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 implies 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?

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.