She died in her cubicle and wasn’t found for days: Exposing myths about in-office work

The recent and tragic story of Denise Prudhomme, a 60-year-old Wells Fargo employee who was found dead at her cubicle four days after coming in to her office, challenges the prevailing narrative about the supposed social and collaborative benefits of in-person work.

Prudhomme’s story reveals a stark contrast between the idealized vision of in-office work and its practical shortcomings. Her death went unnoticed for days in an environment often portrayed as necessary for better communication and team cohesion. The incident should have us rethinking corporate leaders’ claims that a return to the office is essential for workers’ well-being and collaboration.

Corporate leaders frequently argue that remote work results in isolation and a loss of team spirit. They emphasize that the physical presence of employees is necessary to maintain a connected and innovative workplace. Prudhomme’s case suggests otherwise. It raises a profound question: How can an employee die at her desk and remain undiscovered for so long in a place whose entire point is to enhance collaboration and human connection?

Prudhomme was not immediately discovered even after several employees noticed a foul odor. At first, they reportedly attributed it to faulty plumbing before the grim reality was discovered. This oversight reveals a significant disconnect between what companies claim about in-person work and what actually happens on the ground.

Prudhomme’s death is just an anecdote, but it reinforces the data we have about remote and hybrid versus in-office work arrangements. Recent research adds another layer to this discussion.

The Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes, led by Nick Bloom and his colleagues, shows that employees spend only about 80 minutes on in-person activities during a typical office day. The rest of their time is spent on tasks such as video conferencing, emailing and using communication tools — tasks that are equally manageable from home. These findings highlight the inefficiencies of in-office work, where the supposed benefits of collaboration are minimal, and the majority of the workday could be performed just as effectively outside the office.

It would be easy enough to squeeze these 80 interactive minutes per day into one day per week of more intense in-person collaboration and reduce the commute. In fact, a survey by Hubble indicated that 79 percent of respondents liked working from home due to the lack of a commute. According to a survey from Zebra, 35 percent of Americans would be willing to take a pay cut in exchange for a shorter commute.

The Wells Fargo incident also underscores the limitations of traditional office environments. Many workplaces are structured in ways that are isolating. This reality challenges the narrative that in-office work fosters better mental health and social engagement. If the physical presence of employees were genuinely the solution to isolation, how could such a tragedy occur without anyone noticing for so long?

It becomes evident that the drive to return employees to the office is not necessarily about their well-being or improved collaboration but often about control, visibility and maintaining the status quo.

The push for in-office work is often framed as an attempt to combat isolation and enhance teamwork, but the truth seems to lie elsewhere. Instead of being about employee welfare, it may be more about outdated ideas on managerial control and resistance to change, as found in recent research led by Mark Ma and Yuye Ding at the University of Pittsburgh. This compulsion not only creates a toxic work environment but also perpetuates a lack of genuine engagement among employees.

To genuinely improve workplace dynamics and employee satisfaction, companies should reconsider how they structure in-person workdays. The solution is not to eliminate office work altogether but to strategically plan in-office activities that truly benefit from face-to-face interaction, such as team meetings and brainstorming sessions.

Organizations can enhance flexible work policies by clearly communicating expectations, scheduling in-person activities thoughtfully, leveraging technology for seamless remote collaboration and regularly seeking employee feedback. By focusing on meaningful in-person engagements and allowing remote work for tasks that do not require physical presence, companies can reduce unnecessary commuting, increase productivity and significantly improve employee well-being.

Prudhomme’s death is a stark reminder that the supposed benefits of in-person work are often overstated or misunderstood. It reveals the emptiness of corporate claims about the need for physical presence to foster better teamwork and social connections. It also exposes the need for a more honest conversation about what truly drives the push for a return to the office.

Instead of clinging to outdated narratives, leaders must prioritize creating work environments where employees feel genuinely seen, heard and valued, whether they are in the office or working remotely. This shift is not just about adapting to a post-pandemic world; it is about recognizing the evolving needs of a modern workforce and committing to a more thoughtful, empathetic approach to work.

Gleb Tsipursky, Ph.D., serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller “Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.“