2. Is it wise to take a strong stand
either in favor or against the topic right at the
start of a Group Discussion ?
3. Is it a good strategy to try and be
the first speaker on the topic in a GD?
4. In an interview how does one handle
the question "Tell us about yourself?".
5. Is it better to have a longer selection
interview or a shorter one?
6. In the MBA entrance interview how
do I justify my decision to pursue the MBA programme?
In a group discussion what should
my objectives be and how should I achieve them?
In order to succeed at any unstructured group discussion,
you must define what your objective in the group is.
A good definition of your objective is - to be
seen to have contributed meaningfully in an attempt
to achieve the right consensus
The key words in this definition are 'seen', 'meaningfully', and
'attempt'. Let us understand what each of these imply in terms of action
points : The first implication is that merely making a meaningful
contribution in an attempt to achieve consensus is not enough. You have to
be seen by the evaluator to have made a meaningful contribution in n
attempt to build the right consensus.
In other words you must ensure that you are heard by the group. If the
group hears you so will the evaluator. You must get at least some airtime.
If you are not a very assertive person you will have to simply learn to
be assertive for those 15 minutes. If you get cowed down easily in an
aggressive group, you can say goodbye to the business school admission.
Many GD participants often complain that they did not get a chance to
speak. The fact of the matter is that in no GD do you get a chance to speak.
You have to make your chances.
The second important implication is that
making just any sort of contribution is not enough.
Your contribution has to be meaningful.
A meaningful contribution suggests that you have a
good knowledge base, are able to structure arguments
logically and are a good communicator. These
are qualities that are desired by all evaluators.
Many GD participants feel that the way to succeed in a GD is by speaking
frequently, for a long time and loudly. This is not true. The quality of
what you say is more important than the quantity. Don't be demoralized if
you feel you have not spoken enough. If you have spoken sense and have been
heard, even if only for a short time, it is usually good enough. You must
have substance in your arguments.
Therefore, think things through carefully. Always enter the room with a
piece of paper and a pen. In the first two minutes jot down as many ideas as
you can. It pays to think laterally. Everybody else will state the
obvious. Can you state something different? Can you take the group ahead if
it is stuck at one point? Can you take it in a fresh and more relevant
direction? You may like to dissect the topic and go into the underlying
causes or into the results.
One way of deciding what sort of contribution is meaningful at what point
of time is to follow two simple rules. First, in times of chaos a person
who restores order to the group is appreciated. Your level of participation
in a fish market kind of scenario can be low, but your degree of influence
must never be low. In other words you must make positive contributions
every time you speak and not speak for the sake of speaking. The second rule
is applicable when the group is floundering. In this situation a person
who provides a fresh direction to the group is given credit.
The third implication is that you must
be clearly seen to be attempting to build a consensus.
Nobody expects a group of ten people, all with different
points of view on a controversial
subject to actually achieve a consensus. But
did you make the attempt to build a consensus?
The reason why an attempt to build a
consensus is important is because in most work situations you will have to
work with people in a team, accept joint responsibilities and take
decisions as a group. You must demonstrate the fact that you are capable and
inclined to work as part of a team.
What are the ways that you can try to build consensus?
First, you must not just talk, you should also listen. You must realize
that other people also may have valid points to make. You should not only
try to persuade other people to your point of view, but also come across
as a person who has an open mind and appreciates the valid points of others.
You must try and resolve contradictions and arguments of others in the
group. You must synthesize arguments and try and achieve a unified position
in the group. Try to think of the various arguments of yours and others' as
parts of a jigsaw puzzle or as building blocks of a larger argument for or
against the topic.
Try and lay down the boundaries or the area of the discussion at the
beginning. Discuss what the group should discuss before actually beginning
your discussion. This will at least ensure that everyone is talking about
the same thing.
Try and summarize the discussion at the end. In the summary do not merely
restate your point of view; also accommodate dissenting viewpoints. If
the group did not reach a consensus, say so in your summary
You must carry people with you. So do not
get emotional, shout, invade other people's private space.
Do not bang your fist on the table except in extreme circumstances.
If you have spoken and you notice that someone else has tried to enter
the discussion on a number of occasions and has not had the chance to do so
maybe you could give him a chance the next time he tries. But do not
offer a chance to anyone who is not trying to speak. He may not have
anything to say at that point and you will just end up looking foolish.
The surest way of antagonizing others in the GD as well as the examiner
is to appoint yourself as a de facto chairperson of the group. Do not try to
impose a system whereby everyone gets a chance to speak in turn. A GD is
meant to be a free flowing discussion.
Let it proceed naturally. Do not ever try to take a vote on the topic. A
vote is no substitute for discussion.
Do not address only one or two persons
when speaking. Maintain eye contact with as many members
of the group as possible. This will involve others
in what you are saying and increase your chances of
carrying them with you. Do this even if you are answering
a specific point raised by one person. One last point.
You must not agree with another participant in the
group merely for the sake of achieving consensus.
If you disagree, say so. You are not there to attempt
to build just any consensus. You have to attempt to
build the right consensus.
Is it wise to take a strong stand either in favour or against the topic
right at the start of a Group Discussion ?
In theory yes. If you believe something why shouldn't you say so? If we
are convinced about something our natural response is to say so
emphatically. However in practice what is likely to happen if you take a
very strong and dogged stance right at the beginning of the interview is
that you will antagonize the people in the group who disagree with you
and will be unable to carry them with you and convince them of the validity
of your argument. We therefore recommend that after you hear the topic
you think about it for a minute with an open mind and note down the major
issues that come to your mind. Don't jump to any conclusions. Instead
arrive at a stand in your own mind after examining all the issues in a
balanced manner. Only then begin to speak. And when you do so outline the
major issues first and only then state your stand. In other words give the
justification first and the stand later. If you were to state your stand
first chances are that the others in the group who disagree with your stand
will interrupt to contradict you before you can elaborate on the reasons
why you have taken that stance. In this situation the evaluator will only
get an impression of what you think and not how you think. Remember you
are being evaluated on how you think and not what you think
Is it a good strategy to try and be the
first speaker on the topic in a GD?
In most GD's the opening speaker is
the person who is likely to get the maximum uninterrupted
airtime. The reason is simple - at the start most
other participants in the GD are
still trying to understand the basic issues in the
topic, or are too nervous to speak and are waiting
for someone else to start. Therefore the evaluators
get the best chance to observe the opening speaker.
Now this is a double edged sword. If the opening speaker talks sense
naturally he will get credit because he opened and took the group in the
right direction. If on the other hand the first speaker doesn't have too
much sense to say, he will attract the undivided attention of the
evaluators to his shortcomings. He will be marked as a person who speaks
without thinking merely for the sake of speaking. As someone who leads the
group in the wrong direction and does not make a positive contribution to
the group.
So remember speaking first is a high risk high return strategy. It
can make or mar your GD performance depending how you handle it. Speak first
only if you have something sensible to say. Otherwise keep shut and let
someone else start.
In an interview how does one handle the question "Tell us about yourself?".
An often asked opening question. Perhaps the most frequently asked
question across interviews. Your opening statement needs to be a summary of
your goals, overall professional capabilities, achievements, background
(educational and family), strengths, professional objectives and anything
about your personality that is relevant and interesting. This question
represents an opportunity to lead the interviewer in the direction you want
him to go e.g., your speciality or whatever else you may wish to highlight.
Your intention should be to try to subtly convince the interviewers that
you are a good candidate, you have proved that in the past, and have a
personality that fits the requirement. Remember that the first impression
you create will go a long way in the ultimate selection. Keep in mind, most
candidates who are asked this question just blurt out their schooling,
college, marks and qualifications. All this is already there in the CV.
Why tell the interviewer something he already knows?
A final word on approaching this question. Once you
have said what you have to say - shut up. Don't drone
on for the sake of speaking for you just might
say something foolish. Sometimes interviewers don't
interrupt in order to give the candidate the impression
that he has not spoken enough. This is just a
stress inducing tactic. Don't fall for it, if you
feel you have spoken enough. In case the pause gets
too awkward for you just add something like,
"Is there something specific that you
wish to know about me?" Is
it better to have a longer selection interview or
a shorter one?
The length of an interview in no way is an
indicator of how well an interview went. This is especially so when there
are a number of candidates to be interviewed for example in the civil
services interview or the MBA entrance interview. In the past a number of
candidates have reported varying lengths of interviews. Nothing positive
or negative should be read into this. An interview is only a device whereby
the panel seeks information about the candidate. Information that will help
the panel decide whether or not the candidate should be selected.
If the panel feels that it has gathered enough information about the
candidate in 15 minutes of the interview commencing and that it has no
further questions to ask the interview will be terminated in 15 minutes. If
on the other hand the panel takes an hour to gather the information required
to take a decision the interview will last for an hour. In either case the
decision could be positive or negative. It is a fallacy to believe that
interview panels take longer interviews of candidates whom they are more
interested in.
No panel likes to waste its time. If an interview is lasting longer than
usual then it only means that the panel is seeking more information about
the candidate in order to take a decision.
In the MBA entrance interview how do I justify my decision to pursue the
MBA programme?
When you are asked this for God's sake don't tell the panel that you are
looking for a "challenging job in a good firm with lots of money, status
and glamour". That is the first answer that most candidates think of.
Unfortunately it is the last answer that will get you admission. In the
answer to a direct question on this subject you must convey to the
interview panel that you have made a rational and informed decision about
your career choice and your intended course of higher study. There are
broadly six areas which your answer could touch upon :
Career Objectives : You could talk about your career objectives and how
the two year MBA programme will help you achieve them. This implies that you
have a clear idea of what your career objectives are and how you wish to
achieve them. For example you may want to be an entrepreneur and wish to set
up your independent enterprise after doing your MBA and then working for a
few years in a professionally managed company. You could explain to the
panel that the MBA programme will provide you with the necessary inputs to
help you run your business enterprise better. But then you must be clear
about what the inputs you will receive in the MBA programme are.
Value Addition : That brings us to the
second area that your answer should touch upon. What is the value you will
add to yourself during your two year study of management. Value addition
will essentially be in two forms knowledge and skills. Knowledge of the
various areas of management e.g. marketing, finance, systems, HRD etc. and
skills of analysis and communication. You will find it useful to talk to a
few people who are either doing their MBA or have already done it. They will
be able to give you a more detailed idea of what they gained from their MBA.
Background : Remember, there must be no inconsistency between your
proposed study of management and your past subject of study or your past
work experience. If you have studied commerce in college then management is
a natural course of higher studies. If you are an engineer this is a tricky
area. You must never say that by pursuing a career in management you will be
wasting your engineering degree. Try and say that the MBA course and your
engineering degree will help you do your job better in the company that you
will join. But then you should be able to justify how your engineering
qualification will help
Opportunities and Rewards : You could also at this stage mention the
opportunities that are opening up in organizations for management
graduates. Highlight with examples. At the end you may mention that while
monetary rewards are not everything they are also important and MBAs do get
paid well. You must not mention these reasons as your primary motivators
even if that may be the case.
General Tips
-
A good level of general awareness will come
in handy so that you aren't at a loss of words on certain issues
-
Understand the topic and analyze it mentally
before speaking
-
Be clear about the purpose and content of
your viewpoint
-
One should be able to communicate his views
in an effective manner to everyone. Be clear in speech, audible but not
too loud and above all remain confident
-
Remember the six C's of effective
communication -- Clarity, Completeness, Conciseness, Confidence,
Correctness and Courtesy
-
You should maintain eye contact with
all others in the group and not focus on a particular person for he may
benefit from that
-
Be responsive to ideas from other people and
seem to be very receptive and open-minded but don't allow others to change
your own viewpoint.
-
Starting the discussion is considered to be
good however it isn't that important; what is important is that you speak
for a period long enough for you to be able to communicate your viewpoint
-
Always mantain your calm and never get
aggressive. If you haven't been able to talk then one can cut in saying
"Excuse me, but what I think is .........." or something of that sort
-
Never lose your temper and never attack
anyone on a personal front. Your attitude should be one of cooperation and
not one of conflict
-
Don't lose sight of the goal of the
discussion
-
Listen to any criticisms and give them a
thought before trying to defend your views
