TIPS ON GROUP DISCUSSION
Ø One week before the GD, you must go through the current
news/topics which is very helpful to pick up the right thought.
Ø First of all make the right views related to the topic and keep it in mind for right approach.
Ø Even if starting the discussion bring you the notice of the
examiner, it can be a plus point for you if you don’t start the
discussion first because this gives you the sufficient time to pickup
the line.
Ø Listen carefully the views of other’s. Its better to be silent instead of giving a wrong statement.
Ø Try to display original ideas and faced the challenge with assurance and determination.
Ø Speak clearly revealing good command over the language.
Ø Make sure you are audible.
Ø Always gives chance and support to others.
Ø Don’t loose your patience. Be calm.
Ø Don’t create controversies and quarrels with others.
Ø Always gives your arguments logically and rationally giving emphasis on important points to clinch the issue.
Ø Adopt a mature and scientific approach.
Ø Be persuasive and convince others trying to win them over by way of thinking.
Ø Don’t be confused and timid. It shows your lack of confidence.
Ø Don’t be emotional or display unsteady behaviour.
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 an 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?
- 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.
- you should try to think of the various arguments of your’s and
others’ as parts of a jigsaw puzzle or as building blocks of a larger
argument for or against the topic.
- you should 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.
- you should 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 y
- 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 antagonise 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.
