Is a conclusion, an introduction in disguise? – Analysing an example


Henri Fayol and Pumpkin Patch

Last week we looked at whether a conclusion is roughly just a paraphrased introduction in past tense by comparing the formulaic introduction and conclusions. In this post we will continue with this analysis by looking at an example.

Introduction – Conclusion

1. Hook them! with 5. End with a bang!

Introduction: Fresh from successfully reversing his mining company’s fortunes, French engineer-cum-manager Henri Fayol developed and later published in 1919 his Administrative Theory (Hatch with Cunliffe, 2006).”

Conclusion: Other modern businesses may have thrived by strenuously applying different principles than the four mentioned, but it appears, as Pumpkin Patch shows, behind any great business, past or present, you will find the application of one or more of Fayol’s 14 General Principles of Management.”

Introduction in disguise? Nope.

Content-wise these two sentences have very little in common. Also, the introductory sentence is neutral (they’re accepted facts) and the conclusion is not – find a few successful businesses you think don’t apply any of the principles and you’ve got a counter-argument. So the only similarities are their tone; both are powerfully written and get the marker’s attention, and that they address the broader context.

2. Set the scene with 1. Re-state the scene

Introduction: “In this book, General and Industrial Management, Fayol introduced 14 principles of management (Samson & Daft, 2005); four of these will be discussed in this essay in relation to Pumpkin Patch.”

Conclusion: “This essay has considered the applications of four of Henri Fayol’s 14 principles of Administrative management in the modern organisation, in regards to Pumpkin Patch.”

Introduction in disguise? Yup.

These sentences are nearly identical. It is quite common for the sentence in the introduction to contain a little more detail and for it to not be quite so similar diction-wise to the conclusion’s sentence; but in this case you couldn’t paraphrase the conclusion’s sentence much more. No, don’t reach for that thesaurus!

3. Show you are smart with 3. (and 4.) Deliver a twist

Introduction: “Due to its age, it is easy to disregard Fayol’s work as not being relevant in today’s fast-paced modern environment (Fells, 2000).”

Conclusion: “However not all of Fayol’s principles are applied in modern organisations and some principles are more useful in certain situations than others, so therefore these are more rigorously applied (Rodrigues, 2001). While the four principles discussed in this essay (Authority and Responsibility, Division of Work, Unity of Direction, and Esprit de Corps) have all had a dramatic impact of turning this home-grown New Zealand business global, this list is not exhaustive, as Fayol (1967) concludes, there is no limit to the principles of management.”

Introduction in disguise? Nope.

These two sentences are pretty much completely different. While they both show the writer’s intelligence, they go about it in very different ways. The sentence in the introduction sets the context of the essay – applying an old management theory to a modern business. On the other hand, the sentences in the conclusion that make up the twist look at what the essay specifically discussed and made a judgement – not all of the principles are equal nor is there a fixed amount of them.

4. Give the game away with 2. Answer the question

Introduction: “Contrarily this essay shall argue that Pumpkin Patch’s massive growth in just 16 years (Brookes, Shepherd and Nicholson, 2008) can be largely attributed to the application of Fayol’s principles.”

Conclusion: Examining key parts of the organisation from executive directors to the ordinary part-time employees, in addition to important production models, it has shown how Fayol’s ninety-year-old theories are still relevant today.”

Introduction in disguise? Yup.

Both these sentences are saying very similar things: “can be largely attributed to the application of Fayol’s principles” = “Fayol’s ninety-year-old theories are still relevant today.” The only real difference is that the conclusion’s sentence mentions some of the evidence used to prove the essay’s argument.

5. Sum it up with 5. End with a bang!

Introduction: Overall, this essay will focus on the importance of the principles of Authority and Responsibility, Unity of Direction, Division of Work and Esprit de Corps.”

Conclusion: Other modern businesses may have thrived by strenuously applying different principles than the four mentioned, but it appears, as Pumpkin Patch shows, behind any great business, past or present, you will find the application of one or more of Fayol’s 14 General Principles of Management.”

Introduction in disguise? Close.

The sentence in the conclusion essentially covers what the sentence in the introduction says, however it goes much further. While the introduction’s sentence is focused on what the essay is going to discuss, the conclusion’s sentence relates the essay to the broader context – Pumpkin Patch extrapolated to “modern businesses” and the four specific principles to Fayol’s principles as a whole.

So is a conclusion, an introduction in disguise?

No, but it is rather close.

The real key difference as discussed in my previous post, is the comparison: ”3. Show you are smart with 3. (and 4.) Deliver a twist” which is very obvious in the example above. This is not much of a surprise because the twist is what sets the conclusion apart. It makes a conclusion a conclusion – and it’s the bit that gets you marks.

The main difference that sets the introduction apart from the rest of the conclusion (i.e. minus the twist) is the first sentence – “Hook them!” You shouldn’t need to hook the reader in your conclusion as they should have been reading from the start! It is the first sentence of the introduction that is going to draw the marker in; so write a good one.

Other than those two differences, the two paragraphs are rather similar. However, make sure you know the slight differences, and don’t get lazy and fall into the trap of copying the sentences in your introduction word for word and then paraphrasing them – that trick only works when you want to “Re-state the scene”!

Do you agree with my conclusion? Are there any more similarities and differences you think I’ve missed?

Below are the complete paragraphs:

Introduction

Fresh from successfully reversing his mining company’s fortunes, French engineer-cum-manager Henri Fayol developed and later published in 1919 his Administrative Theory (Hatch with Cunliffe, 2006). In this book, General and Industrial Management, Fayol introduced 14 principles of management (Samson & Daft, 2005); four of these will be discussed in this essay in relation to Pumpkin Patch. Due to its age, it is easy to disregard Fayol’s work as not being relevant in today’s fast-paced modern environment (Fells, 2000). Contrarily this essay shall argue that Pumpkin Patch’s massive growth in just 16 years (Brookes, Shepherd and Nicholson, 2008) can be largely attributed to the application of Fayol’s principles. Overall, this essay will focus on the importance of the principles of Authority and Responsibility, Unity of Direction, Division of Work and Esprit de Corps.

Conclusion

This essay has considered the applications of four of Henri Fayol’s 14 principles of Administrative management in the modern organisation, in regards to Pumpkin Patch. Examining key parts of the organisation from executive directors to the ordinary part-time employees, in addition to important production models, it has shown how Fayol’s ninety-year-old theories are still relevant today. However not all of Fayol’s principles are applied in modern organisations and some principles are more useful in certain situations than others, so therefore these are more rigorously applied (Rodrigues, 2001). While the four principles discussed in this essay (Authority and Responsibility, Division of Work, Unity of Direction, and Esprit de Corps) have all had a dramatic impact of turning this home-grown New Zealand business global, this list is not exhaustive, as Fayol (1967) concludes, there is no limit to the principles of management. Other modern businesses may have thrived by strenuously applying different principles than the four mentioned, but it appears, as Pumpkin Patch shows, behind any great business, past or present, you will find the application of one or more of Fayol’s 14 General Principles of Management.

Photo Credit: Henri Fayol via Wikimedia Commons, Pumpkin Patch logo via Human Synergistics International’s website

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  1. No comments yet.
(will not be published)