Alix Stuart, CFO Magazine
July 15, 2010

Flexibility applies to both sides

The comment in the article that it is "important to acknowledge that flexibility applies to both sides of the arrangement" is critical. Most of us finance professionals are certainly flexible enough to put in the hours necessary when a task needs to get done. I see little reason why the same flexibility cannot be extended to the employee. Unfortunately the old way of thinking where productivity is thought to decline when employees work remotely is slow to fade. From the employer's perspective there is certainly the risk of offering flexibility to employees who themselves are then not willing to be flexible when required to be on-site during their scheduled off-site days.

important to acknowledge that flexibility applies to "both sides of the arrangement

Posted by MICHAEL ALAO | Jul 16, 2010 4:58 PM ET

Setting the example

I'd like to see more companies attempt to quantify the cost savings to their companies and their employees as a result of working from home. I have to think that equipping a home office would be less expensive than the real estate costs of a commercial office building, whether owning or leasing.

In an age where companies do business all over the globe, the idea of needing to constantly be in the office for any job seems more archaic by the day. If we call our officemates who are down the hall from us, why can't we have the same meeting via Skype or videoconference from our home offices?

Posted by Dallon Christensen | Jul 15, 2010 10:24 PM ET

Flexibility

I think that organisations need maintain a degree of flexibility. I think some of the examples used as to why people need to be in face to face meetings is a bit extreme. Staff engagement and motivation are very important aspects.One-off projects can be planned for and BAU processes should be streamlined to the maximum extent. I think there can be a place for both.

Posted by Bill Armour | Jul 15, 2010 5:28 PM ET