Group Discussions: India HR Topics

Formats. Indian HR selection uses three main formats. Topic GDs discuss a current issue (“Should India legislate a right to disconnect?”). Case GDs give a short business or HR situation and ask the group to recommend a solution. Abstract GDs give a word or phrase (“Bridges”, “Zero”) to interpret. A GD typically has 8–12 participants and lasts 15–20 minutes, sometimes followed by a summary from one or more participants.

What assessors look for.

Roles you can play well. Initiator: opens with a definition, a fact and a proposed structure; only worthwhile if you have them ready. Contributor: adds new dimensions with evidence. Facilitator: summarises progress mid-way, reconciles opposing views, invites others in. Summariser: closes with a fair account of the main arguments and areas of agreement.

Common mistakes: speaking often with nothing new; long lists of statistics; unsourced numbers (“a survey says”); interrupting or raising one’s voice; personal remarks; agreeing with everyone without adding anything; and, for HR candidates, ignoring the employee, legal or ethical dimension.

Structure for a single contribution (PREP): state your point, give the reason, support it with an example or fact, and restate the point in relation to the group’s discussion. Thirty to forty-five seconds is usually enough.

Structures for a whole topic (useful for initiating or for adding a missing dimension):

Entering the discussion. Wait for a natural pause, address the group, and connect to the last point: “Building on Riya’s point about cost, the evidence on productivity per hour suggests…”. Short, specific contributions are easier to make in a crowded discussion.

When one or two people dominate. Do not compete on volume. Use a pause to summarise the discussion so far and propose the next aspect: “We’ve covered the employer’s view in detail; can we look at the worker’s side, which we haven’t discussed?” Inviting a quiet participant by name is also noticed by assessors.

Summarising. Present the main views fairly, not only your own; state where the group agreed and disagreed; offer a balanced conclusion. Keep it to about a minute.

Case GDs. Use clarify → diagnose → options → recommend → measure. Clarify the facts and constraints given; diagnose root causes (most groups jump to solutions too early); generate options; recommend with a rationale and implementation steps; and say how success will be measured. Proposing this structure early helps the group and is a visible leadership contribution.

Abstract GDs. Offer an interpretation quickly and connect it to business or HR. For “Bridges”: bridging generations at work; bridging the gender gap; change management as a bridge between current and future states; bridging skills gaps through reskilling. Interpretations that lead to substantive discussion count for more than clever wordplay.

Context. In 2023, Infosys co-founder N. R. Narayana Murthy said young Indians should work 70 hours a week to raise national productivity; in January 2025, the chairman of Larsen & Toubro spoke of 90-hour weeks. The death of a 26-year-old EY employee in Pune in 2024, attributed by her family to overwork, made working hours a national issue. ILO data place India among the countries with the longest average working weeks. The OSH Code limits weekly hours to 48, with overtime at double wages and capped at 144 hours a quarter.

Arguments for. Countries that caught up economically, such as Japan, South Korea and China, combined long hours with rapid growth; early careers and start-ups reward intensity; some periods (launches, crises) genuinely require extra effort.

Arguments against. Output per hour falls sharply beyond about 50 hours a week, and beyond about 55 hours additional hours add little output (John Pencavel, Stanford, 2014). Long hours increase errors, accidents, burnout and health costs. They disadvantage women, who carry most unpaid care work in India. Productivity growth comes mainly from capital, technology, skills and management, not from hours. South Korea itself cut its legal maximum working week from 68 to 52 hours in 2018.

Balanced position. Measure and raise output, not hours. Intensity can be voluntary and periodic, but long hours as a norm reduce productivity and exclude many people from the workforce.

Useful lines. “Hours are an input; organisations should manage outputs.” “If long hours were the route to productivity, India would already be among the most productive economies.”

Context. Generative AI is automating screening, query handling, drafting and reporting. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 estimates that by 2030 about 170 million jobs will be created and 92 million displaced globally, a net gain of 78 million, with roughly 39% of workers’ core skills expected to change. In India, TCS reduced its workforce by about 12,000 roles (around 2%) in 2025 while continuing to hire freshers, and large IT firms are redesigning entry-level work around AI.

Arguments for. Much HR work is rules-based and repetitive (payroll queries, screening, documentation, reporting), and AI already does it faster and cheaper. HR headcount ratios are likely to fall.

Arguments against. Judgement, trust and accountability remain human: employee relations, negotiation with unions, investigations, change leadership, ethics and coaching managers. AI also creates new HR work: reskilling programmes, AI governance, bias audits, data-protection compliance and redesigning jobs. Employees want people, not systems, in sensitive moments.

Balanced position. AI will replace many HR tasks, not the HR function. The profession will shift towards analytics, design and advisory work, and HR will lead the workforce side of AI adoption across the organisation.

Useful line. “The HR professional who uses AI well will replace the one who doesn’t.”

Context. NITI Aayog (2022) estimated 77 lakh gig workers in 2020–21, projected to reach 2.35 crore by 2029–30. The Code on Social Security recognises gig and platform workers for social security, funded by aggregator contributions of 1–2% of turnover capped at 5% of payments to workers, with registration on the e-Shram portal and eligibility after 90 days with one aggregator or 120 days across several. Rajasthan (2023) and Karnataka (2025) passed state laws; Karnataka’s includes a welfare fee and transparency provisions. In 2021 the UK Supreme Court held in Uber v Aslam that drivers were “workers” entitled to minimum wage and holiday pay.

Arguments for employee status. Many workers depend economically on one platform; platforms control pricing, allocation, ratings and deactivation through algorithms, which resembles employment; without employee status workers lack minimum wages, social security and protection against arbitrary deactivation.

Arguments against. Flexibility is the main reason many people choose gig work; many work across several apps part-time; employee costs would raise prices and could reduce the number of opportunities, particularly for those who find formal jobs hardest to obtain.

Balanced position. A third category: portable social security funded by platforms, minimum earnings for time logged in, transparency about pay and ratings algorithms, and a fair appeal process before deactivation, without full employee status. This is broadly the direction India has taken.

Useful line. “Flexibility for the platform should not mean fragility for the worker.”

Context. The OSH Code caps the week at 48 hours, and several states allow longer working days within that limit, so compressed weeks (four days of about 12 hours including breaks) are legally possible with overtime and consent rules. A 2022 UK pilot with 61 companies, using reduced hours rather than compressed ones, found that most continued with a four-day week afterwards, reporting stable revenue and lower burnout.

Arguments for. Better retention and well-being, savings on long commutes in Indian cities, and a sharper focus on output.

Arguments against. Compressed 12-hour days are exhausting and raise safety risks in plants; continuous manufacturing, retail, healthcare and customer service cannot easily close for a day; IT services firms work to client hours; a reduced-hours model raises costs unless productivity rises.

Balanced position. Suitable as a pilot for some knowledge-work teams with clear output measures; not a national mandate.

Context. Laws giving employees a right to ignore work communication outside working hours exist in France (2017), Portugal (2021) and Australia (2024). In India the idea exists only in private member’s bills introduced in Parliament since 2018; it is not law.

Arguments for. Hybrid work has blurred the boundary between work and home; constant availability contributes to burnout; junior employees cannot refuse after-hours requests without legal protection.

Arguments against. Global teams work across time zones; a uniform law is hard to enforce and could reduce flexibility that employees value; enforcement capacity for labour laws is already stretched.

Balanced position. Start with organisational norms (no expectation of replies after hours, scheduled sending, response-time agreements, rotation of on-call duties); legislate only a minimum protection that employees cannot be penalised for not responding outside working hours.

Context. Karnataka’s Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025 gives women aged 18–52 one day of paid menstrual leave a month (12 a year) in government and private establishments, without a medical certificate. Bihar has provided such leave to women government employees since 1992, and some companies, such as Zomato from 2020, introduced it voluntarily. The Supreme Court has treated the issue as a matter of policy and noted the risk that mandatory leave could discourage employers from hiring women.

Arguments for. It recognises a genuine health need for many women, reduces the stigma attached to menstruation, and rest is more productive than working while unwell.

Arguments against. It may increase hiring bias against women, reinforce stereotypes, and raise privacy concerns.

Balanced position. Support it within a broader, gender-neutral health and flexibility policy, without requiring documentation, and monitor hiring and promotion data for bias. Funding through social insurance rather than individual employers would reduce the incentive to discriminate.

Context. Many Indian IT firms increased office-attendance requirements after the pandemic; TCS linked variable pay to office attendance in 2024. Global companies have moved to three to five office days.

Arguments for the office. Juniors learn faster by observing colleagues; collaboration and culture are stronger in person; some security and client requirements favour office work.

Arguments for flexibility. It improves retention and women’s workforce participation, widens hiring beyond large cities, and saves long commuting time and cost.

Balanced position. “Purposeful presence”: anchor days for collaboration, learning and team events, with flexibility otherwise, differentiated by role; measure outcomes rather than attendance.

Context. The four Labour Codes came into force on 21 November 2025, with final central rules notified on 8 May 2026. Most central trade unions, other than the BMS, opposed them and called nationwide protests and strikes in 2025.

Arguments that they favour employers. Government permission for lay-off, retrenchment and closure now applies only at 300 or more workers (previously 100); standing orders apply at 300; fixed-term employment is statutory; strike notice applies to all establishments and mass casual leave counts as a strike; the contract-labour threshold rose to 50; many offences were decriminalised.

Arguments that they protect workers. A universal minimum wage and a national floor wage; social security for gig and platform workers; gratuity for fixed-term employees after one year; a reskilling fund for retrenched workers; mandatory appointment letters; union recognition rules; safeguards for women working at night; and a uniform wage definition that raises PF and gratuity.

Balanced position. The Codes trade flexibility for employers in exchange for wider coverage and clearer processes for workers. Their real effect will depend on state rules and enforcement.

Context. In 2022 Wipro terminated about 300 employees found working for competitors; Infosys allowed outside work with prior approval where it did not conflict with its business. Indian employment contracts usually include exclusivity clauses during employment; courts generally uphold reasonable restrictions during employment, while section 27 of the Indian Contract Act limits restraints after employment ends.

Arguments for allowing it. Employees’ time outside work is their own; side projects build skills and income; outright bans are hard to enforce and push the activity underground.

Arguments against. Conflicts of interest, misuse of confidential information, fatigue affecting performance, and divided commitment.

Balanced position. Allow non-competing outside work with disclosure; prohibit work for competitors, use of company time, equipment or information, and anything that affects performance.

Context. Female labour-force participation in India has risen to about 42% (PLFS 2023–24) from about 23% in 2017–18, but women’s share falls sharply at middle and senior management levels. The Companies Act, 2013 requires at least one woman director on listed companies’ boards, and SEBI’s BRSR requires disclosure of gender data. Norway introduced a 40% quota for women on public-company boards in the 2000s.

Arguments for quotas. Progress without them is slow; visible women leaders change aspirations and pipelines; quotas force organisations to fix the barriers that held women back.

Arguments against. Risk of tokenism and stigma for women appointed; quotas address the outcome without fixing the pipeline; board quotas have not necessarily changed representation in senior management below the board.

Balanced position. Use targets with accountability rather than rigid quotas, combined with pipeline fixes: returnship programmes, sponsorship, flexible senior roles, equal parental leave, pay-equity audits, safe travel and night-shift arrangements, and transparent promotion criteria.

Context. Union membership is low in private services but remains strong in public-sector undertakings, banks, ports, mining and the automobile industry. Recognition disputes continue in new manufacturing plants, as in the strike at Samsung’s Sriperumbudur plant in 2024. Gig-worker associations have emerged in several states. India has not ratified the ILO conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining.

Arguments that unions are less relevant. Knowledge work, individual pay negotiation and direct employee-voice channels; political affiliations that can make unions adversarial; flexible and contract work that unions struggle to organise.

Arguments that they remain relevant. Power imbalances between employers and workers persist, especially for contract and gig workers; restructuring driven by AI and automation increases the need for negotiated transitions; collective voice can give management early warning of problems.

Balanced position. The need for collective voice is growing; its form is changing from party-affiliated unions towards enterprise unions, worker associations and digital organising. Good industrial relations treats worker voice as useful information.

Context. Aon reported average attrition of 17.7% in India in 2024, and early-career employees in IT and start-ups often change jobs within two years.

Arguments for. Employers ended lifetime employment first, through layoffs and restructuring; switching jobs is often the fastest way to raise pay and learn; career security now comes from skills rather than from one employer.

Arguments against. Many employees stay long term where they are developed and treated fairly; organisations such as the Tata group and many public-sector companies retain people for decades.

Balanced position. Loyalty has become reciprocal and conditional: people stay where they learn, grow and are treated fairly. Organisations should design for this through internal mobility, defined “tours of duty” with development goals, and alumni networks that bring people back.

Context. The EU Pay Transparency Directive, to be implemented by June 2026, requires pay ranges in job advertisements and gender pay-gap reporting, influencing practice in multinationals. Indian law does not require pay transparency beyond listed companies’ disclosures.

Arguments for. Transparency reduces unexplained gaps, particularly by gender; it builds trust; and it reduces the advantage of those who negotiate hardest.

Arguments against. Privacy expectations; conflict and envy over individual cases; and pressure towards compressed pay that weakens differentiation for performance.

Balanced position. Publish pay ranges by grade, explain how increments and bonuses are decided, train managers to discuss pay, and audit pay equity regularly. Full individual transparency is rarely necessary.

Context. Skills-based hiring is spreading in technology and frontline roles, and apprenticeship and internship schemes provide alternative entry routes. Degrees still act as filters for many roles.

Arguments for. Degrees are a weak proxy for job performance; skills assessments widen access to talent from non-traditional backgrounds; skills change faster than degree curricula.

Arguments against. Degrees signal persistence and foundational knowledge; some professions are regulated and require qualifications; skills assessments can also be biased or poorly designed.

Balanced position. Treat degrees as one signal rather than a filter; use validated skills assessments, apprenticeships and work samples; keep degree requirements where they are legally or genuinely necessary.

Context. Restructuring in technology and start-ups has made layoffs a frequent topic. In Indian law, retrenchment of workers requires notice, compensation of 15 days’ pay per year of service and a reskilling-fund payment, with government permission for establishments of 300 or more workers (Chapter 10). A widely criticised example abroad was Better.com’s dismissal of around 900 employees on a single video call in December 2021.

Arguments that layoffs can be ethical. Organisations sometimes must reduce costs to survive and protect the remaining jobs; a fair process can preserve dignity and trust.

Arguments that they rarely are. Layoffs often follow over-hiring decisions by leaders who are not affected; they damage engagement among survivors; and they are often announced impersonally.

Balanced position. Treat layoffs as a last resort after redeployment, attrition and voluntary schemes; use fair, transparent selection criteria; communicate personally and respectfully; provide severance beyond the legal minimum, extended health cover and outplacement support; and look after the remaining employees.