From chaos to cohesion: winning at FGDs the smart way

If you have ever sat in a group of ten nervous candidates, all trying to out-charm, out-smart, and out-volume one another for a single job, you have likely been a gladiator in the corporate coliseum known as the Focus Group Discussion (FGD). Welcome to the recruiter's favourite social experiment: where intellect meets improvisation, diplomacy clashes with dominance, and someone always starts with, "Hi everyone, let me begin by…". Here, some candidates come in ready to bulldoze through any argument with unwavering confidence, some sit silently waiting for a divine moment of inspiration, while others nervously rehearse that one line they came up with the night before, waiting for the perfect moment that never arrives. 

Commonly used by banks, multinationals, and FMCGs to test candidates for management trainee programs, FGDs are less about solving a case and more about putting your soft skills under a microscope. It is less of a Harvard case method and more of a business-themed episode of 'Survivor', minus the tropical setting and with higher stakes. In theory, FGDs are meant to assess your ability to work in random groups, communicate effectively, think critically, and handle pressure. For recruiters, it is a chance to observe how candidates behave under pressure, how they interact, and most importantly, how they think; not alone, but as part of a team. In reality, they often become a chaotic blend of polite interruptions, forced smiles, and the occasional philosophical deep-dive from someone trying just a bit too hard to stand out. 

Performing well in an FGD is not about dominating the discussion, quoting Kotler, or dazzling everyone with a mini-MBA lecture. It is about balance. It is about knowing when to speak when to listen, and when to artfully disagree without declaring verbal war.

Understanding the setup

Ten candidates. One abstract case. Twenty minutes. And a couple of poker-faced assessors observing who naturally leads, who builds consensus, and who derails the entire thing by spiralling into a monologue. Some FGDs throw candidates into market-entry simulations, while others dish out ethical dilemmas or public policy conundrums. The content varies, but the behavioural cues are what really matter. 

Remember, you are not there to solve the problem perfectly but to be seen as someone people want on their team. To ace an FGD, you do not need to be the loudest, the smartest, or the one with the most bullet points. You just need to be the most intentional. If you are saying "synergy" and "scalability" in the same sentence without knowing what either actually means, you are not impressing anyone. Clear, simple communication always wins.

Talk, but do not take hostages

The biggest myth about FGDs is that speaking more equals scoring more. In reality, recruiters are usually not looking for screen time; instead, they are watching for clarity, brevity, and influence. Great participants often jump in early not to dominate but to set direction. Starting the discussion is great; but only if you have something worthwhile to say. Jumping in with "Let me start" and then rambling through disconnected thoughts will not get you anywhere. 

A strong opening sounds more like, "Let's first identify the key issues to be addressed": calm, clear, and collaborative. Then, listen and absorb what others say, acknowledging and building on it. Can you keep your cool when things spiral? Can you lead without dominating? These are the questions that matter, and recruiters are watching for answers, not in what you say, but in how you say it.

The danger of the debate club veteran

You know this type. Arms folded, eyebrows arched, and ready to demolish your argument with just three buzzwords. These are the classic FGD warriors who mistake intensity for intellect and see the discussion as a zero-sum game, where for one idea to shine, the others must be shot down. But FGDs are not competitive debates. They are collaborative problem-solving tasks. As such, aggression masquerading as confidence often backfires. While disagreements may earn a few nods, quite often it gets marked as inflexibility unless it is quickly followed up with a good rationale and openness to feedback from others. Always look to build on others' points because it helps you introduce new ideas without dismissing others, and that is something recruiters appreciate;  people who drive discussions forward with the team, not in spite of them. 

The silent saint vs. the anxious overachiever

Two characters almost always show up. The silent saint, who says nothing until the final minute and drops a golden insight like divine intervention. And the anxious overachiever, who speaks after every sentence, paraphrases what has already been said, and somehow still manages to bring up their personal experiences. Neither strategy works in isolation. One risks being forgotten, while the other risks becoming white noise. 

Your goal should be to participate a few times meaningfully. That is enough to get noticed without being overbearing. And do not underestimate the value of facilitation. Make eye contact, refer to others by name if possible, and try to nudge the conversation forward. If things get messy, and they often do, offering structure, like suggesting a quick vote or recap, can make you look like a hero.

What they are really looking for

Recruiters are not just looking for confidence. They are also sniffing out ego. They want someone who can hold their own without steamrolling the group. Someone with analytical clarity who also encourages quieter members to share. Someone who can lead but also adapt. You could be wrong, and still make it if you are thoughtful, self-aware, and show strong team dynamics. But you could be 100% right and still fail if you come off as rigid. Remember: people hire those they can imagine working with at 11:30 PM the night before an important launch.