The Quintessential Outsider

OK, maybe it was not chaos, but I definitely saw more confusion today at the IIM Calcutta GD/PI than at any of the other interviews so far. The day began with a little tension for me, as I was stuck in traffic and reached the interview centre just 5 minutes before the scheduled time. On reaching the waiting room, besides the usual bunch of 25-30 nervous candidates, I saw two men seated at a table calling out names and looking at some documents.

I asked a guy seated next to me, and he informed me that they were asking for photocopies of all the documents related to your work experience and extra-curricular activities. Now, some people keep extra photocopies of anything and everything for such situations, but I was carrying only the necessary stuff, as the call letter said that you had to bring only the originals for verification, and not submit any photocopies. The guy next to me said, “I know that, but they have some different version of the letter, which says that you have to bring photocopies of everything. Anyway, they are saying that you can go and get it done after your interview”.

Meanwhile, the clock struck 9:30, and the two men got up and called out the names of candidates in each of the three panels, and asked us to go to the respective rooms (It was then that I noticed their heavy Bong accent). We went down, and waited outside our room. The neighbouring panel called the candidates in, while our group was still waiting. After a while, we heard the voice of one of the professors, probably talking on his cell-phone, so we thought we might be called in a few minutes, after he is done with the phone call. Finally, one of the two Bong babus came down and saw us waiting, and asked us to go inside. As we walked in to the room, the professors smiled at all of us and looked as if they had been waiting for us all this while.

Thankfully, the professors (three of them, two gentlemen and a lady) looked vastly different from the Bong babus outside. All of us just sauntered in, waiting to hear any instructions from them, but they kept smiling. Finally, when they asked us to sit, one of us asked, “Can we sit in any order?” and the lady replied, “Yes yes, sit wherever you want”. Immediately, one of the other profs said, “No no, I think there is some order…” (called out our names in order, as we sat down).

For the GD, we were given a case: A consulting firm goes to a b-school to recruit, but the students there play the ‘waiting game’ with them, i.e. they do not accept the offers immediately, get better offers from other companies and then come and bargain with them, etc. So, the HR team is discussing new strategies to overcome this. While they are discussing options like giving a short time-span for the recruits to convey their acceptance of the offer, the CEO comes up with an opposite suggestion – give the students an option of accepting the offer anytime within the next one year. So, for one year, they can go and ‘test the market’, and then come back and join the company. What are the pros and cons of this approach?

The GD was good, and everyone got enough opportunity to speak. I made a couple of points, saying that this idea was good for the students, as it gave them an additional choice. It was also good for the company, because it would help them differentiate themselves from their competitors. Also, most people, in the beginning of their career, look to try out new things, and switch jobs, before settling down in a particular job. By offering this choice, the company might end up as the beneficiary of this process instead of the victim.

All in all, it was good, but a couple of things which I could have done better - I was speaking when time ran out, so I was a little ‘caught by surprise’ when the professor interrupted. Then, he asked us to summarize, and unlike the other GDs, we all had to talk instead of writing down a summary. So, I began to write something, when the professor said, “No no, don’t write down anything. Just say whatever you have to, some point that you missed, or a summary of what was discussed, whatever. And since you (looking at me) were the one I interrupted, maybe you can begin the summarizing by completing your point”. I began talking, and was looking at the professors, when one of them motioned towards the group, so I shifted my glance towards them, and just repeated the few points that I had made during the GD. The others followed, and I felt that it would have been better if I had summarized later, as that would have given me time to collect all the thoughts and put up a good summary.

Anyway, so the GD ended, and I was second in line for the interview, so I waited outside along with a few others, while some went upstairs to the babus to get their verification done. We waited for quite some time, and were wondering what the professors were doing, as they hadn’t even taken our interview forms, so they had nothing about us to read or spend time on. Our neighbouring group had, in the meantime, finished their GD and the first guy’s interview, and the second one went in, when finally, our first interviewee was called in. He came out in about 15 minutes, with an ‘okayish’ expression on his face, and it was another ten minutes before I was finally called in.

From here, I’ll refer to the interviewers as P1, P2 and P3 (from left to right, with the lady in the centre).
P3: Please give me your form. (I hand it over)
P1: So while he is going through your form, I’ll give you a problem. Don’t worry, it is not a maths problem (Hahaha…). There is a food company, which has been around for about 20 years. Now, some problem occurs with one of their products in a particular region – some people fall ill after having it and so on. So, the company is trying to find out the reason, and the R&D head insists that their processes are very thorough, and that there is nothing wrong with their product, while the legal team says that it would be better to recall the product until everything is checked. However, there will be costs associated with the recall, along with the name of the company being affected and so on. So, what should the company do?
Me: Sir, there are a few things here which I’ll have to assume.
P1: Oh, you can ask me for any additional information.
Me: For example, how much time will it take for the company to check everything? If it is not going to take too long, then it does not make sense to recall it, and then launch it again soon after. But if it is going to take too long, then they should not take any risks and recall it immediately.
P1: OK, the checks are not going to be done by the company, but by some external agency, which will certify whether everything is alright. And this whole process will take, say, a month.
Me: Well, in that case, the company should recall the product. Also, you mentioned that besides the financial costs, there will also be an effect on the name of the company. But, I guess if something like this has happened, then someone must have already noticed the issue and the company’s name must be affected already. And the more they try to push things under the carpet, the worse it will be. So, brand name and reputation is something which should not be compromised, even for the sake of saving some money. And if the company is really on the right side, then it is going to come out unscathed from this.
(He seemed satisfied with my answer, and motioned to P3 to continue)

Now, I don’t remember the exact questions from here on, but P3 asked something about my job and what I had done for the last two years, and I explained everything, from my CAT attempt and campus placement experience in my final year to attempting the UPSC exams to IMS to my current job. There were the obvious questions, on what would you do if you get through the IAS/IFS as well as IIM A, B or C. My replies were mostly non-committal, as I said I am just focusing on doing well in all the interviews right now, and do not want to ‘count my chickens before they hatch’. Then, the lady moved on to what I thought was the role of a diplomat vis-à-vis a bureaucrat and a business executive. I spoke of the differences as well as the similarities, and from there, it went on to my short-term and long-term goals.

She then asked me why I had aspired to be a diplomat when in today’s globalizing world, countries and governments are becoming increasingly irrelevant. This was discussed at some length, as all the three professors chipped in with their own points on this, even joking that ‘things are changing so rapidly, we won’t need diplomats, you will become jobless’. And so it went on for about 10 minutes. My reply to these questions was mostly on the lines that it is in fact the diplomats who have the biggest role to play in bringing about this change. For example, it is the European diplomats who have been instrumental in building bridges and forming the EU out of the different European countries.

There was also a question on ‘who do you think makes all these decisions, at the UN, WTO, etc.?’ I replied that these decisions were made by governments, and of course, in today’s scenario, the business world has an interest and a say in these decisions. Also, since most of the powerful countries in the world today are democracies, the people of those countries have a say, however indirect it might seem. For example, if we do not agree with the Indian government, we can protest and the government will have to consider our opinion, even if it does not do so immediately.

Somewhere in this discussion, I slipped in the point that even in the business world, family-owned businesses are giving way to corporations where the CEOs are democratically elected. They didn’t seem to agree with this point too much, as their expressions and the tone of their voice suggested. One of them said, “But everywhere I look, I can see only Ambanis, Tatas, and other such families”. Then they asked me for an example of a family-owned business where the CEO is ‘democratically elected’. I was not sure, but I mentioned Wipro, my point being that even though Azim Premji still holds a majority stake in the company, he has not got his family members into important positions. They asked me the CEO’s name, which I did not know, and I was not even sure whether the CEO was truly democratically elected or handpicked by Azim Premji. But my point was that it is not just a single family’s absolute reign over all the resources of a business, at least in the biggest corporations of the world.

Towards the end of the interview, P3 asked me two questions, “If you represent India at the UN, what would be your three most important concerns?” and “What were your subjects at the UPSC exam?” In reply to the former, I mentioned changes in the approach to tackling terrorism, the decision-making at the WTO and the whole issue of free trade v/s fair trade, and the issue of expanding the Security Council to include more permanent members.

That was the end, and they asked me if I had any questions for them. I hadn’t thought of any, so I refused, as I didn’t want to come up with something silly on the spot. After the interview, I went to get photocopies of all my documents, and when I went up to those babus, I realised that I had already given my interview form to the professors in my panel. So I had to go back to them, get the form, take it to the babus who would verify everything and attach the copies, and then go and give it to the professors again.

Finally, I left the place around noon, came home, and just crashed on the bed.

General opinion: I think my performance was OK. I did not do too well, but I did not screw it up either. The interviewers did not seem very happy, but they were not frowning either; they had a generic smile on their faces throughout. When, in reply to their questions about my career choices, long and short-term goals, and my opinion on politics and the world in general, I gave generally diplomatic answers, one of them said, “He’s already talking like those MBA types”. I am not sure whether it was a good thing or a bad thing, but I restricted myself to telling the facts, and a general opinion on what I think is right, and not extreme rhetoric for or against any point of view.

And yes, for some reason, even though I remember pretty much everything from the interview, I do not remember it in an order proper enough to be constructed into a conversation format which I have followed for my previous blog posts. For that, a friend had suggested some days back that I carry a recorder into the interview.

Maybe this format is not as conducive to reading as the conversational one, so I’ll try to do better next time.