A case presentation jointly authored by Avinav Prakash, Gautam Jayasurya and Akshay Ravindran of TISS HRM & LR 2017-19.
A case presentation jointly authored by Avinav Prakash, Gautam Jayasurya and Akshay Ravindran of TISS HRM & LR 2017-19.
This presentation was created as a part of Airtel’s B-School Campus Business Case Study Competition. We attempted at solving their Sales & Marketing Case study which was about creating a Go-To-Market strategy for Airtel in response to Jio’s entry to feature phone market. This is document was authored by Shubham Aggarwal and Gautam Jayasurya at their 2nd year of TISS HRM & LR, TISS, Mumbai. Requesting reviews and critiques of our work.
The time has come to visit the hallowed aisles of TISS and to prove to the world that you’ve it in you what it takes to be a student of HRM & LR. For those of you, who have already cleared TISS-NET, you’ve already proven your ability to recall facts, to arrive at solutions for quantitative problems and interpret data sets. As the legends say ‘being good at something is just a start’. It’s time to gear up and put all the facts, numbers and trivia into a logical narrative at the time of Pre-Interview Test.
TISS follows a unique format of combining 600 words essay round along with group discussion. The topic for both essay and group discussion would be the same. The round begins with the announcement of the topic with a span of roughly 15 minutes to complete the same (Word limit and time span is subject to change). After the submission of your written essay, there would be a group discussion on the same topic.
Many of you must be wondering about the length of the essay and how to express your thoughts in such a short span of time. Before I share my recommendations on how to approach this round, let me put out a disclaimer that essay and group discussion evaluations are always subjective and there is no foolproof method to the same. The art of essay writing can broadly be divided in terms of its methodology, content and style. I’d be delving deep into the world of methods of writing an essay as content can be acquired by higher levels of mindful reading and style can be honed through practice. Here are a few writing methods one can try out for optimal results in essay round:
1. Mind Mapping
It is the practice of arranging ideas in a way that the reader can identify the linkages between the same. The writer shall identify the core topic of the essay and create branches of sub-topics to create a tree of connected ideas. Spending the first 3-4 minutes in preparing a tree upfront on the answer sheet provided, helped me to gather my thoughts on the same topic and present in a way that even a hasty evaluator would take notice. The caveat is that this practice may require time to succeed as the visualization of text may not come naturally to everyone. I recommend you to go through a good collection of mind maps provided by InsightsonIndia on all the possible burning issues that may appear as your essay and group discussion topic.
2. PEST Analysis
A commonly used technique while discussing social issues, PEST Analysis that stands for Political, Economic, Social and Technological Analysis will help the candidate to cover all the possible areas of a topic in a short span of time. Following this method will reduce digression, aids in the categorization of ideas under the right sub-headings and sticking to the word limit.
3. Use of Bullet Points
In an extremely competitive test like that of TISS, the primary objective of every candidate while writing the essay should be that of conveying one’s points across in the limited time and words. Use of bullet points, whenever one is listing a host of sub-points under the same category, is widely regarded as an effective strategy while writing an essay. This also helps in saving the word count as ideas are conveyed without the using full sentences. One must be careful not to overdo this as the evaluator might pass off the candidate as one that lacks the ability to write in prose.
Before the submission of your essay, make sure that you either have memorized the mind map created or noted down somewhere if provision for the same is given to you. This would help you use the arguments you’ve raised in the group discussion that follows. As for strategies one could employ in group discussions, it is highly an individualistic choice.
Depending on the personality and speaking style, you may choose to fulfill anyone one of the following roles in the GD:
• The Initiator: The one who takes the initiative and puts a structure in place. He should be careful not to consume more time as it would squander the good work he has done. If you’re somebody without minimal stage fright and has been a go-getter, this is the ideal role for you.
• The Sprinter: The one that creates maximum impact in the minimum amount of time. This is likely to the judges favorite as well as this person doesn’t bore the judges without boring and lengthy ornamented phrases but creates a coherent and succinct argument that stands the test of reason. This is my personal favorite as well. If you are high on articulation skills, thorough knowledge of the subject of discussion and a decent speed in speaking, who can pull off this role with ease.
• The Devil’s Advocate: The person who finds loopholes in the arguments raised in the discussion. If you are high on critical thinking and high on cynicism, this may be the role for you.
• The Summarizer: This person will take the job of noting down all the points that have been discussed and waits for the opportune moment close to the end of the discussion. One should be possessing the skills to analyze, categorize and if needed eliminate points discussed to excel in this role.
The one role you don’t want to play is that of a blocker, who goes on talking either repeating the points or introducing new point one after the other. This puts the candidate in a bad light as he comes across as highly individualistic, inflexible, non-accommodative and lacking the qualities of a team player. To draw an analogy, a good discussion should be like futsal match (the 5 a side football match played on smaller grounds) where points on both the sides are discussed at rapid pace through brief speeches and conclusions are reached,backed by sound logic, like goals are scored through short and nimble passes by show of skills.
Reproducing the content earlier published in Smart Work Strategies for TISS GD and Essay Writing
The sweet smell of surf!
A visit to HUL factory is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get!
The little kid in me jumped in joy as I saw the long unbroken strips of vim bar move in perfect symmetry and synchronization. Even when somebody was busy explaining me the patented technology behind it, I was lost in the aesthetic marvel of it.
My visit to the factory at Dapada, Silvassa that makes Surf and Rin Bars and Powder was in many ways a deep dive into the seen and unseen. Even that very familiar smell of surf seemed unfamiliar when surrounded by giant enzyme processing machines. But that is not likely to stop anyone from appreciating the industrial marvel that is Dapada factory.
Kudos to all the brilliant chemical engineers, supply chain managers and HR managers we have a world-class detergent making facility at our disposal. Personally, my most memorable moment of the day was when the factory supply chain manager admitted the immense power of human resource. A factory that is fuelled by the power of people who have pledged their loyalty to an institution which has given so much back to them.
Image Courtesy: Anirudh Agrawal, Shouvik Maity & Yoshita Bardhan
It’s yet another day of our lives. Traveling to our offices worrying about deadlines and appraisals. We look outside and may see some of them protesting. Fighting for their rights. Fighting for survival. The frenetic pace of our lives makes us forget or ignore the survival stories that are taking place around us and beyond our scope of imagination. ‘Beasts of No Nation’ is such a film that jolts us from our comfortable lives to look around and making us ponder for a brief period of time. We embrace the terror, squalor and struggle the people of Africa go through captured with the subtleties of an astute wildlife photographer. It opens up a world beyond our comprehension and disproves the simplified understanding of the world around us. It challenges the very tenants of our urban morality which might have taken shape through a continuous layering of umpteen social privileges.
In the film, we encounter a family which faces an imminent war, their forced estrangement for survival and the birth of a child soldier. We hear him whisper the sins he has committed and it terrifies us that he already knows the rules of survival. We find that laws of the unkind have strangled his mind and body the way an African python would’ve had its prey when it was least expecting it. We may jump from our seats in shock when we see those little hands chop a human head off but we again console ourselves when we see him carry his fellow soldier to eventually find his mate to have succumbed to the bullet wound.
The film offers us a plateful of cognitive dissonance experience as we find ourselves feeling numb and helpless despite our faith in justice administration systems of this world. If this film was to be converted as a painting, it’s colouring would have been replaced by strokes of black combining with bright red, portraying the blood which is spilled and the unspilled running through the living dead. But nevertheless, the eternal optimist in us will be searching for that very speck of white colour in the canvas, searching for a reason to jump back to our world of deadlines.
How would you feel if you are trapped in a room full of suspicious looking men and woman who wouldn’t blink an eye before taking your life?
Hateful eight thrives on that paranoia created in the minds of the audience created using an abundance of gore, blood, violence and abusive language.
A western spaghetti bloodbath narrated in a way that is unique to Quentin Tarantino. The film starts off slowly, capturing the snow clad mountains and the blizzard in its wildest best. As it progresses, we are introduced to the characters one by one, intentions of whom remain ever doubtful throughout the movie. It is this same lack of trust between characters that makes this film an interesting watch. The majority of the film is set in a creeky old restaurant that adds on to the macabre atmosphere so much so that you start to smell blood around you.The possibility that anyone can betray anyone anytime for their selfish needs brings in that uncertainty that keeps the audience interested in the storyline.
It also has subplots on the way blacks are treated in America at time of Lincoln’s presidency as well the animalistic justice system in the outskirts of towns. The existence of a bounty system creates a Hobbesian environment where life is brutish, nasty and short. In many ways, it makes us feel thankful for our criminal administration and justice system which tirelessly prevent a situation where every man or women had to fend for themselves. The film ends on a positive note as the black man and renegade white man, who earlier carried a lot of black hatred join hands to end the life of an absconding criminal. A clever study of how the justice system itself perpetuates crime, watch this movie as it becomes a journey through the minds of eight different dimensions of hatred.
Authored by Indu Poornima
Directed by cinematographer Venu, based on a screenplay by the short story writer Unni.R, this 2014 Malayalam movie explores the intricacies surrounding the human mind in perceiving the ideas of freedom, crime, and punishment. Through the life events of the protagonist C R Raghavan (played by Mammootty) and a junior freelancer Anjali Arakkal (Aparna Gopinath), the movie steadily unfolds itself to question subjective interpretations regarding ‘real freedom’ and nihilistic tendencies set within the modern capitalist framework.
The movie begins with Anjali, as a struggling new entrant to journalism agrees to ghostwrite the autobiography of a retiring jail superintend, Ramamoorthy (played by Nedumudi Venu). On a visit to the jail to meet the superintendent, she comes across Raghavan, who despite having finished his official term for the double homicide of his wife and female boss, continue to live in the jail. The first chord of curiosity is struck in Anjali with Raghavan’s constant but calm denial of him being a killer even after having served 20 odd years in jail. For the young journalist, the mysteriousness surrounding the protagonist accelerates after she gets access to his writings. Through probings like “Are there bulbs which can be switched on to bring darkness in a room filled with light just like how you turn a bulb on in a dark room to bring light?” and “Light and truth are alike, just because we don’t acknowledge it at times doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist”, Raghavan presents his view of the world, only to further arouse the inquisitiveness in Anjali.
Eventually, Anjali writes a feature about him in a popular magazine, which she titles ‘Brain behind the Bars’. The article gains applaud for her as a freelancer along with proposals from publishing houses to launch a book on Raghavan’s biography. The good money came with these offers from corporate houses with Anjali finally being content about having received her first big career break. For the purposes of the same, Anjali proactively takes initiatives to release Raghavan from the jail and asks him to write more about his life events and own interpretations which would, in turn, form the flesh of the biography. The movie proceeds with various desperate efforts from Anjali’s side to make Raghavan write, which he relentlessly fails in doing. As a last resort, Anjali moves Raghavan to an undisclosed, secluded area so as to infuse some creativity in him. Finally, when Anjali realized that none of her tactics were working, she gives up her mission. She makes her mind up to settle the deal with the publishing house in the court of law. When she goes to meet Raghavan one last time, to release him from the house where she had confined him, Raghavan gives the full script of what he was asked to write. In a bewildered state, Anjali hurriedly goes through the manuscript that he had handed over to her and with every passing page, tinges of surprise, fear and panic start to overwhelm her. The film ends with Raghavan killing Anjali with a rod, in one swift blow, just when she finishes reading and looks at him with eyes of dismay and terror.
The questions that the film leaves through its open-ended closure are myriad. On a second watch, one understands how each scene right from the beginning was in fact cues thrown at the audience leading to the impending dark scenes that form the climax. The major themes emerging from the movie are as follows:
The protagonist in the movie is portrayed as having multiple layers, with his own rational explanations guiding his actions as opposed to the reasoning of others. While the mainstream sees him as being ‘abnormal’, ‘different’ or ‘too philosophical’ (in the words of Ramamurthy), he stays indifferent to such comments, and find bliss through his own understanding of the world. For when Anjali suggests that ‘he would be happy once he is out of jail’, Raghavan, as calm and composed as he replies, “But I am not unhappy in jail”. Raghavan thus doesn’t believe in values of freedom, loyalty, happiness, truth or reason in the sense as understood by others. He, therefore, exhibits traits of nihilism in believing in nothing, devoid of moral, or metaphysical convictions. He is quick to remove anything that comes in the way of his definitions, even if it meant the killing of the journalist who came in the way of him and his notion of ‘freedom’, which he enjoyed by being in jail. Throughout the movie there are subtle references to his extreme pessimism, a trait generally found among nihilists. For instance, when Anjali tells Raghavan about how happy he would be leading a new life post-jail, he is quick in replying that, there is nothing called ‘old’ or ‘new’ in life and proposes that life is nothing but a struggle unto reaching death.
The nihilist in him doesn’t consider his acts of killing three women, including Anjali as being wrong a deed as there is no existence of the concept of moral righteousness, loyalty or justice in his worldview. Perhaps this explains his constant denial of the crime he is convicted of since the beginning of the movie. In the beginning of the movie, there is an image of a dead lizard being moved by a group of ants. Although the ants might not be directly responsible for the death of the lizard, they are definitely participants in the act, as agents of destruction of its dead body. A parallel to this is drawn in the protagonist’s case, in his claim of innocence for not having killed his victims. Rather, the nihilist sees the death of the two females as being preordained and perceives himself as being a mere agent of implementing the already decided fate. This notion also perhaps explains the relevance of the title of the movie, Munnariyippu, meaning premonition in Malayalam.
Idea of Freedom
An overarching theme that is being questioned and countered throughout the movie is perhaps the subjective interpretations of freedom. While the general perception is to think of jail as a metaphor for isolation, or a correction cell for the ones transgressing justice and laws of the land, for Raghavan, it is bliss, his ultimate door to freedom, where he lives in at most joy, despite the end of his jail term. Towards, the end of the movie, to Anjali’s question of whether he decided where he wanted to be dropped, with his ever-so-innocent smile Raghavan calmly responds that it is to his cell room that he wished to go back, before hitting her head with the rod.
The reasons for his intolerance of the world outside of jail can be varied. The movie shifts the notion of ‘confining space’ from jail to the larger public spaces in modern settings. Perhaps it in the outside of jail, in the public sphere that Raghavan faces the more disciplinary control on his actions than in its inside. This can be understood through the Foucauldian notion of Panopticism, wherein disciplinary surveillance enables the observer to view the actions of the observed and keep the latter uninformed of them being observed. From jotting down whatever random thoughts that came to him, whenever he wanted to, to being subjected to Anjali’s constant surveillance on his day-to-day activities and pressures on meeting deadline the writer in Raghavan is suffocated, faces writer’s block and eventually loses the interest to write. There are repeated statements in the movie made by Anjali suggesting that the protagonist was ‘under her custody’. The movie uses metaphors such as the isolated house, Anjali forcefully locking Raghavan inside, dictating him on what he has to write etc. as instruments of surveillance imposed on him by the modern public space. Anjali, herself a representation of a generation cobwebbed in profit making pursuits, fails to respect the private space erstwhile enjoyed by the writer, as a consequence of which she pays dearly in the latter part of the movie.
Thus, the movie also throws light upon the capitalist mechanisms that commodify creativity and reaps profit out of it. While Anjali’s portrayal is one in affirmation to such a mentality as seen in instances like of her indulgence in ghostwriting with the pure aim of making money. At the other end of the spectrum, Raghavan as a writer loathes the public space, he is exposed to after 20 long years in jail for its overt and covert controls over behaviour. His writing is now being interrupted by external forces, trying to mold it into patterns of their choice, in an attempt to sell it for profits. The nihilist in Raghavan grows intolerant to these and ultimately chooses to return to his safe haven, where he enjoyed at-most liberty.
A crucial turn in the movie is when Anjali slowly begins to confide in Raghavan’s claim of not having killed anybody. Throughout the first half of the movie, there are little reasons as to why Anjali should not believe Raghavan’s words of not committing the crime. Elegantly poised and composed as he is, Raghavan portrays the demeanor of perhaps a well-read philosopher or author than that of a murderer. On the one hand, she develops a genuine sympathy for this man for having lost 20 years of his life as punishment for a crime that he did not commit. On the other, in her own pursuit of etching a name for herself in the field and make good money, she conveniently overlooks the possibility of Raghavan being a murderer, thus falling prey to his feigned innocence.
In conclusion, the most important message that Munnaryippu attempts to leave in the minds of its audience and for larger public debate is perhaps the credibility of the correction mechanisms imposed through jail imprisonments. Despite having spent close to twenty years in jail, the murderer in him doesn’t cease to exist, only to be aroused by another woman, whom he perceives as being an impeachment upon his personal liberty. The last scene sums up this attitude in its peak when Raghavan is seen to be enjoying a good night’s deep sleep beneath the trophies of his crimes that he treasures- photographs of all three of his victims.
More about the author of this blog post, Indu Poornima, an avid reader, imaginative photographer and a forced gym visitor could be found here: https://www.facebook.com/induandinduonly