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.