HOW TO APPROACH GDs

Vikas Sharma

INTRODUCTION:
I personally never open a topic, or close it, but a good intro can give you very high visibility
early on. Formula for ideal intro= your understanding of the topic + what all point of views you
expect to be covered in the discussion + 1-2 liner on your personal point of view

E.g.: Topic: Demonetization. Demonetization is the latest in a slew of measures announced

by the incumbent NaMo govt. to counter malpractices associated with currency, such as black
money, hoarding and counterfeiting. We should attempt to analyse the pros and cons of such a
move, from right from the perspective of the uber rich to the poorest of the lot. In my opinion, the
move is well intentioned, yet marred by weak implementation ability.

CONTENT:
This part of the GD is where you can step up your game and manipulate things your way.
You can indulge in the following interventions:

1. Giving Your Point of View: Simplest of the lot. The key is to complete your point strongly
and clearly before anyone can hijack/counter it. For that it is prudent to write down the rough
version of the point, in the initial 1 minute. The point should not be ultra-long. It would be beneficial
if accompanied by an example. The point should also be supplemented by facts and figures. Cook
them up if necessary.

E.g.: My point of view is that Demonetization is a poorly thought out move, with minimal impact on
the intended target of black money. Black money via hoarding is just 5% of the total estimated black
money taken out of India, so we are only targeting the tip of the iceberg. Yet there is considerable
negative impact on the lives of the middle and lower income category individuals. I think the huge
line just outside our college campus, for the ATM, is a perfect testimony to this.

2. Arguing Against a Specific Point of View: The key here is to look for the perfect
opportunity to but in. Let the other person finish his/her point of view, or let their voices trail off and
then jump in. They key is also to show respect. Useful phrases include: I would respectfully disagree
to that statement, I think that is a fair point, yet I would like to argue that, I would, however,
urge you to look at the other side of the coin.. Beginning with these, brings a lot of attention from
panellists, shows that you are a polite person and allows the general murmur to die down before
you start your actual point.

E.g.: I would respectfully like to disagree with your point, because a recent survey by C-Voter from a
sample size of 5 lakh individuals shows that 80% individuals support Modis move to demonetize. I
believe that there is a specific misinformation campaign propagated by the opposition parties to
politicize the issue.

3. Adding to a Point of View: This is relatively one of the easiest interventions, where you
get to speak your point by supporting the previous speaker. You can use this to your advantage,
when you dont have a lot of knowledge on your topic, by cleverly rephrasing the point or adding
something slightly unrelated. Phrases include: Adding on to his/her point, That is an excellent
point, supplementing it I would say that, I agree with you. Adding on. Use the name of the
person if known to you. He/she will automatically allow you to speak.

E.g.: I absolutely agree with XYZs point. Adding on to it, the recent by-elections in the country, which
were perceived as a sort of litmus test for the demonetization move, ended with BJP winning by a fair
majority. It is a clear-cut indication of the public sentiment for this move.

4. Moderating: This is another intervention, which can portray your ability to work in a
team, to the panellists. However, over-moderation or over-controlling the GD can also be a negative.
Whenever you feel the GD is turning into a fish market, butt in loudly and clearly with the following
phrases: Friends, I think we should allow everyone to speak to foster a better discussion, Friends,
I think we are digressing from the issue, and should get back on track, Friends, I feel XYZ has been
trying since long to make a point. Let us give him/her a chance to speak, Friends, aggressive
arguments are against the spirit of a healthy discussion, please let everyone speak, etc.

My personal strategy for the content section is 1-2 point of views/additions, followed by 1-2
arguments against specific points and 1-2 moderations.

CONCLUSION:
Even though most of the next round selection has been made till the concluding remark, a
conclusion is a good way to leave a lasting impact if you feel your content contribution was less.
Conclusions are straight forward, and require you to summarize what everyone touched upon.
However, it also means paying attention to each point during the content phase, thereby losing a lot
of opportunities to butt in. So, if you are a conclusion heavy person, then it is best to introduce the
topic and get some meaty points early on and listen to the rest of the discussion. Formula for a good
conclusion:

Summary of all points covered (from all perspectives) + any common consensus reached as a group +
any perspectives which you feel were missed out.

E.g.: To conclude, after a stimulating discussion on the impact of demonetization, we broadly

touched upon the following aspects:

Point 1.2.3.4.5.

As a group, we majorly reached a consensus that demonetization, though well intentioned, was a
move fraught with faulty implementation and operational planning. Lastly, I feel we also missed
touching upon the economic impact of it in terms of liquidity and GDP growth, and expected sector
specific impact like that on Real Estate.

Other pointers:
1. Dont ever stick to your point of view. If it is an easy topic, like capital punishment for rapists, it
is expected that everyone will talk only about supporting it. You too can support it; however, you
can always bring in fresh perspective like

But if we were to look at from another perspective, most modern societies shun the practice of
capital punishment as barbaric and archaic. It can also be said that a lifetime in prison, where the
person truly contemplates his/her sins is a far bigger punishment that instant death.
Remember, the GD is not about showing what you believe in. The GD is about drawing attention
towards yourself, whichever way you can. Be flexible. In the initial one minute, write both for and
against the topic. That is what good debaters do.

2. Dont take the GD personally. Shouting, getting aggressive or getting emotional, most likely always
results in poor ratings from the panel. Maintain composure and civility.

3. Dont indulge in one-to-one discussions for long. After a few counter points, use moderation to
urge others to participate, by generally saying things like I think we should get some fresh
perspectives from others by allowing them a chance.

4. Body language is the most important. Stay upright. Pretend to listen to every point, by nodding
your head, even if it is bullshit. If you only speak and not listen, you lose out on crucial counter
arguments, and get labelled as a controlling person. Do not speak with exaggerated hand gestures.

5. Try and bring in your MBA jargon, even if it comes out as bullshit. Citing a point, I made from my
GD with Cisco, on Odd Even Scheme:

I think as business managers, it is important for us to neutrally analyse the cost-benefit of a project,
before pronouncing judgments. I see a lot of costs involved in terms of additional policing and
administration, however minimal returns in terms of reduction in pollution level. Any other impacts,
like preference of people for carpooling, are as of today non-quantifiable and hence non-visible.