iscover
A recent tragic death reveals a stark contrast between the idealised vision of in-office work and its practical shortcomings, writes Dr Gleb Tsipursky.
The recent, tragic story of a 60-year-old Wells Fargo employee, who was found dead at her cubicle four days after she came into her office, challenges the prevailing narrative about the supposed social and collaborative benefits of in-person work. Prudhomme’s death went unnoticed in an environment that is often portrayed as fostering better communication and team cohesion. This disturbing reality casts serious doubt on the myths of in-person work told by many corporate leaders, namely that bringing workers back to the office is essential for their wellbeing and collaboration. The story reveals a stark contrast between the idealised vision of in-office work and its practical shortcomings.
Corporate leaders frequently argue that remote work results in isolation and a loss of team spirit, emphasising that the physical presence of employees is necessary to maintain a connected and innovative workplace. Yet, Prudhomme’s case suggests otherwise. Despite being in the office, her presence – or rather, her tragic absence – went unnoticed for days, given the office was designed so that her desk was located away from the more central office areas. This raises a profound question: how can an employee die at her desk and remain undiscovered for so long in a place supposedly designed to enhance collaboration and human connection? Several employees noticed a foul odour but attributed it to faulty plumbing rather than the grim reality. This oversight reveals a significant disconnect between what companies claim about in-person work and what happens on the ground.
Recent research adds another layer to this discussion. The Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes (SWAA), 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 like 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 most of the workday could be performed just as effectively outside the office.
It would be easy enough to squeeze these 80 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 per cent of respondents liked working from home due to the lack of a commute. According to a survey from Zebra, 35 per cent 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 can be isolating. This reality challenges the narrative that in-office work fosters better mental health and social engagement. If the physical presence of employees was 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 wellbeing 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 managerial control and resistance to change, as found in recent research led by Professor Mark Ma from the University of Pittsburgh alongside his graduate student Yuye Ding. This compulsion not only creates a toxic work environment but also perpetuates a lack of genuine engagement among employees. The death of Prudhomme, unnoticed by her colleagues, serves as a grim reminder of the consequences of such a culture.
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. Organisations 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 wellbeing.
The death of Denise Prudhomme is a stark reminder that the supposed benefits of in-person work are often overstated or misunderstood. The reality of her unnoticed death in a supposedly collaborative office setting 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 prioritise 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 recognising the evolving needs of a modern workforce and committing to a more thoughtful, empathetic approach to work.
Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, is the chief executive of hybrid work consultancy, Disaster Avoidance Experts.
