Here at PM we’ve been banging on about the benefits of flexible working for years. We also practice what we preach: most of our team do work full-time, but our legal editor does a four-day week and one of our sub-editors works two days. Both of these arrangements started because of their desire to balance work with childcare and the company’s desire to retain their skills.

More recently, I’ve also been working a four-day week. I choose to do so partly because, having entered my mid-50s, I’m at a stage of my life where I no longer need to maximise my earnings. I’ve just about finished part-funding my children through university and I have no desire for a bigger house or a more expensive car. I enjoy my job immensely, but don’t want to devote myself full-time to any job any more. And I have other interests I do want to give some time to.

The point is: my employer (Personnel Publications) and the CIPD, on whose behalf it publishes PM, both seem happy with this arrangement. Indeed, they profess to see advantages in it: I bring a wealth of experience, while they have to pay only 80 per cent of the salary I might take home from a full-time role.

So flexible working can maximise benefits and work beautifully for both employer and employee. Alas, because of the recession, many people who would like to work full-time have been forced to go part-time: more than a million, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research. Some actually volunteered for shorter working weeks on a temporary basis in order to minimise job losses.

The most famous example of this was at Big Four consultancy KPMG. We have an extended interview in the current (20 May) issue with Rachel Campbell, KPMG’s global head of HR, and it’s good to hear that no one at the firm is still on a four-day week owing to any sort of post-recession hangover. But Campbell herself works a four-day week for other reasons. Flexible working helps her to fulfil her parallel role as a mother. It will also help KPMG to retain her as a partner – and, hopefully, to redress the dearth of women at the top management level.

Also in the current issue, employment lawyer and diversity specialist Sandra Wallace reflects on a new reason for employers to be more open to flexible working: if the default retirement age is abolished, as seems likely, and there is greater uncertainty about when staff will retire, employers may find succession planning more difficult. But many older workers might welcome the option of moving into different roles in which they can gradually scale back their hours. Flexible working is likely to become much more routine. I’m convinced that, by the time I reach what will be the notional retirement age, everyone will be doing it. Meanwhile, I’m already looking forward to scaling back to a three-day week!