SAMPLE MOCK GD (GROUP DISCUSSION)-I
Sample Mock GD – I
Candidates
are divided in groups of 8 to 10 and each group is tested by a panel of
Judges. Usually topics of general interest are given by the panel to
the group and the group is asked to proceed with discussion. Every
candidate is supposed to express his opinion and views on the topic
given. The time for discussion is approximately 20 minutes. During the
discussion, the panel of Judges quietly observes the performance and
behavior of the candidates and makes his own assessment.
Mock GroupDiscussion :
Most
topics are taken from the current political or economic scene so if one
has just kept abreast of current affairs, then he will be able to make a
mark. We give below a group discussion on a common topic and give some
typical responses of students. We then analyze the discussion so that
readers can develop their own strategy for themselves.
JUDGE :
Good morning. You can choose any topic you like or take a slip from
that box. You are given one minute to think to start with the
discussion. The observers will not interfere in your discussion. If no
conclusion is reached, we may ask each of you to speak for a minute on
the topic at the end of the discussion. The topic on the slip is
“Multinationals: Bane or Boon”. I suggest you should start the
discussion.
Mr
A : This is a good topic. I am against multinationals. We have Coke and
Pepsi. Do we need them? We can manufacture our own soft drinks.
Multinationals destroy the local industry and sell non-essential
products.
Mr B : I agree with you. What is the fun of having Coke and Pepsi? We have our own Campa Cola.
Mr C : I think water is good enough.
Mr
D : We are not here to discuss soft drinks. The topic given to us is a
much larger one. First, let us define multinational companies. They are
merely large companies which operate in a number of countries. There
could be some Indian multinationals also. So there is nothing wrong with
them. The point is whether they have a good or bad impact on the host
countries. We have to discuss their business practices and find out
whether they are desirable or not.
Mr
E : That is a very good introduction to the topic. Multinational
companies do serve an important function that they bring new products
and technologies in countries which do not have them. And it is not just
Coke and Pepsi. They set up power plants and build roads and bridges,
which really help in the development of host countries.
Mr
F : But are they all that good? We have seen that they destroy local
industry. In India they just took over existing companies. They came in
areas of low technology. Moreover, we have to see why they come at all.
They come for earning profits and often remit more money abroad than
they bring in.
Mr
A : I agree with you. I am against multinationals. We can produce
everything ourselves. We should be swadeshi in our approach. Why do we
need multinational companies?
Mr
E : We may not need multinational companies but then it also means that
our companies should not do business abroad. Can we live in an isolated
world? The fact is that we are moving towards becoming a global
village. The world is interconnected. Then we have also seen that
foreign companies bring in business practices that we are impressed
with. Look at foreign banks. They are so efficient and friendly that the
nationalized banks look pathetic in comparison. I think we can learn a
lot from multinationals if we keep our eyes and mind open.
Mr
B : Take a look at McDonald’s. They are providing quality meals at
affordable prices. One does not have to wait at their restaurants.
Mr C : How do you account for the fact that they take out more than they put in and thus lead to impoverishing the country?
Mr
D : The fact is that every poor country needs foreign investment. Poor
countries often lack resources of their own. That is why they have to
invite foreign companies in. There is nothing wrong in this because then
products like cars, air conditioners and so on can be made in poor
countries. Often multinationals source products from different countries
which helps boost their export earnings.
Mr
E : We have been talking about Coke and Pepsi. It is well known that
Pepsi is in the foods business also and has helped farmers in Punjab by
setting up modern farms to grow potatoes and tomatoes. Modern practices
have helped the people in that area.
Mr A : I still feel that multinationals are harmful for the country.
Mr
D : Well, there could be negative things associated with such
companies. They may not be very good in their practices. But can we do
without them? I think the best way is to invite them but also impose
some controls so that they follow the laws of the country and do not
indulge in unfair practices.
Mr
E : I think laws are applicable to everyone. Very often officials in
poor countries take bribes. The fault lies not with the company which
gives a bribe but the person who actually demands one. Why blame the
companies for our own ills?
Mr A : What about the money they take out?
Mr
D : We have had a good discussion and I think it is time to sum up.
Multinationals may have good points and some bad ones too, but
competition is never harmful for anyone. We cannot live in a protected
economy any longer. We have been protected for many years and the
results are there for everyone to see. Rather than be close about
multinationals, let us invite them in selected areas so that we get
foreign investment in areas which we are lacking. Laws can be strictly
enforced that companies operate within limits and do not start meddling
in political affairs.
Analysis :
Though Mr A started the discussion, he could not make any good points.
Later, he could not give any points about why multinationals are bad. It
is also a bad strategy to say at the outset whether you are for or
against the topic. Remember, it is not a debate but a discussion. The
first step should always be to introduce the topic without taking sides.
See the way in which the discussion is proceeding and give arguments
for or against. The observer is not interested in your beliefs but in
what you are saying. The participation of Mr B and C is below average. A
candidate must make 3-4 interventions. Their arguments are also not
well thought out and add nothing to the argument. It is important to say
relevant things which make an impact rather than speak for the sake of
speaking. The arguments of Mr D and E are better. They seem to be aware
of the role of multinational companies. Mr E’s approach is better as he
intervenes a number of times. He has also taken initiative in the
beginning and brought order to the group. If selection has to be made
from the above six candidates, the obvious choice would be Mr E and
thereafter, Mr D.
0 comments:
Post a Comment