🔍 Know Your Type

Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers in Group Discussion: Which Type Are You?

Are you an abstract thinker or concrete example provider in GDs? Discover your style with our self-assessment quiz and learn the balance that gets you selected.

by
🎯

What You’ll Learn

  1. Understanding Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers in GD
  2. Side-by-Side Comparison: Characteristics & Behaviors
  3. Real GD Scenarios with Evaluator Feedback
  4. Self-Assessment: Which Type Are You?
  5. The Hidden Truth: Why Extremes Fail
  6. 8 Strategies to Find Your Balance
  7. Frequently Asked Questions

Understanding Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers in Group Discussion

Every GD has them: One candidate speaks in frameworks and principles—”From a macroeconomic standpoint, the fundamental paradigm shift we’re witnessing suggests…” Another candidate speaks entirely in examples—”So my cousin started a business last year, and what happened was…”

The abstract thinker believes, “I’m demonstrating intellectual depth and conceptual understanding.” The concrete example provider believes, “I’m making things relatable and showing practical awareness.”

Here’s what neither realizes about abstract thinkers vs concrete example providers in group discussion: pure abstraction sounds like a textbook nobody reads, and pure examples sound like anecdotes without a point. Both extremes fail to persuade.

The abstract thinker gets flagged for “speaks in jargon” and “can’t connect ideas to reality.” The example-heavy speaker gets marked as “lacks structure” and “can’t see the bigger picture.” Meanwhile, evaluators are looking for candidates who can do both: articulate principles clearly AND ground them in memorable, relevant examples.

Coach’s Perspective
In 18+ years of coaching, I’ve seen philosophy graduates rejected for “talking in circles without landing anywhere” and practical engineers rejected for “missing the forest for the trees.” The candidates who convert are principle-practitioners—they can zoom out to frameworks AND zoom in to examples. That’s how effective business communication works: concepts that stick because they’re illustrated, examples that matter because they prove a larger point.

Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Before you can find balance, you need to understand these two communication styles. Here’s how abstract thinkers and concrete example providers typically behave in group discussions—and how evaluators perceive them.

🧠
The Abstract Thinker
“Let me explain the underlying framework”
Typical Behaviors
  • Opens with: “Fundamentally, this is about…”
  • Uses conceptual language: paradigm, systemic, holistic
  • Discusses theories, models, and frameworks
  • Avoids specific examples as “too narrow”
  • Connects ideas to larger philosophical principles
What They Believe
  • “Examples are limiting—principles are universal”
  • “MBA evaluators want strategic, big-picture thinking”
  • “Frameworks show intellectual sophistication”
Evaluator Perception
  • “Sounds impressive but what does it actually mean?”
  • “Could they explain this to a client?”
  • “All concepts, no application”
  • “Intellectualizes instead of communicates”
đź“Ś
The Concrete Example Provider
“Let me give you a real example”
Typical Behaviors
  • Opens with: “So there’s this company/person/case…”
  • Shares personal anecdotes and observations
  • References news stories and specific incidents
  • Jumps between examples without connecting them
  • Avoids generalizations as “oversimplification”
What They Believe
  • “Real examples prove my point better than theory”
  • “Stories are memorable—frameworks are forgettable”
  • “Practical knowledge beats academic concepts”
Evaluator Perception
  • “Interesting stories, but what’s the takeaway?”
  • “Can they think beyond individual cases?”
  • “Lots of trees, no forest”
  • “Anecdotal, not analytical”
đź“Š Quick Reference: Communication Style Metrics
Specific Examples per GD
0-1
Abstract
3-5
Ideal
8+
Concrete
Framework/Principle Statements
Every Entry
Abstract
2-3
Ideal
0-1
Concrete
Example-Principle Connection
N/A
Abstract
Every Example
Ideal
Rare
Concrete

Pros and Cons: The Honest Trade-offs

Aspect 🧠 Abstract Thinker 📌 Concrete Example Provider
Intellectual Signal ✅ Shows big-picture thinking ⚠️ May appear less strategic
Memorability ❌ Concepts blend together ✅ Stories stick in memory
Clarity ❌ Can be vague and jargon-heavy ✅ Easy to follow and visualize
Scalability of Thinking ✅ Principles apply broadly ❌ Examples may seem one-off
Risk Factor “Talks in circles” “Can’t see the big picture”

Real GD Scenarios: See Both Types in Action

Theory is one thing—let’s see how abstract thinkers and concrete example providers actually perform in real group discussions, with evaluator feedback on what went wrong.

🧠
Scenario 1: The Framework Philosopher
Topic: “Is Work-From-Home the Future of Work?”
What Happened
Siddharth opened with: “This question fundamentally asks us to examine the evolving social contract between employers and employees in a post-industrial paradigm. The shift we’re witnessing represents a dialectical tension between organizational efficiency and individual autonomy…” He continued with concepts like “asynchronous collaboration frameworks,” “the decentralization of productive capacity,” and “neo-Taylorist control mechanisms.” When asked for specific examples, he responded: “The patterns transcend individual cases—we need to think systemically.” At the end of 15 minutes, no one could summarize what position Siddharth actually held.
0
Concrete Examples
12
Jargon Terms Used
5
Total Entries
0
Clear Positions Taken
đź“Ś
Scenario 2: The Anecdote Collector
Topic: “Is Work-From-Home the Future of Work?”
What Happened
Ritika opened with: “So my manager at my internship—he worked from home for two years and said productivity went up. But then my friend at Infosys, she said people were slacking off. Oh, and my dad’s company made everyone return to office last month because the CEO read something about Google…” She had an anecdote for everything but never connected them. When someone asked if she thought WFH was net positive or negative, she said: “It depends—like my cousin’s startup is fully remote, but my neighbor works at a bank and they need to be in person…” She shared 9 examples but never articulated a clear principle or position.
9
Examples Shared
0
Principles Stated
6
Total Entries
0
Clear Positions Taken
⚠️ The Critical Insight

Notice the irony: Siddharth had frameworks but couldn’t land them in reality. Ritika had reality but couldn’t extract patterns from it. Both failed to persuade because persuasion requires both—a clear principle AND evidence that makes it real. The best business communicators state a principle, illustrate with an example, then tie it back to the principle. That’s the loop both candidates missed.

Self-Assessment: Are You an Abstract Thinker or Concrete Example Provider?

Answer these 5 questions honestly to discover your natural communication style. Understanding your default mode is the first step to finding balance.

đź“Š Your Communication Style Assessment
1 When explaining a new concept to someone, you typically start with:
The underlying principle or definition
A specific example or story that illustrates it
2 In your GD entries, you’re more likely to say:
“The fundamental issue here is…” or “This reflects a broader pattern of…”
“For instance, take the case of…” or “I know someone who…”
3 When reading about a business case, you naturally focus on:
The strategic frameworks and models that explain it
The specific details, characters, and sequence of events
4 Feedback on your communication often mentions:
“Could you give an example?” or “What does that look like in practice?”
“What’s the main point?” or “How does this connect to the bigger picture?”
5 When someone shares an example you disagree with, you typically respond:
“That’s one case, but the general principle suggests otherwise…”
“But I know another example where the opposite happened…”

The Hidden Truth: Why Extremes Fail in Group Discussions

The Real Communication Formula
Persuasive GD Entry = (Clear Principle + Relevant Example + Explicit Connection) Ă· One-Dimensional Style

The best communicators in business follow a pattern: Principle → Example → “And this shows us that…” This loop ensures abstraction is grounded and examples are meaningful. Miss either half, and you fail to persuade—you either confuse or entertain without convincing.

Here’s what evaluators are actually looking for when they assess your communication style:

đź’ˇ What Evaluators Actually Assess

1. Conceptual Clarity: Can you articulate the core principle or framework?
2. Practical Grounding: Can you illustrate ideas with relevant, specific examples?
3. Integration Skill: Can you explicitly connect examples back to principles?

The abstract thinker demonstrates conceptual ability but fails on practical grounding and integration. The concrete example provider shows practical awareness but lacks conceptual clarity and integration. The principle-practitioner demonstrates all three—stating ideas clearly, illustrating them memorably, and connecting them explicitly.

The Principle-Practitioner: What Balance Looks Like

Behavior 🧠 Abstract Thinker ⚖️ Principle-Practitioner 📌 Concrete Provider
Opening Style “Fundamentally, this represents…” “The key principle is X—let me show you with Y” “So this company did…”
Using Examples Avoids as “too specific” Uses strategically to prove principles Strings together without connection
Using Frameworks Relies on exclusively States clearly, then illustrates Avoids as “too abstract”
Closing Entries “The paradigm shift suggests…” “This example proves that [principle]—which is why…” “And that’s what happened to my friend”
Audience Impact Impressed but confused Engaged and persuaded Entertained but unconvinced

8 Strategies to Find Your Balance in Group Discussions

Whether you’re an abstract thinker who needs to ground your ideas or a concrete example provider who needs to elevate your thinking, these strategies will help you become a principle-practitioner.

1
The Principle-Example-Principle Sandwich
Structure every entry as: State the principle → Illustrate with example → Restate the principle with “This shows us that…” This forces integration regardless of your natural style. Example: “Trust is key in remote work. [Company X] proved this when they… This shows us that without trust, WFH fails.”
2
The “For Instance” Rule
For Abstract Thinkers: After every conceptual statement, force yourself to add “For instance…” and provide a specific example. No exceptions. If you can’t think of an example, your concept isn’t ready to share.
3
The “This Shows That” Rule
For Concrete Example Providers: After every example, force yourself to add “This shows that…” and state the broader principle. No example should stand alone—every story needs a moral that advances your argument.
4
The Jargon Audit
For Abstract Thinkers: Before the GD, identify 3-4 jargon terms you tend to use (paradigm, holistic, synergy, leverage). Replace each with plain language. “Paradigm shift” becomes “The way we think about this has changed.” Clarity beats sophistication.
5
The Anchor Example Prep
For Abstract Thinkers: For every GD topic, prepare 2-3 specific examples in advance—one company, one country, one personal observation. Having these ready prevents you from retreating to pure abstraction when challenged.
6
The Pattern Extraction Practice
For Concrete Example Providers: After reading any news story, ask yourself: “What principle does this illustrate?” Practice extracting the ‘so what’ from every example you encounter. This builds the habit of connecting specifics to universals.
7
The One-Sentence Summary Test
Before making an entry, ask: “Can I summarize my point in one clear sentence?” If you can’t, you’re probably being too abstract. If you can but it’s just an example, add the principle. The sentence should combine both: “[Principle] because [Example].”
8
The Example Quality Filter
For Concrete Example Providers: Not all examples are equal. Prioritize: (1) Well-known company cases over personal anecdotes, (2) Recent examples over dated ones, (3) Examples that directly illustrate your point over tangentially related stories. Quality over quantity.
âś… The Bottom Line

The abstract thinker who can’t ground ideas gets rejected for poor communication. The example collector who can’t extract principles gets overlooked for lacking analytical depth. The winners understand this: Great business communication requires both—principles give your argument structure, examples give it life. Master the principle-example-principle loop, and you’ll be more persuasive than either extreme.

Frequently Asked Questions: Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers

Yes—but use them strategically, not exclusively. Personal anecdotes are powerful for illustration and relatability. However, they should be (1) relevant to the point, (2) followed by “and this illustrates a broader pattern” to show you can generalize, and (3) balanced with at least one non-personal example (company case, research finding). Over-reliance on “my friend/cousin/neighbor” signals limited exposure.

Use the “It’s like…” technique. Analogies and metaphors bridge abstract to concrete instantly. Instead of “organizational inertia inhibits transformation,” say “It’s like trying to turn a supertanker—you can’t just spin the wheel, you need sustained effort over distance.” Evaluators remember analogies. They forget jargon. Every concept should be explainable to a smart 15-year-old.

Prepare a mental library in advance. For common GD themes (technology, policy, business, society), have 3-4 versatile examples ready. Amazon, Tesla, India’s UPI system, Nordic welfare models—these adapt to many topics. Also, listen actively during the GD; others will share examples you can reference: “Building on Priya’s example of X, we see the same principle when…”

Frameworks are fine—but apply them, don’t just name them. Saying “Let’s do a SWOT analysis” and then listing S-W-O-T in abstraction is textbook regurgitation. Instead: “One strength here is X—we saw this when [example]. A key threat is Y—as demonstrated by [example].” Use frameworks as scaffolding, not as the entire building. The framework structures; examples populate.

One strong example per entry is usually enough. If you’re listing 3-4 examples in a single entry, you’re probably padding instead of proving. The pattern should be: state principle → give ONE well-chosen example → connect back. Save additional examples for subsequent entries or to counter challenges. Quality of illustration beats quantity of anecdotes.

Good examples are: specific, relevant, verifiable, and principle-proving. Bad examples are: vague (“some company did this”), tangential (loosely related to the point), unverifiable (“I heard somewhere”), or self-serving (proves nothing but that you know the story). “Amazon’s two-pizza team rule shows how small teams increase agility” is strong. “My friend’s startup is really agile” is weak. Aim for examples others would recognize and respect.

🎯
Want Personalized GD Feedback?
Understanding your type is step one. Getting expert feedback on your actual GD performance—with specific strategies for your communication style—is what transforms preparation into selection.
Book Free 15-Min Call Explore Courses

The Complete Guide to Abstract Thinkers vs Concrete Example Providers in Group Discussion

Understanding the dynamics of abstract thinkers vs concrete example providers in group discussion is essential for MBA aspirants preparing for GD rounds at top B-schools. This communication spectrum—how candidates balance conceptual frameworks with specific illustrations—is one of the most observable dimensions in evaluator assessments.

Why Communication Style Matters in MBA Group Discussions

The group discussion round tests not just what you think, but how you communicate your thinking. Business leaders must regularly translate complex ideas for diverse audiences—boards, teams, clients, investors. The abstract vs concrete communication dynamic in group discussions reveals whether candidates can adapt their communication to ensure understanding and persuasion.

This matters because real business communication requires range. A strategy consultant must explain frameworks clearly to clients. A product manager must ground abstract visions in concrete user stories. Neither pure abstraction nor pure anecdote works—effective business communication weaves between levels fluidly.

The Psychology Behind Communication Preferences

Understanding why candidates default to abstract or concrete communication helps address the root pattern. Abstract thinkers often come from academic backgrounds where theoretical sophistication was rewarded. They may view concrete examples as intellectually limiting or beneath their analytical capability. Concrete example providers often come from practical, hands-on backgrounds where showing beats telling. They may view frameworks as jargon that obscures rather than clarifies.

The principle-practitioner understands that both styles serve different purposes: abstraction creates transferable insights; examples create memorable proof. The skill is knowing when to zoom out to principles and when to zoom in to illustrations—and explicitly connecting the two levels for the audience.

How Top B-Schools Evaluate Communication Style

IIMs, ISB, XLRI, and other premier B-schools train evaluators to watch for balanced communication. They assess: clarity (can others follow your reasoning?), persuasiveness (do your arguments convince?), and adaptability (can you shift between conceptual and concrete as needed?). A candidate who speaks only in frameworks appears disconnected from reality. A candidate who speaks only in stories appears unable to see patterns.

The ideal candidate demonstrates what business schools call “practical wisdom”—the ability to derive principles from experience and apply principles to specific situations. They state ideas clearly, illustrate them memorably, and connect the illustration back to the idea explicitly. This principle-example-principle loop is the signature of effective business communication—and the mark of candidates who get selected.

Leave a Comment