Let's go on to how GD is initiated and summarised.

A group discussion can be categorically divided into three different phases:

i. Initiation/ Introduction

ii. Body of the group discussion

iii. Summarisation/ Conclusion

Let's stress on the initiation and summarisation:

Initiation Techniques

Initiating a GD is a high profit-high loss strategy.

When you initiate a GD, you not only grab the opportunity to speak, you also grab the attention of
the examiner and your fellow candidates.

If you can make a favourable first impression with your content and communication skills after
you initiate a GD, it will help you sail through the discussion.

But if you initiate a GD and stammer/ stutter/ quote wrong facts and figures, the damage might be
irreparable.

If you initiate a GD impeccably but don't speak much after that, it gives the impression that you
started the GD for the sake of starting it or getting those initial kitty of points earmarked for an
initiator!

When you start a GD, you are responsible for putting it into the right perspective or framework.
So initiate one only if you have indepth knowledge about the topic at hand.

There are different techniques to initiate a GD and make a good first impression:

i. Quotes
ii. Definition
iii. Question
iv. Shock statement
v. Facts, figures and statistics
vi. Short story
vii. General statement

~ Quotes

Quotes are an effective way of initiating a GD.

If the topic of a GD is: Should the Censor Board be abolished?, you could start with a quote like,
'Hidden apples are always sweet'.

For a GD topic like, Customer is King, you could quote Sam (Wal-mart) Walton's famous saying,
'There is only one boss: the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company -- from the
chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.'
~ Definition

Start a GD by defining the topic or an important term in the topic.

For example, if the topic of the GD is Advertising is a Diplomatic Way of Telling a Lie, why not
start the GD by defining advertising as, 'Any paid form of non-personal presentation and
promotion of ideas, goods or services through mass media like newspapers, magazines,
television or radio by an identified sponsor'?

For a topic like The Malthusian Economic Prophecy is no longer relevant, you could start by
explaining the definition of the Malthusian Economic Prophecy.

~ Question

Asking a question is an impactful way of starting a GD.

It does not signify asking a question to any of the candidates in a GD so as to hamper the flow. It
implies asking a question, and answering it yourself.

Any question that might hamper the flow of a GD or insult a participant or play devil's
advocate must be discouraged.

Questions that promote a flow of ideas are always appreciated.

For a topic like, Should India go to war with Pakistan, you could start by asking, 'What does war
bring to the people of a nation? We have had four clashes with Pakistan. The pertinent question
is: what have we achieved?'

~ Shock statement

Initiating a GD with a shocking statement is the best way to grab immediate attention and put
forth your point.

If a GD topic is, The Impact of Population on the Indian Economy, you could start with, 'At the
centre of the Indian capital stands a population clock that ticks away relentlessly. It tracks 33
births a minute, 2,000 an hour, 48,000 a day. Which calculates to about 12 million every year.
That is roughly the size of Australia. As a current political slogan puts it, 'Nothing's impossible
when 1 billion Indians work together'.'

~ Facts, figures and statistics

If you decide to initiate your GD with facts, figure and statistics, make sure to quote them
accurately.

Approximation is allowed in macro level figures, but micro level figures need to be correct and
accurate.

For example, you can say, approximately 70 per cent of the Indian population stays in rural areas
(macro figures, approximation allowed).

But you cannot say 30 states of India instead of 28 (micro figures, no approximations).
Stating wrong facts works to your disadvantage.

For a GD topic like, China, a Rising Tiger, you could start with, 'In 1983, when China was still in
its initial stages of reform and opening up, China's real use of Foreign Direct Investment only
stood at $636 million. China actually utilised $60 billion of FDI in 2004, which is almost 100 times
that of its 1983 statistics."

~ Short story

Use a short story in a GD topic like, Attitude is Everything.

This can be initiated with, 'A child once asked a balloon vendor, who was selling helium gas-filled
balloons, whether a blue-coloured balloon will go as high in the sky as a green-coloured balloon.
The balloon vendor told the child, it is not the colour of the balloon but what is inside it that makes
it go high.'

~ General statement

Use a general statement to put the GD in proper perspective.

For example, if the topic is, Should Sonia Gandhi be the prime minister of India?, you could start
by saying, 'Before jumping to conclusions like, 'Yes, Sonia Gandhi should be', or 'No, Sonia
Gandhi should not be', let's first find out the qualities one needs to be a a good prime minister of
India. Then we can compare these qualities with those that Mrs Gandhi possesses. This will help
us reach the conclusion in a more objective and effective manner.'

Summarisation Techniques

Most GDs do not really have conclusions. A conclusion is where the whole group decides in
favour or against the topic.

But every GD is summarised. You can summarise what the group has discussed in the GD in a
nutshell.

Keep the following points in mind while summarising a discussion:

 Avoid raising new points.

 Avoid stating only your viewpoint.
 Avoid dwelling only on one aspect of the GD.
 Keep it brief and concise.
 It must incorporate all the important points that came out during the GD.
 If the examiner asks you to summarise a GD, it means the GD has come to an end. Do
not add anything once the GD has been summarised.
 Tips on Group Discussion (Designed my
MANJUNATH.A)

A group discussion is a simulated exercise, where you cannot suddenly

put up a show, since the evaluators will see through you easily. The
purpose of the article is to sensitise you to these issues so that you can
develop yourself with time.

Here in this page you can find tips on tips on group discussion, How to
handle group discussions, Winner's skills for Group discussion,
Leadership skills, Communication skills, Interpersonal skills, Persuasive
skills, Problem solving skills, and Conceptualizing skills

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 the group hears you. 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 group discussion participants often complain that they did not get a
chance to speak. The fact of the matter is that in no group discussion 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 group discussion participants feel that the way to succeed in a
group discussion 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?

Firstly, you don't just talk. You 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 your’s 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 group discussion 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 group
discussion 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 in something why should’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 group
discussion?

In most group discussion’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 group discussion 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 group discussion performance depending how you handle it. Speak first only if
you have something sensible to say. Otherwise keep quiet and let someone else
start.
Group discussion tips

The Career Enrich team shares with you some tips to give you the edge during your
group discussion.

 Be as natural as possible. Do not try and be someone you are not. Be

yourself so the employer gets to know the real you.

 A group discussion is your chance to be more vocal. The point of interest to

the evaluator is to hear you speak.

 Take time to think of what you are going to say - if allowed, take a piece
of paper and a pen with you and jot down your thoughts, before verbalising
them. This could help you create the right framework for your discussion.

 If you have any doubts regarding the subject or about what another team
member has said, ask for clarification.

 Don't start speaking until you have clearly understood and analysed the
subject.

 Work out various strategies to help you make an entry: initiate the
discussion or agree with someone else's point and then move onto express
your views.

 Do not be swayed when you are told that opening the discussion is the only
way of gaining attention and recognition. If you do not give valuable
insights during the discussion, all your efforts of initiating the discussion
will be in vain.

 The score you receive depends not only on your verbal communication, but
also on non-verbal skills. Your body language says a lot about you - your
gestures and mannerisms are more likely to reflect your attitude than what
you say.

 Language skills are important only to the effect as to how you get your
points across clearly and fluently.

 Be assertive not dominating; try to maintain a balanced tone in your

discussion and analysis.

 Be patient; don't lose your cool if anyone says anything you object to. The
key is to stay objective: Don't take the discussion personally.
  Always be polite: Try to avoid using extreme phrases like: `I strongly
object' or `I disagree'. Instead try phrases like: `I would like to share my
views on…' or `One difference between your point and mine…'

 Brush up on your leadership skills; motivate the other members of the

team to speak, and listen to their views. Be receptive to others' opinions and
do not be abrasive or aggressive.

 If you have a group of like-minded friends, you can have a mock group
discussion where you can learn from each other through giving and receiving
feedback.

Apart from the above points, the panel will also judge team members for their
alertness and presence of mind, problem-solving abilities, ability to work as a team
without alienating certain members, and creativity.

Don’t be disheartened if you don't make it after your first group discussion…
the best possible preparation for a group discussion is to learn from your
past mistakes…

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 group discussion participants often complain that they did not get a chance to
speak. The fact of the matter is that in no group discussion 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 group discussion participants feel that the way to succeed in a group discussion 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 your's 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 group discussion 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 group discussion 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 group discussion?

In most group discussion'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 group discussion 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
group discussion performance depending how you handle it. Speak first only if you have
something sensible to say. Otherwise keep shut and let someone else start.

How to handle group discussions

Group discussions tell an employer how a prospective employee can function in a

team; whether the candidate is a leader; and how the candidate is able to handle
groups. Here, Ms. Hemamalini, an HR practitioner, shares her views and experiences
of group discussions - both as a candidate and as an employer.

"Some years ago, I had applied to an MNC for a job in their HR team. I was called to
attend a group discussion. I was part of an 8-member group, and found that most of
the other group members were from premier business schools, with a couple of
years of experience more than mine. In comparison I was only a fresher. As the
discussion began I soon realised that they seemed to go by the book, as far as
preparations for the discussion went!

Theoretically, the person who takes the lead in a group discussion is supposed to
have an edge over the others. However, I have found that taking the lead and
speaking first is a two-edged sword: You can either be a fantastic success and
win the confidence of the group as well as the evaluating panel, or your attempt
could make you the laughing-stock of the group.

In this particular instance, two of the participants were straining at the leash, and
both wanted to begin first! One got in ahead by a few seconds, but the second made
up for his delay in volume. As a result, there was utter chaos for a couple of minutes,
with each trying to out-shout the other. A few other members, realising what the
matter was, tried to join the fray. I was aghast but decided not to add to the noise!

After a few minutes, when there was a pause, I asked: `Now with all your support
can we all get together to discuss the matter at hand? Perhaps we could start by
speaking in turn, so that everyone's opinion can be heard?' The others looked blank
for a moment, but realised what they were doing and spoke one after the other! By
not joining the racket and by getting the group to follow some discipline, I was
acknowledged as the team leader. Later, I was told that my calm and sensible
behaviour had also impressed the evaluating panel. An unexpected outcome, as I
only wanted to get the discussion on track!

Another thing employers rely upon to learn more about you is your body language.
A candidate who appears professional (or is not too overbearing) is more likely to be
noticed favourably by the panel. And, of course, language skills are vital. Speaking
fluently and clearly is an asset, but you must be able to organise your thoughts
before you speak. Your ability to conceptualise, throw new insights into the
discussion are being evaluated.
Be polite - it never hurts to say `Please' or `Exccuse me' - and it creates a good
impression! Avoid phrases like `I strongly disagree' or `Definitely not'. As an
employer, I am more impressed by candidates who are able to lead subtly than by
those who get their way by being loud and abrasive. The candidate's knowledge of
the field may be sound, but a certain degree of maturity and wisdom are essential
to effectively implement any task.

In my experience, employers are more impressed by a candidate whose analytical

skills are sharp, who is focussed on the matter at hand, and who is astute.
Candidates who are receptive to others' opinions, and whose own opinions are
flexible enough to accommodate someone else's suggestions, are more likely to
make it to the interview stage. I have found that being assertive without being
aggressive is an invaluable skill during group discussions.

While preparing for the group discussion, read as much as you can - there are
plenty of books and magazines that provide hints on how to handle group
discussions. But remember these books and magazines are not any substitute for
your common sense and even instinct. My own personal experience only at the
group discussion I mentioned earlier reconfirms the same. …. While I made it to the
interview stage, the initiators of the discussion did not make it!

So as I wish you good luck I encourage each one of you to be your natural
self… for banking on your own various strengths and common sense will
surely help you do well."

Group discussion Winners' skills

Group discussion is an important dimension of the job selection process. Any job requires
employees to work with others for effective functioning. Therefore, people skills are an
important aspect of any job. In today's context, the organisations are interested in team
players rather than individual contributors even if they are excellent performers by
themselves.

Employers during group discussion evaluate the candidates’ potential to be a leader and
also his/her ability to work in teams.

Normally group discussions are used in the selection process for management
trainees and executive positions. Employers are looking for candidates who have
potential to be executives and to lead teams of people.

Here's how most group discussions work:

 Normally groups of 8-10 candidates are formed into a leaderless group, and
are given a specific situation to analyse and discuss within a given time limit.

 They may be given a case study and asked to come out with a solution for a
problem.

 They may be given a topic and are asked to discuss on the same.
A panel, which normally comprises the functional and HR executives of the company
will observe and evaluate the members of the group.

Here is a sample list of skills assessed during a group discussion process:

 Leadership skills:

Ability to take leadership roles and be able to lead, inspire and carry the team
along to help them achieve group’s objectives.

Example: To be able to initiate the group discussion, or be able to guide the

group especially when the discussion begins losing relevance or try to
encourage all members to participate in the discussion.

 Communication skills:

The participating candidates will be assessed in terms of clarity of thought,

expression and aptness of language. One key aspect is listening. It indicates
a willingness to accommodate others views.

Example: To be able to use simple language and explain concepts clearly so

that it is easily understood by all.

 Interpersonal skills :

Is reflected in the ability of the individual to interact with other members of

the group in a brief situation. Emotional maturity and balance promotes good
interpersonal relationships. The person has to be more people centric and less
self-centered.

Example:To remain cool even when someone provokes you by with personal
comment, ability to remain objective, ability to empathise, non-threatening
and more of a team player.

 Persuasive skills :

In terms of ability to analyse and persuade others to see the problem from
multiple perspectives without hurting the group members.

Example: While appreciating the other person’s point of view, should be able
to effectively communicate your view without obviously contradicting the
other person's opinions.

 Problem solving skills:

Ability to come out with divergent and offbeat solutions and uses one’s own
creativity.

Example: While thinking of solutions, don't be afraid to think of novel

solutions. This is a high- risk high-return strategy.
  Conceptualizing skills :

The ability to grasp the situation, take it from the day to day mundane
problem level and apply it to a macro level.

Example: At the end of the discussion, you could probably summarize the
findings in a few sentences that present the overall perspective.

Tips on Group Discussion

(Designed my Mothish Babu)
. CAREER . CONTACT . MY
. HOME .
TIPS . ME . GUESTBOOK .

A group discussion is a simulated exercise, where you cannot suddenly

put up a show, since the evaluators will see through you easily. The
purpose of the article is to sensitise you to these issues so that you can
develop yourself with time.

Here in this page you can find tips on tips on group discussion, How to
handle group discussions, Winner's skills for Group discussion,
Leadership skills, Communication skills, Interpersonal skills, Persuasive
skills, Problem solving skills, and Conceptualizing skills

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 the group hears you. 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 group discussion participants often complain that they did not get a
chance to speak. The fact of the matter is that in no group discussion 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 group discussion participants feel that the way to succeed in a
group discussion 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?

Firstly, you don't just talk. You 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 your’s 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 group discussion 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 group
discussion 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 in something why should’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 group
discussion?

In most group discussion’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 group discussion 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 group discussion performance depending how you handle it. Speak first only if
you have something sensible to say. Otherwise keep quiet and let someone else
start.

Group discussion tips

The Career Enrich team shares with you some tips to give you the edge during your
group discussion.

 Be as natural as possible. Do not try and be someone you are not. Be

yourself so the employer gets to know the real you.

 A group discussion is your chance to be more vocal. The point of interest to

the evaluator is to hear you speak.

 Take time to think of what you are going to say - if allowed, take a piece
of paper and a pen with you and jot down your thoughts, before verbalising
them. This could help you create the right framework for your discussion.

 If you have any doubts regarding the subject or about what another team
member has said, ask for clarification.

 Don't start speaking until you have clearly understood and analysed the
subject.

 Work out various strategies to help you make an entry: initiate the
discussion or agree with someone else's point and then move onto express
your views.

 Do not be swayed when you are told that opening the discussion is the only
way of gaining attention and recognition. If you do not give valuable
insights during the discussion, all your efforts of initiating the discussion
will be in vain.
  The score you receive depends not only on your verbal communication, but
also on non-verbal skills. Your body language says a lot about you - your
gestures and mannerisms are more likely to reflect your attitude than what
you say.

 Language skills are important only to the effect as to how you get your
points across clearly and fluently.

 Be assertive not dominating; try to maintain a balanced tone in your

discussion and analysis.

 Be patient; don't lose your cool if anyone says anything you object to. The
key is to stay objective: Don't take the discussion personally.

 Always be polite: Try to avoid using extreme phrases like: `I strongly

object' or `I disagree'. Instead try phrases like: `I would like to share my
views on…' or `One difference between your point and mine…'

 Brush up on your leadership skills; motivate the other members of the

team to speak, and listen to their views. Be receptive to others' opinions and
do not be abrasive or aggressive.

 If you have a group of like-minded friends, you can have a mock group
discussion where you can learn from each other through giving and receiving
feedback.

Apart from the above points, the panel will also judge team members for their
alertness and presence of mind, problem-solving abilities, ability to work as a team
without alienating certain members, and creativity.

Don’t be disheartened if you don't make it after your first group discussion…
the best possible preparation for a group discussion is to learn from your
past mistakes…

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 group discussion participants often complain that they did not get a chance to
speak. The fact of the matter is that in no group discussion 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 group discussion participants feel that the way to succeed in a group discussion 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 your's 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 group discussion 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 group discussion 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 group discussion?

In most group discussion'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 group discussion 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
group discussion performance depending how you handle it. Speak first only if you have
something sensible to say. Otherwise keep shut and let someone else start.

How to handle group discussions

Group discussions tell an employer how a prospective employee can function in a

team; whether the candidate is a leader; and how the candidate is able to handle
groups. Here, Ms. Hemamalini, an HR practitioner, shares her views and experiences
of group discussions - both as a candidate and as an employer.

"Some years ago, I had applied to an MNC for a job in their HR team. I was called to
attend a group discussion. I was part of an 8-member group, and found that most of
the other group members were from premier business schools, with a couple of
years of experience more than mine. In comparison I was only a fresher. As the
discussion began I soon realised that they seemed to go by the book, as far as
preparations for the discussion went!

Theoretically, the person who takes the lead in a group discussion is supposed to
have an edge over the others. However, I have found that taking the lead and
speaking first is a two-edged sword: You can either be a fantastic success and
win the confidence of the group as well as the evaluating panel, or your attempt
could make you the laughing-stock of the group.

In this particular instance, two of the participants were straining at the leash, and
both wanted to begin first! One got in ahead by a few seconds, but the second made
up for his delay in volume. As a result, there was utter chaos for a couple of minutes,
with each trying to out-shout the other. A few other members, realising what the
matter was, tried to join the fray. I was aghast but decided not to add to the noise!

After a few minutes, when there was a pause, I asked: `Now with all your support
can we all get together to discuss the matter at hand? Perhaps we could start by
speaking in turn, so that everyone's opinion can be heard?' The others looked blank
for a moment, but realised what they were doing and spoke one after the other! By
not joining the racket and by getting the group to follow some discipline, I was
acknowledged as the team leader. Later, I was told that my calm and sensible
behaviour had also impressed the evaluating panel. An unexpected outcome, as I
only wanted to get the discussion on track!

Another thing employers rely upon to learn more about you is your body language.
A candidate who appears professional (or is not too overbearing) is more likely to be
noticed favourably by the panel. And, of course, language skills are vital. Speaking
fluently and clearly is an asset, but you must be able to organise your thoughts
before you speak. Your ability to conceptualise, throw new insights into the
discussion are being evaluated.

Be polite - it never hurts to say `Please' or `Exccuse me' - and it creates a good
impression! Avoid phrases like `I strongly disagree' or `Definitely not'. As an
employer, I am more impressed by candidates who are able to lead subtly than by
those who get their way by being loud and abrasive. The candidate's knowledge of
the field may be sound, but a certain degree of maturity and wisdom are essential
to effectively implement any task.

In my experience, employers are more impressed by a candidate whose analytical

skills are sharp, who is focussed on the matter at hand, and who is astute.
Candidates who are receptive to others' opinions, and whose own opinions are
flexible enough to accommodate someone else's suggestions, are more likely to
make it to the interview stage. I have found that being assertive without being
aggressive is an invaluable skill during group discussions.

While preparing for the group discussion, read as much as you can - there are
plenty of books and magazines that provide hints on how to handle group
discussions. But remember these books and magazines are not any substitute for
your common sense and even instinct. My own personal experience only at the
group discussion I mentioned earlier reconfirms the same. …. While I made it to the
interview stage, the initiators of the discussion did not make it!

So as I wish you good luck I encourage each one of you to be your natural
self… for banking on your own various strengths and common sense will
surely help you do well."

Group discussion Winners' skills

Group discussion is an important dimension of the job selection process. Any job requires
employees to work with others for effective functioning. Therefore, people skills are an
important aspect of any job. In today's context, the organisations are interested in team
players rather than individual contributors even if they are excellent performers by
themselves.

Employers during group discussion evaluate the candidates’ potential to be a leader and
also his/her ability to work in teams.
Normally group discussions are used in the selection process for management
trainees and executive positions. Employers are looking for candidates who have
potential to be executives and to lead teams of people.

Here's how most group discussions work:

 Normally groups of 8-10 candidates are formed into a leaderless group, and
are given a specific situation to analyse and discuss within a given time limit.

 They may be given a case study and asked to come out with a solution for a
problem.

 They may be given a topic and are asked to discuss on the same.

A panel, which normally comprises the functional and HR executives of the company
will observe and evaluate the members of the group.

Here is a sample list of skills assessed during a group discussion process:

 Leadership skills:

Ability to take leadership roles and be able to lead, inspire and carry the team
along to help them achieve group’s objectives.

Example: To be able to initiate the group discussion, or be able to guide the

group especially when the discussion begins losing relevance or try to
encourage all members to participate in the discussion.

 Communication skills:

The participating candidates will be assessed in terms of clarity of thought,

expression and aptness of language. One key aspect is listening. It indicates
a willingness to accommodate others views.

Example: To be able to use simple language and explain concepts clearly so

that it is easily understood by all.

 Interpersonal skills :

Is reflected in the ability of the individual to interact with other members of

the group in a brief situation. Emotional maturity and balance promotes good
interpersonal relationships. The person has to be more people centric and less
self-centered.

Example:To remain cool even when someone provokes you by with personal
comment, ability to remain objective, ability to empathise, non-threatening
and more of a team player.

 Persuasive skills :
 In terms of ability to analyse and persuade others to see the problem from
multiple perspectives without hurting the group members.

Example: While appreciating the other person’s point of view, should be able
to effectively communicate your view without obviously contradicting the
other person's opinions.

 Problem solving skills:

Ability to come out with divergent and offbeat solutions and uses one’s own
creativity.

Example: While thinking of solutions, don't be afraid to think of novel

solutions. This is a high- risk high-return strategy.

 Conceptualizing skills :

The ability to grasp the situation, take it from the day to day mundane
problem level and apply it to a macro level.

Example: At the end of the discussion, you could probably summarize the
findings in a few sentences that present the overall perspective.