Why GD-PI process is invalid in selecting applicants?

Each of us who've completed the MBA program (or others who prepared for MBA entrance tests) are familiar with the selection process that includes Group discussions and personal interviews post written-tests. People are trained on "how to speak in GDs" and "How to prepare your interview answers?" etc by professional trainers and that's an industry in itself. Thousands of applicants each year get to know the nuances of clearing these selection rounds and then get final admits into the b-schools.

According to me, they are all being a part of a broken system and one that is invalid in today's working environments, challenges, and other related factors upon which the selection processes are modelled.

If one of the major objectives in a GD is to check how one will perform in situations that involves groups, and tackle issues like group-think etc, then we are addressing challenges that existed 30-40 years back. In today's organization culture, people rarely work in such large groups and at most times team members work with each other from remote locations. The whole structure of GD and the way of selection (or rejection as many point out) was based on the industrial/manufacturing revolution that happened many years back. I don't think it will be wrong to say that the entire MBA curriculum in many places and countries (like India) is predicated on those lines to satisfy Industrial revolution requirements.

The challenges of today and the future are different. I don't want to use a system that broken and invalid to select people into my curriculum for meeting present and future challenges. What will test them for through a GD? Why should I subject someone to a 20-30 minutes jabber and then take a call on that?

Same goes for the PI. If I am to believe that b-school selection process reflects the requirements of the corporate world, then a single PI is not the norm of selection anyways in any large corporation for jobs worthy of MBA graduates.

Some of the best companies to work-with and the ones that are changing the rules (to be followed by others soon) are not hiring based on 1 interview or 1 essay. There are multiple rounds, tasks, etc which are lined up to test the skill sets of individuals. No longer are people getting promoted to their level of incompetence. There are proper systems in place in the corporate world, but let's understand that its all dynamic and prone to deviation and changes towards betterment.

Whats really sad is as Professors, academicians, and that lot- nothing is being worked out to get to better solutions. Selecting through GD-PI is as good as selecting people at random - both are broken systems and will not yield the best results. Some might argue that through GD-PI the fittest survive and then get admitted. Then we are making the MBA curriculum represent entirely differently, and some of the best minds will get rejected only because they could not speak in a fish-market-GD or could not convince some doubting-thomas during the PI. Please note that people who are part of these panels are also products of that previous generation who see fitment to match perceptions according to their Jurassic work-ethics and culture.

A system-wide change is required to revolutionize the entire process. Maybe some anthropological study can be conducted across the industry spectrum to understand today's work-ethics and ways and then reflect the same in the selection process accordingly.

Decision Making inside Private Universities in India

In some my most recent meetings, I have had the privilege of coordinating with the top guys at private Universities in the country, and I am on the verge of losing all kinds of respect that I had for this fraternity.

Let me base this entire thing on a particular premise - all that I will mention here has nothing to do with anyone personally, and it involves data trends during my course of interactions with these gentlemen and ladies.

1. They lack either the IQ or the courage to make change happen:
Since I am in sales, this is something I have found baffling at most times. These are the very people who are running our educational institutions and are supposed to teach students about how to make the next set of things happen. Surprisingly, these are the very people who are so very grounded to their comfort zones, or they don't have the IQ to understand how things have evolved, that anything thats NEW doesn't really get through the smokescreen.

I figure that no one would want to take the pain and the responsibility to be the "change-agent" primarily because of the kind of politics thats rampant inside such institutions. These political centers will take the lives and careers of such proactive-leaders downhill - such is the thought.

Then there are questions like - Whats in it for me (personally? I really hate to answer that question because the next set of discussions will vary on how much payout am I ready to offer for this decision going my way.

Pushing the buck (and pushing me around) across to other people (Read - ProVC, VC, Director, Finance Director, MCA Professor, MBA Professor, Pro-Chancellor, Chancellor) is an endless process wherein external travel, absence, etc are a regular part of this thing. Why should there every be urgency in order to do something that no one else has done?

2. They are pretty terrible in returning any communication
This happens in almost every case, and exceptions are a welcome sign actually. Simple things like returning calls, mails, or faxes are never done because they probably don't have time. Don't have time? For what? In most cases, I have had meetings with these guys when I was taken by the other person inside the department and we simply waltzed-into the office of a senior guy. They don't reply because of the first point I made - they choose not to reply actually.

They are aware that every reply they make, they will have be asked for an action on the plan or the proposal.

I once asked one person that - Simply put, will you view an ISO9001.2000 certification proposal the same way as you would for a proposal for improving the quality of candidates applying to you, or the quality of placements you are going to have?

He told me that, for a quality certification, he can "show-off" that "he" got that. But for anything on the other side like Admission, he will not be able to claim that it was due to his efforts that things are better in applications or placements. There are different people taking such claims-to-fame. So why should he be bothered?

Now if he is not bothered, then why should be be the bottleneck in the process? Quite simple - To be viewed as IMPORTANT.

I have a very sad feedback about the kind of conversations that I have with most of the top guys I meet across India - none of those (conversations) are really interesting. I don't know if I have learnt anything from any of them, or shared our knowledge on the ways of improvement of their University or Institution.

(Just a practical joke - I met this Director in Mumbai, and somehow, our discussion went onto when should I have kids now that I am married, and he ended up speaking on that for the next 45 mins. I was pulling my hair after the meeting, and am really scared to meet him again. However, on a separate note - the Deal was Done)

Decision making inside Universities involves a very complex mesh or matrix, and its a hard job to convert each of those guys. If they don't have vision or IQ or are scared, that compounds the problems. No one wants to mess around with the other person's ego or sour any relationship. In this status-quo situation, things go on and on as usual.

The good thing is that all this has been identified, and the next step is to break into the "chakravyuh".