Introductions and Conclusions in CIPD Assignments

Introductions and conclusions are the smallest parts of a CIPD assignment and the most predictably fumbled. Learners burn precious words on a page-long opening that defines every term in the title, then run out of words and submit an answer that simply stops. Both habits cost marks out of all proportion to the words involved, because the opening and closing paragraphs are where markers form their first impression and confirm their last.

This guide covers both ends of the assignment: what a CIPD introduction has to do and the short space it should do it in, why a conclusion should answer rather than summarise, how conclusions differ across task types, and a method for drafting both after the body is written, with worked examples of each. The frame around them is covered in the hub guide How to Structure a CIPD Assignment, and the body paragraphs between them in the paragraph structure guide.

Why the ends punch above their word count

Markers rarely say so directly, but the first and last paragraphs answer the two questions they carry through every script. At the start: does this learner understand what the task is asking, and do they have a plan? At the end: did they actually answer it? An introduction that sets scope crisply buys goodwill for everything that follows, because the marker reads the body already knowing where it is going. A conclusion that returns to the question and states a position lets the marker confirm the answer is complete. Miss either, and the middle has to work much harder for the same marks.

There is a mechanical reason too. Markers check coverage against the brief, and the two ends are where they do it: the introduction shows whether you grasped the scope, the conclusion whether everything demanded actually arrived. A marker who has to hunt through the body to find your answer marks with less confidence.

What a CIPD introduction must do

A working introduction does three jobs, usually in one short paragraph. It sets the scope: which question, which aspects, what the answer will focus on. It names the context: if the task applies to an organisation, your own workplace or a case study, say which one and what it is in a sentence. And it signposts the structure: the order in which the answer will deal with things, briefly, so the marker can navigate. Three jobs, a handful of sentences, done.

Notice the word briefly. In most CIPD tasks an introduction is a short paragraph, not a page. Some report formats set their own expectations, such as a separate background section, and where your brief asks for something specific, follow it: your current brief and your centre's guidance always outrank general advice, so check both before you write.

What an introduction must not do

• Define every term in the title. Definitions belong in the body, at the point where each concept is used and can earn analysis marks.
• Summarise the whole answer in advance. That is the conclusion's job, and doing it twice spends words you will want later.
• Copy the brief back. The marker has read the brief; restating it word for word demonstrates nothing and can look like padding.
• Open with grand generalities. Sentences about the fast-paced modern business world, or people being an organisation's greatest asset, earn nothing and read as a writer warming up in public.

If your opening does any of these, cut it: the introduction gets sharper and the recovered words strengthen the body.

Conclusions that answer, not summarise

The weakest conclusions begin by announcing that this assignment has discussed, and then list the section headings in sentence form. A summary tells the marker what they just read; an answer tells them what it added up to. A working conclusion returns to the question in the brief, states your position or key findings plainly, delivers recommendations where the task asks for them, and stops. One firm rule: no new material. A fresh idea, source or example in the conclusion is either misplaced, so move it into the body, or unsupported, so cut it.

Conclusions for different task types

What answering looks like depends on what the task asked you to do, and the command verb in the brief is the clue.

• Explanatory tasks, built on verbs like explain or describe, close with the key points established and usually a line on why they matter for practice. The conclusion is short, because no verdict is being contested.
• Evaluative tasks, built on verbs like assess, evaluate or critically discuss, must close with a judgement: strengths weighed against weaknesses, then your actual verdict and the reasoning that tips the balance. A conclusion that says there are both advantages and disadvantages has not concluded.
• Reports asking for recommendations close with the recommendations, stated specifically enough to act on: what should be done, by whom, roughly when. A vague call for the organisation to improve communication is the report-format equivalent of sitting on the fence.

If you are unsure what your task's verb is demanding, the printable command verb cheat sheet in this site's resources maps the common verbs to what markers expect.

Budgeting words for both ends

Introductions and conclusions should be small: as a working guide, one short paragraph each in most tasks, with the conclusion sometimes slightly longer where recommendations are required. What they must also be is protected. The commonest failure is not a bad conclusion but a missing one: time runs short, the word count is spent, and the assignment ends mid-argument. To a marker that reads as an incomplete answer, and it surrenders the marks attached to exactly the judgement and recommendations the conclusion exists to deliver. Set the conclusion's words aside when you plan, and treat them as untouchable.

Draft them last: a step-by-step method

Introductions promise and conclusions deliver, which is why both are easiest to write once the body exists and you know what was actually argued.

1. Finish a full draft of the body first, however rough.
2. Reread the brief, then reread your body, and write one sentence stating what your answer actually concludes.
3. Draft the conclusion first: return to the question, state the position or findings, add recommendations if asked, and stop.
4. Draft the introduction to match the body you actually wrote: scope, context, signpost, in a handful of sentences.
5. Check the pair against each other: everything the introduction promises should arrive, and everything the conclusion claims should have been argued.
6. Cut generalities, definitions and repetition from both, and give the recovered words to the body if the count allows.
7. Read the introduction and then the conclusion, skipping the middle: if the two work as a pair, the frame is sound.

Worked examples: weak and strong pairs

Everything in this section is invented. The fictional task asks a learner to evaluate flexible working arrangements at Bexley Mount, a made-up housing association, and recommend improvements.

A weak introduction reads like this. In today's fast-paced and ever-changing world of work, flexible working has become more important than ever before. Flexible working can be defined as any arrangement that varies the hours, times or place of work. There are many different types of flexible working, including part-time working, flexitime, job sharing, compressed hours and homeworking. This assignment will discuss flexible working in detail.

A strong introduction reads like this. This report evaluates the flexible working arrangements currently offered at Bexley Mount, a housing association employing both office-based and frontline staff, and recommends improvements. It assesses the current offer against organisational needs and employee take-up, examines the barriers frontline roles face in accessing flexibility, and closes with three prioritised recommendations.

The weak version opens with a generality, spends its words on definitions and a list, and promises only to discuss. The strong version names the organisation, sets the scope, signposts the structure and commits to recommendations, in fewer words.

A weak conclusion reads like this. In conclusion, this report has discussed flexible working at Bexley Mount. It looked at the different types of flexible working available and the barriers that exist. Flexible working has many advantages but also some disadvantages. Overall, flexible working is an important topic for all organisations in the modern workplace.

A strong conclusion reads like this. The evaluation shows that Bexley Mount's flexible working offer serves office-based staff well but is largely inaccessible to frontline roles, creating a fairness gap with likely consequences for retention. Three recommendations follow: pilot self-rostering in two frontline teams, train line managers to handle flexibility requests consistently, and review take-up and turnover data after six months to test whether the gap is closing.

The weak version summarises headings and ends on a generality. The strong version states a finding, takes a position and delivers recommendations specific enough to act on. It reads as the end of an answer, not the end of the writer's energy.

Common pitfalls

• Introductions that define every term and leave the body nothing to earn analysis marks with
• Conclusions that summarise the sections instead of answering the question
• New sources, ideas or examples appearing for the first time in the conclusion
• Fence-sitting endings to evaluative tasks that never state a verdict
• Recommendations too vague to act on, or missing where the brief asks for them
• The missing conclusion: an assignment that simply stops when the words run out

Go deeper

This article covers the two ends of an assignment, and the rest of the frame lives in two companion guides. How to Structure a CIPD Assignment, the hub of the academic writing series, covers planning and building the whole answer from brief to submission. The paragraph structure guide covers the middle: how each body paragraph makes a point, supports it and comments on it. Before applying any of it, check your current assessment brief and your centre's guidance, because required formats and word counts vary by unit and centre.

First and last impressions are genuinely hard to judge in your own work, because you already know what you meant. Our writing support pairs structure coaching with plain-spoken draft review, and openings and endings are exactly where a fresh pair of eyes earns its keep: the ideas, the words and the answer stay entirely yours.