January has always been a month of sorting and sifting. People look for clarity. Organizations look for stability. Both want to feel that the year ahead will be steadier than the one behind.
Over the last several years, workplaces have carried a particular kind of fatigue — the residue of decisions made under pressure, roles stretched thin, and expectations that shifted faster than anyone could articulate. Into this unsettled landscape, a new managerial concept has emerged with surprising speed: presence design.
The purpose of this month’s Peace Notes is simple. Not to critique. Not to provoke. But to look directly and calmly at what presence design actually is, why it has appeared now, and what its adoption may signal about the state of work today.
What "Presence design" means — and why the definition matters
Until very recently, presence design did not exist as a formal term. It is a newly constructed concept, introduced as a way to bring structure to in-person expectations: when people should gather, for what purpose, and under what rationale.
Definitions vary widely. Some describe presence as physical location. Others as collaboration. Others as engagement. And some use “presence” to mean little more than compliance with a return-to-office requirement.
The ambiguity is notable. When a term can mean many things, it becomes easy to apply broadly — and difficult to question directly. That ambiguity is part of the design.
Why Presence Design emerged — the real drivers
Presence design did not arise because organizations suddenly discovered a better way to collaborate. It arose because they entered a period of unresolved complexity.
Across sectors, leaders faced:
- uncertainty about how to measure performance without visibility
- confusion about what “good work” looks like in a distributed environment
- lingering disconnection after years of rapid pivots
- missed opportunities to modernize leadership practices during the pandemic era
- fatigue, both operational and emotional, that never fully reset
Presence design is not the result of new insight. It is the result of old leadership models colliding with new realities, and organizations needing something — anything — that felt structured.
In many ways, it is a stabilizer for managers, not a solution for work.
The gap between intention and impact
Presence design is usually introduced with good intentions. It promises clarity. It promises cohesion. It promises improved collaboration.
Yet intentions and impact often diverge.
Presence design can easily become a mechanism that substitutes location for leadership. It can give the illusion of alignment while bypassing the harder questions about workload, communication, performance clarity, and genuine connection.
In some organizations, presence design risks functioning less as a thoughtful model and more as a form of herding — moving people physically in response to managerial anxiety that has not been named, examined, or addressed.
This is not a moral failing. It is a human one. People reach for what feels familiar when faced with the unfamiliar. Organizations are no different.
Four areas worth watching
While presence design may be new, the underlying questions are not.
Stability
Does presence design genuinely increase predictability for employees — or does it create a new kind of instability by shifting expectations yet again?
Collaboration
Which forms of work actually improve when people are together, and which do not? And how do organizations distinguish between the two?
Performance
Can quality be measured without defaulting to visibility? Many organizations still struggle here, and presence design is often used to fill the gap.
Culture vs. Proximity
Does gathering create connection — or only proximity? These are not the same thing, though they are often treated as interchangeable.
Presence Design as a Signal of Organizational Maturity
Presence design is neither inherently harmful nor inherently helpful. What matters is what it reveals.
When adopted thoughtfully, it can open the door to more honest conversations about work: communication, expectations, leadership design, and the physical-psychological relationship between space and stability.
When adopted reactively, it signals uncertainty — a desire to regain order by moving people rather than re-examining systems.
Most organizations fall somewhere in between.
Presence design is not a verdict on a workplace. It is simply a lens — one that can tell us a great deal about how prepared an organization is to navigate the next chapter of change.
Closing Note: A Gentle Invitation
As you move through this new year, I invite you to observe how presence design is being used around you. Not with judgement, but with curiosity.
What does it emphasize?
What does it avoid?
And what might it reveal about the organization’s understanding of its people?
As always, we continue from the same foundation: We understand systems best when we’re willing to see them clearly and without fear.
Here’s to a year of clarity, steadiness, and honest conversation.