This article by Charanpreet Singh was published in 2 parts on pagalguy.com

You are done with the Common Admission Test (CAT) and are probably lining up yourself for some of the other admission tests. This is a good time to brush up your skills for the last mile of selection – group discussion and interview (GD-PI).

Interestingly, there are lot of speculations and confusions among aspirants regarding GD-PI. Having been a part of selection panels representing both the corporate and institutional recruiters for several years, I have witnessed, moderated and assessed performance in innumerable GD-PIs. It is fascinating to see students trying really hard, but ending up doing things that they should rather avoid.

Here is a list of things candidates need to stay clear off if they wish to make the right impression on the interview panel. Avoiding the don’ts will help recognise the real differentiators, and the direct preparation towards improving ability to score higher on them.

Let’s begin with GD. A group of students is assigned a topic for discussion for 15–20 minutes. The panel is looking for an effective combination of knowledge and skills in the candidates. Some serious ‘don’ts’.

1. Arriving just-in-time, or worse still, arriving late for the selection process: Being punctual shows you value time and respect the institute’s time as well. Arriving early gives you a chance to familiarise yourself with the environment, meet your ‘competitors’ and become a little easy about the whole thing. Less stress equals better performance.

2. Not having a crisp, simple and effective speech prepared for the introduction: Often moderators ask the participants to introduce themselves. It sounds simple so candidates don’t give this part much thought. Consequently, we see poorly-structured, fumbling introductions, making a negative impression on the panel and participants.

3. Clarifying the topic with the moderator: If you do not know much about or do not understand the topic, the worst thing you can do is ask the moderator. It shows you in poor light, either in terms of knowledge or analytical ability, or both. You need to keep quiet and listen to your peers; as the discussion unfolds, you will know what to say.

4. Scrapping to start the discussion without having anything useful to say: Starting the discussion does not by itself necessarily give you extra points; it does, however, give you some visibility. So, if you do manage to start, make sure you make a positive impact. It’s better not to start the discussion than to make an average or poor start.

5. Failing to recognise that a GD is not a debate: Majority of candidates start the discussion by voicing their own opinion – that’s typically the debate situation. In GDs, moderators look for candidates who can create a framework for discussion or help widen its scope by guiding the group to explore its different aspects. If all you have to say is whether you agree with the topic or not, and that too before you get a chance to discuss it with the group, you have made a poor start.

6. Showing aggression: Many candidates believe that the corporate world is seeking aggressive managers. The industry, on the contrary, is looking for managers who can work in and with teams and who are assertive without being aggressive. To be aggressive is to impinge on others’ space and time and that’s not how a professional is expected to conduct him/her self. So, don’t come across as a smoke-spouting matador; you need to come across as an effective team-player who works with the group, accommodates diverse viewpoints and asserts him/ her-self without aggression.

7. Trying to be the leader of the group: Leadership cannot be demanded, it is bestowed by the group and you have to earn it on the basis of the quality of your performance. Candidates often try very hard to assume a leadership position in the group – obviously in the belief that the moderator is assessing them on leadership potential. The effort shows – and, almost always, with disastrous results. If you add value to the discussion by demonstrating knowledge and analytical ability and conduct yourself with dignity, you may emerge as a leader.

8. Trying to play moderator: You are an equal among other equals in the group – thus no divine power has given you the right to decide how others in the group should conduct themselves. This is usually misconstrued as team skills by the participants but is actually unnecessary policing. There is no one more irritating for the moderator than a member making inane statements like ‘we must allow everyone to speak’ and ‘we are digressing from the subject.’ You are assessed on your ability to make compelling points on the subject assigned – just do a good job of that and the assessment will take care of itself.

9. Grabbing airtime: Most people love to hear themselves speak. Most also believe that they have the most earth-shattering perspectives to share and that everyone else should just shut up and listen to them. Armed with these beliefs, some candidates talk themselves to the proverbial death in GDs. People who insist on talking a lot end up talking nonsense and repeating themselves ad-nauseum. These students are prime candidates for rejection – no B-school wants to fill up its campus with people who don’t let others talk.

10. Playing judge: I have mentioned that a wannabe moderator is the most irritating species in a GD. A very close second is the self-appointed judge, who spends his/ her time in the GD making incisive statements like ‘you made a good point,’ ‘he did not make sense to me,’ ‘I agree with her’, etc. Good to know who all are blessed with your approval, but what about making a contribution to the discussion with some valid, well-thought-out points?

11. Failing to listen to others: The hallmark of good communication is effective listening. Assessors actively seek superior listening skills in candidates. Your body language and the content of your speech have to, therefore, demonstrate attentive listening. Listening would automatically improve the quality of your content, and moderators are acutely aware of this. Interrupting others, trying to dominate the discussion, ignoring group dynamics are all examples of poor listening skills.

12. Showing lack of respect for other people’s views: A subject is bound to evoke diverse responses from the group members, in fact it is this diversity that makes for a rich discussion. I have seen candidates shut out other points of view, ridicule the comments or ideas of others and expend their energies in trying to prove others wrong. That is exactly what you should not do – you need to learn to accept others’ opinions and carry them in the group while putting your own perspective forward in a pleasant yet assertive manner. It’s about different ways of looking at things, not about right and wrong. Also, you need to be sensitive enough not to make comments that are likely to hurt the sentiments of any section or group of people.

13. Being closed-minded about issues: This is related to the earlier point. Managers need to be open minded about issues and have the capability of managing conflicting opinions. If you come across as a person with strong, extreme, non-negotiable views, you would be doing yourself disfavour in the selection process. The assumption would be that you are either unaware of the complexities of the issue or too closed minded to accommodate positions different from your own. This becomes even more obvious in sensitive issues like reservation, terrorism, etc.

14. Engaging in one-on-one arguments: A group discussion needs to involve the entire group, but students often indulge in parallel conversations with other members. This is more evident when two members get caught up in trying to ‘win’ an argument. Neither is likely to relent – so you end up not winning the argument and losing the opportunity to get selected. Avoid getting into long arguments – agree to disagree and move the discussion forward.

15. Repeating or rephrasing points: You get credit for making new, valid points – not for repeating or rephrasing points already made earlier in the discussion. If you have nothing new to say, keep mum and think – analyse the knowledge you have and try to apply it to the given situation. Bring a new perspective or build and develop on points made by others.

16. Making sweeping statements: Sweeping statements are strong, one-sided views of the world that lack factual support. Students love making these kinds of statements as they sound good; an assertion is no good unless you can back it up with facts and/or logical reasoning. Think through a point before you offer it for discussion – you are then ready to support it if required.

17. Becoming emotional: A GD is an artificially constructed situation that can be quite stressful at times. There could be comments made by others in the group that you find outrageous or plain unacceptable. If your peers manage to get you excited and emotional, they would have scored a couple of decisive points against you. The mature way to handle the situation is to control your emotions and respond on the basis of facts and sound logical constructs. Do not lose your composure and be polite and graceful.

18. Compromising content for form: In GDs, what you say is the most important component of your performance. The other component, ie, how you say what you say, is important, but comes into play only once your speech is strong in its content. Students often focus on their way of speaking and the accent, etc – more of that later – you need to focus on finding significant things to say.

19. Over-quoting statistics: Facts and figures are useful in supporting your assertion; they cannot be your assertion. Getting into too many details and quoting data extensively reduce the impact of your contribution. It also shows you as someone who is likely to miss the wood for the trees. By all means quote facts and figures – but only when you feel that the quoted data will add value to the discussion and act as a support to your argument.

20. Using complex English words and structure: The best way to ensure that the group loses interest in you is to present your opinion in a convoluted, complicated manner, using obscure English and long, never-ending sentences. The simpler your communication, the better will be the reception by the group. If others understand easily what you are saying and if it makes sense to them, they will listen to you and respond.

21. Speaking fast: English as a language does not lend itself to being spoken at breakneck speed. In a GD, candidates feel the compulsion to speak very fast, hoping that would enable them to say more in the limited airtime that they are likely to get. Wrong assumption. People who speak very fast lose track of what they are saying, and definitely lose their audience. Speak slowly and deliberately – make every word count.

22. Using a false accent: Perfectly normal students sometimes adopt the most fake of accents when they speak English in a formal situation. Avoid doing this – be yourself and speak the way you would normally speak (or slower than you normally speak – see #21) – and please don’t start sounding like an uneducated Westerner.

23. Being over-polite and over-doing the smiling part: As I have said earlier, be yourself – that is the best way to be in GDs and PIs. Over-polite behaviour is usually looked at with suspicion; plus, an artificial fixed smile with lots of nodding and shaking of the head does not endear you to the group – it usually ends up irritating the others.

24. Trying hard to be funny: The verdict here is very simple – either you have a sense of humour or you don’t. Focused efforts to create humour often end up in people laughing at you rather than with you. Also, the best form of humour is self-deprecating – any comments that compromise a community or section of people are a big no. If you are naturally a witty person, go ahead and demonstrate that skill. If you are not, stick to the middle path.

25. Looking at the moderator while speaking: Remember, you are a part of the group and you need to look at your group members while addressing them. Gazing at the floor, ceiling or the moderator are all invalid options. The moderator is a ‘fly-on-the-wall’ and is observing the group – you have to ignore his presence. Frequent glances in the direction of the moderator betray a sense of insecurity – it is as if you seek support from him.

26. Digressing from the topic: While it’s good to broaden the scope of the discussion, you need to ensure that you don’t move too far away from the topic. In addition to taking up precious airtime, you may end up guiding the entire discussion on a parallel course. In fact, your role as a good team player is to bring the conversation back on course in case you sense that it is floundering.

27. Underestimating the importance of body-language: As Peter Drucker says, the most important thing in communication is to hear what isn’t being said. The way you sit, use your personal space, establish eye-contact and ‘appear’ to people says a lot more about you than you would believe. It is therefore perilous to not be aware of how you present yourself to others.

28. Giving your opinion when asked to summarize: This is a very common phenomenon. Students tend to voice their points of view about the subject when all that the moderator is asking them to do is give a summary of the discussion. Desist from doing that – instead, take the group through the discussion journey, covering all the significant points made till then. Make optimum use of this opportunity – for a welcome change, no one can interrupt you so you have the floor to demonstrate your listening, analytical and articulation skills.

29. Not speaking at all: I kept this for the last. This is the gravest crime you can commit in a GD – irrespective of how alien the topic is, or how boisterous the group, you need to speak and you need to be heard. Learn more about the topic as it gets discussed; seize the smallest opening in the discussion to make your entry; use the opportunity to make your point(s). If you haven’t spoken at all, you get no points.

Praxis Business School’s relentless pursuit of creating industry-ready managers reached another milestone when ICICI Bank selected Praxis as its academic partner and endowed the Dean’s Chair with the purpose of promoting ‘Banking and Financial Services’. The MoU was signed between Mr. Saurabh Singh, GM, HRM, ICICI Bank and Prof. Charanpreet Singh, Associate Dean, Praxis Business School at the Praxis campus on the 25th of February, 2011.

The MoU requires Praxis to develop curriculum and case studies, create certification courses and undertake research in the area of banking and financial services industry, in partnership with ICICI Bank.

[Seen in the pic: Prof. Charanpreet Singh, Prof. Govindrajan, Mr. Saurabh Singh - GM HR, ICICI Bank, Mr. Paulus Delima - DGM HR, ICICI Bank, Mr. Kamlesh Sajnani - Chairman of the BoG of Praxis Business School]

Mr. Saurabh Singh felt that this collaboration could offer direction to the industry to cope with a dynamic and complex business environment. It would also address the need to create a local body of knowledge relevant to the Indian situation which was unique in many respects. He added that after having worked closely with Praxis, he was convinced that Praxis had the credentials to make a compelling contribution in this regard.

Prof. Govindrajan, Dean and ICICI Bank Chair, Praxis Business School said that “For a fledgling Institution stubborn in its determination to make a difference, this is a wonderful opportunity – and we would like to assure ICICI Bank that we will approach these areas with the same unflinching passion as we have approached academics – with the same objective – to create value for our stakeholders.”

]]> http://praxis.ac.in/2011/03/icici-bank-endows-the-dean%e2%80%99s-chair-at-praxis-business-school/feed/ 0 http://praxis.ac.in/2010/09/delinking-placements-from-education/ http://praxis.ac.in/2010/09/delinking-placements-from-education/#comments Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:19:51 +0000 Admin http://praxis.ac.in/?p=853

This article was written by Dr. Prithwis Mukerjee. You can read more of his blogs at http://yantrajaal.blogspot.com

People should go to college for education, to learn,  but the unfortunate fact is that they do so for getting jobs. The net result of this situation is that colleges and universities in general and b-schools in particular continue to be obsessed with placements. Potential students, and those who ‘honestly’ advise them, and this includes the media, both print and digital, have a religious faith in the holiness of the placement data — percentage placed and the quantum of solace offered — and this data has a very high weightage in the rankings that are published every now and then.

Curiously enough, the companies that hire graduates are less enthused with with placement data — in fact they view this data with wariness and weariness because the better these are, the more they must pay and less sure they are of being ensured of a recruit. Nevertheless they do look at these rankings for the simple reason that the ‘best’ students would, probabilistically speaking, go to the ‘top ranking’ colleges and so the probability of the recruitment team picking up a dud lemon is relatively less. As they used to say in the past, “No one was ever fired for buying from IBM” so is the case now that “No one can be faulted for recruiting from IIM”.

Totally lost in all this complication is the fact that most colleges hardly teach anything of value nor are the students terribly interested in learning anything. They have come for a job and if they must tolerate two to four years of misery they would rather grin and bear it if there is a job at the end.

Which is a truly sorry state of affairs and this why despite having the “third largest scientific and technical manpower pool in the world” there is nothing substantial that comes out of our scientists and engineers and despite having a huge pool, or ocean, of computer programmers we cannot come out with any significant software product that is a best-seller even in our own country. All we have is ill trained ‘engineers’ desperate to cut code in software companies that pretend to be consultancy organisations and smart-ass MBAs who believe that presentations and spreadsheets are all that is required to run a business.

Can this change ? It could if we would muster the courage to shut down all placement cells in all colleges and remove all placement data from college rankings.

But would that not be insane ? It might seem so but it need not be. Robert Pirsig in his quasi-autobiographical book, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about which I have written in my earlier post has explored a very similar idea as a part of his inquiry into the metaphysics of Quality. Pirsig, or rather his alter ego Phaedrus was a teacher of English composition and in his quest to improve the quality of work that his students produced came to the conclusion that grades or marks should be removed and then, and only then, will true quality emerge !

Obviously this was challenged by everyone. “Of course, you cannot eliminate the degree and the grade. After all that is what we are here for” said a student, who represented the general body. She spoke the complete truth  because the idea that a the majority of students attend the university for an education independent of the degree and grades is a little hypocrisy that no one wants to expose. [ ZAMM, Part 3, Chapter 16 ]

In the section quoted above, if we were to replace degree and grade with placement, the statement would very accurately reflect the situation that we are referring to in this post !

It would be futile for me to go through the entire logic that Phaedrus, nee Pirsig, used to justify his stance on the irrelevence of grades to education — the reader may just as well read the chapter in its original but there are two things that we should remember here : (a) Phaedrus was fired from his job, declared insane, was given electro-shock therapy to make him forget his ideas … BUT recovered enough to write the book which went on to become one of the greatest best sellers of the last century and earned him an iconic cult status all across the world ! and (b) Phaedrus conducted an experiment with one class where he withheld grades from the students for one whole semester and observed their behaviour, that is described in detail in the book. What is interesting is that when he polled his students BEFORE  eventually revealing the grades,  about the value or utility of this approach — the majority of the top students, who eventually got A, favoured the system. The middle guys, B and C grades, were equally split and the worst students, those who got D and F, were vehemently opposed to the system. Which is paradoxical and contra-intuitive ! You would think that if the grade was all that really mattered then those who got A will value the grade more than those who got an F !

Phaedrus’ hypothesis was that grades are inconsistent with, or at least not correlated to the quality of a students work. My hypothesis here is that placements are inconsistent with, or at least not corelated to the quality of education offered in a school or college.

In fact my personal and professional experience with CAT and JEE scores is that under the malignant influence of coaching classes these scores have lost all relevence as indicators of academic merit. In fact, some of the high scorers in the JEE can barely pass their semester exams while some of the students with high CAT scores are generally the bottom of the class. In  another post,  I have suggested an alternative approach but that is a different matter altogether. What this lack of correlation — between CAT scores and actual ability  – means is that the vicious nexus between “best students” going to the “best ranked” schools that ensure “best placements” can be broken once and for all.

If the really good students do not care about placements ( just as the Pirsig’s good students did not care for their grades) then they will not be motivated to follow the placement-based rankings. Colleges will be under no pressure to hard-sell their students, improve their placement data and use the same to get the so called best students. Recruiting companies will feel no competitive compulsion to select students from this so called best-ranked schools. The entire artificial edifice of a placement driven education will, or should, crumble.

In a sense, the artificial and unnecessary “stress” induced in the system will, to borrow a phrase from a long forgotten subject called metallurgy, will be get relieved by a natural process of annealing and colleges will go back to doing what they were initially expected to do : provide good education through a model that encourages creativity and research.

1. What are the things an MBA student can expect from the curriculum?

Good question, especially since most students expect a job from the curriculum – they seem to forget that the 2-years can add a lot of value to them. A good business school would ensure that the student gets a strong grounding in fundamentals. In addition, the program would be designed to increase the student’s capacity to think and to integrate the learning in the different functional areas. And finally, the student should be able to learn to work in teams and apply what he has learnt to business situations.

2. How is your curriculum different from what other institutes have to offer?

I have already articulated the kind of value a good business school should add to a student. So it’s more about understanding what a business school needs to impart and then going ahead and ensuring that you impart it well. The keys to this are the quality of the faculty and the extent of industry interface the school is able to build. I believe that Praxis is able to differentiate itself from most B-schools on both these parameters – we are lucky to have a team of very high pedigree faculty and we collaborate actively with the industry in curriculum design and delivery. The fact that we are a residential, 24*7 wi-fi campus ensures that the curriculum is delivered anytime, anywhere and there is an enormous amount of collaboration among the different stakeholders of Praxis.

3. How important is it to acquire an academic qualification to sharpen managerial skills?

An MBA program is more about perspective than about knowledge and skills. While there are definite additions to knowledge, the real advancement comes in perspective. The qualification is thus important as it enhances the individual’s ability to look at business from a holistic viewpoint. The other important value-addition comes from the rich interaction with a vibrant student community and a strong faculty team.

4 . Does a qualification in management teach anything that pure experience can’t?

As they say, there’s no substitute for experience. The time spent in acquiring a qualification in management from a good institute is also part of that experience – a good B-school would create simulations of real life business situations and impart the necessary theoretical training to enable a student to understand and address these situations. I would expect a business school graduate to compress the on-the-job learning curve substantially – and to be more proactive in the way he/ she runs a business.

5. What soft skills should a good manager have in these days?

Praxis believes that the one attribute common to all successful managers is their soft-skill proficiency – their ability to communicate, handle themselves at work and relate with people within and outside the organization they work for. From listening and communicating clearly to showing empathy and optimism to extreme self-awareness to knowing what’s going on around them, these vital competencies are an integral part of a progressive manager. Managers need to improve their listening, speaking and presentation skills and have the ability to conduct themselves in formal, boardroom-like of situations, without losing sight of the virtues of empathy and team-work.

Charanpreet Singh

Associate Dean, Praxis Business School

You are welcome to contact me at charanpreet@praxis.ac.in