some organisations believe that their employeea shuld dress smartly. Other value quality of work above appearance. Discuss both these view and give your own opinion.

A large number of corporates have laid down some stringent guidelines regarding the dress codes of

employees

. While some believe that it is the quality of the job

that is

critical, others argue that how well

employees

are dressed is crucial. In

this

essay, I will discuss both sides of the argument, while I support the latter opinion. On the

first

hand, some people believe that those, who dress aptly at work, might perform better than those who do not. The reason for

this

is that staff, in general, are the face of the organisation that they represent, dealing with and resolving issues of customers on a regular basis. To illustrate

this

point, an employee who is dressed smartly can create a positive impression of the organisation before their consumers.

In contrast

, staff who lack basic

atticates

Correct your spelling

activates

when dealing with customers

,

Remove the comma

apply

show examples

would certainly damage the reputation and image of the brand.

As a result

of

this

, it will affect the sales of the company.

On the other hand

, I would argue that the quality of work is more relevant than how brilliantly an employee can dress. The main reason for

this

is that

employees

are paid to undertake tasks within a fixed time frame regardless of gender, caste, and religion. It is the performance that differentiates a high-performance employee from the rest.

For example

, allowing workers to wear comfortable clothes can enable them to spend less time getting ready and divert some of their extra time to their family

instead

, enhancing their productivity too owing to less stress. In conclusion,

although

dressing smartly can enhance the performance of a few staff, it is the quality of work, I think, that matters at the end of the day. I think, companies should spend heavily on training and development of their

employees

.