There is no accepted academic definition of a coworking space, but many authors describe co-working as a new form of work organization, which enables opportunities to collaborate and socialize, and which fosters being part of a community within shared workspaces with workers from different companies or with freelancers working in different sectors (Johns and Gratton, 2013; Garret et al, 2014; Hillman, 2011). In the same vein, Fuzi (2015) describes coworking places as offices that are creative and energetic, where the focus is on creating, sharing, communicating and building. Merkel (2015) argues that the part ‘co’ in word ‘coworking’ stand for communication, community and collaboration. Many authors link coworking environment with multi-tenant offices. A cowork space is categorized with regular business centers, serviced offices and incubators, which together form the different types of multi-tenant offices (Calder & Courtney, 1992; Weijs-Perréé et al., 2016; Van den berg & Stijnenbosch, 2009). However, those spaces are also often called ‘Third places’, which foster serendipity and conjuction (Garret et al., 2014; Fuzi et al, 2014). While multiple authors describe co-working spaces as a place where people can be part of a community and can socialize, Johnson (2013) describes co-workspaces as an alternative to home offices, because collaborative work spaces allow people to work on their own while being connected virtually with colleagues, supervisors, clients and databases. However, Johnson (2013) uses different definitions of coworking spaces, such as a local centres in the neighborhood to assist telework and build a facility, which integrates the elements of a telework centre and a business incubator. Dunlop (2017) and Deskmag (2012) argue that co-working spaces are places where independent individuals are able to rent a workplace, while people share the same facilities with each other. Coworking spaces is argued as a low-cost, easily accessible and member-ship based workspace that make it able for knowledge professionals, with different backgrounds, to work in one shared, communal space (Spreitzer et al., 2015; Corporate real estate journal, 2016; Spinuzzi, 2012; Gandini, 2014)
2.2.2 The development of cowork spaces
The first coworking space was developed by Mr Neuberg in San Francisco in 2005 (Merkel, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012). Mr Neuberg developed such a space to build a community for independent workers. In addition, he wanted to work for himself in a workplace similar to the workplace of Google, without having to work for the company google. Cowork spaces have spread around the world, after the financial crisis from 2008 (Spinuzzi, 2012; Merkel, 2015). Despite the fact that little research is done, the concept of co-working is very popular nowadays and many co-workspaces have been developed over the past few years. Approximately 160.000 employees functioned in co-working spaces in 2014, and more than one million people will use co-working spaces in 2018 (Marzloff, 2013). However, this popularity is not strange, because multiple factors might have played a role in the development of coworking and cowork spaces.
Virtualization
Virtualization played a big role in the development of coworking and cowork spaces. In 2014, more than 1.3 billion people worked ‘virtually’, from spaces and sites of their choice, relying on rich electronic connections (Johns and Gratton, 2013). According to Johns and Gratton (2013) there are three waves of virtually working, which have developed in the past two decades, reflecting changes in employee priorities, evolutions in employer demands and the emergence of new information and collaborative technologies.
1. The first wave was between 1980 and 1990. This was the first democratization of personal computing at home, by the use of e-mail, which manifested in the development of telework and telecommuting (Toffler, 1980).
2. The second wave developed during the 2000’s. This wave was developed by mobile technologies, which enabled employees to work anywhere at any time, as manifested in the growth of mobile, distributed work and work performed remotely, by the use of smartphones and tablets, whose usage had increased with the development of cloud computing (Leclerq, 2008; Mark and su, 2010).
3. The third and last wave is developing currently. This third wave is developing because more workers choose to work independently, as information and communication technologies provide them with more flexibility for doing work in settings such as co-workspaces rather than the classic office or home.
New ways of working
As a result of the second and third wave, multiple organizations implemented the new ways of working, because of the mobile technologies, which made working anywhere and at any time possible. Therefore, many employees are free to select where, when and how they want to work. This is made possible by technological innovation.
Home based working
As a result of the new ways of working, a large amount of employees choose to work from home, because they were free to select when, where and how to work. Therefore, many employees have chosen to work from home in order to experience the considered advantages of home-based working, such as to reduce traffic time. However, multiple authors argued that working from home have several disadvantages, such as lack of collaboration and encounters, isolation, loss of opportunities for serendipity, excess divison and distrubtions of work, reduced sharing of tacit knowledge, blurring of boundaries between private and professional life (Waber et al., 2014; Fuzi et al., 2014).
Coworking spaces
The development of coworking spaces belong in the third wave, because more independent workers, such as freelancers, startups and entrepreneurs, have chosen to work in a ‘third place’ to avoid the drawback of the virtualization in the first two waves. The quick expansion of coworking spaces is caused by innovation in technology and, start-up and freelancing communities, whereby coworking spaces are seen as an alternative to traditional offices (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). According to Deskmag (2014), independent workers search for cowork spaces to initiate the new ways of working for themselves which addresses their expectations and needs in both professional and personal ways. The raise of the amount of cowork spaces is the cause of lone workers seeking for a suitable workplace (merkel, 2015). Green (2014) describes such workers ‘the coffee shop entrepreneur’. These independent workers searched for an opportunity for serendipity, creativity, to network with other coworkers and to combine the comforts of telecommuting with the social richness of an office, which together increase their social capital (Garret et al., 2014; Marzloff, 2013). Morit (2014) and Fuzi et al. (2014) support the view of Garret et al. (2014), because a cowork space is a place where workers could work, if they were not able to find an adequate work environment. The independent workers experiences disadvantages, such as being alone and the distraction of working from home and at cafes. For that reason, independent workers were searching for another location to work from.
However, not only the three waves of virtualization have developed the creation of coworking spaces, because many articles also argue that the development of coworking and cowork places emerged from the changing economy. The economy is substituted from the classic ‘work-force’ to the ‘brain-force’ (moriset, 2014). Similar to Moriset (2014), Bizarri (2014) states that the economy is changing to a knowledge economy from an industrial economy. This is caused by information technology and digitalization. Also Leclercq-vandelannoitte and Isaac (2016) discusses this matter in their article, because they argue that knowledge work has grown unbound and independent, free form the physical boundaries of the organization in terms of both space and time. Waber et al. (2014) argue that the change to a knowledge economy increases that employees of organizations serve more as ‘intrapreneurs’ and innovators, rather than reproducers of procedures. They have found ‘third spaces’ to work in rather than the typical company’s office. Fuzi et al (2014) described even that the knowledge economy is changing towards a creative economy, by the use of innovation, technology and creativity.
Another driver of the development of coworking spaces is the interest of companies in this phenomenon and their favor for new forms of work organization for their own mobile employees as a result of the new ways of working within their own organization and the considered disadvantages of home-based working. This interest arises from reduced real estate and commuting costs, greater flexibility and enhancements to their employee’s dynamism (johns and gratton, 2013; Strauss, 2013; Waber et al., 2014). In addition, Johns and Gratton (2013) and Waber et al (2014) both argue that co-workspaces have multiple benefits for companies.
2.2.3 Characteristics of cowork spaces
There are various coworking spaces around the world. Most coworking spaces vary in terms of size, business model, specialization, design and atmosphere. However, most of the cowork spaces are set up in a way to accommodate the coworkers, which are not typically employed by one organization, but share the same value and interest in synergies that can occur from working with like-minded people (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). Kwiatkowski and Buczynski (2011) created the five core-values of coworking:
1) Collaboration The alacrity to work with other coworkers in order to generate value.
2) Openness Sharing knowledge, ideas and information.
3) Community Shared purpose and thoughts within a group.
4) Sustainability Shared resources.
5) Accessibility Socially and economically accessible for every type of worker.
Multiple researchers (Rothe et al, 2011; Rovers, 2016; leesman, 2013; Liebregts, 2013; van susante, 2014; Hartog, 2015) have studies the characteristic of a preferred work environment. However, most authors only studies those characteristics inside a single-tenant office, for example a corporate office (Rothe et al, 2011, leesman, 2013; liebregts, 2013; Van susante, 2014). Hartog (2015) and Rovers (2016) investigated the preferred characteristics of multi-tenant office, which already comes closer to coworking spaces. However, investigation in the preferred characteristics of a cowork environment is still scare. Hartog (2016) investigated the satisfaction of users of a multi-tenant office. Hartog (2015) utilized the data of Van Susante (2014), who used the data from Leesman (2015). Therefore, most articles about the preferred characteristics of a multi-tenant office or cowork space cover the same information. Hartog (2015) argued ten physical characteristics of a cowork environment.
1) Location
2) Office exterior and division
3) Office décor
4) Facilities and services
5) Seclusion rooms
6) Office leisure
7) Flexibility
8) ICT and equipment
9) Privacy
10) Office climate
Therefore most mentioned characteristics are:
– Flexible contract
– Collaborative spaces
– Flexible shared facilities and services
– Flexible (shared) workspaces
– Social events
– Access to tools, resources and network
– Networking events and workshops
– A coworking host
– Quite spaces
– Location
– Kitchen areas
– Conference rooms
– Event spaces
– Meditation rooms
– Open-lay out
– Virtual organizational platform
– Good accessibility
– 24 hour access
– Art shows
– Informal couches
– Security
– Yoga classes
– Architecture
– Layout and subdivision of the building
– Lightning in the space.
– Booking system for spaces and work spots,
– Canteen/restaurant,
– Cleaning services,
– Clothing services,
– Coffee and tea vending machines,
– Reception or helpdesk.
According to Johnsonn (2012), the essential characteristic of a co-workplace is that the location of a co-work environment is nearby the homes of its users, because when the cowork place is located nearby family support services, such as childcare, the cowork place makes telework a supportive work option for teleworking parents of young children. Johnsonn (2013) also stated that a cowork space needs to be easily accessible secure and supported by up-to-date equipment and furnishings in order to enable independent workers and flexible employees to do their job away from a central office.
2.2.4 Users of cowork spaces
Coworkers have different characteristics, because they are all different people. Coworkers are often heterogeneous, because coworkers are independent workers that cannot be placed in one group (Spinuzzi, 2012; De vries and van de Besselaar, 2013). According to Rothe et al (2011) workers who work in an identical way do not always prefer identical work environment characteristics. It is, therefore, a challenge to understand the needs of different work environment from the different users. There is a large amount of diversity under coworkers. However, coworkers all seek to work in a ‘third place’, which means that there have to be similar needs and concerns under coworkers (Spinuzzi, 2012).
Kotler (1994) developed three groups in order to understand a user group, which are geographic characteristics, demographic characteristics and psychographic characteristics (Kotler, 1994). According to Kotler (1994) Geographic segmentation focuses on separating the market into various geographical groups, such as states, nation, regions, cities and countries. The geographical characteristics of coworkers is essential for the location of a work space. Demographic characteristics of the coworkers are essential in order to know who the coworkers are (Kotler, 1994; Moscardo etl, 2011; Goyat, 2011; Hartog, 2015; Rovers, 2016; Budie, 2016). Demographic characteristics are for example age, gender, educational level, nationality, position in organization, sector of organization, level of income, hours of working per week within a coworking space and transport to the cowork space. Psychographic characteristics are as well essential in order to understand the user group. Psychographic characteristics focuses on the user’s lifestyles, for example their opinions, activities, interests, how people thinks, feels, reacts and reflects. Psychographic characteristics of users of coworking spaces are for example motivations for working in a coworking space, personality and their considered benefits (Kotler, 1994; Moscardo et al, 2001; Goyat, 2011).
Less research is done about specific characteristics of users of coworking spaces and the three groups of Kotler (1994) might still be a bit vague in order to understand the user groups. However, there are some authors who described the user group of coworking spaces. According to Johnson (2013) the early adapters of cowork places were generally professional workers, many of them are self-employed, such as freelancers, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers. A research of historical trends in home-based work and recent surveys on preferences for teleworking shows that factors of gender, family life cycle stage and occupation all have an impact on the choice where to work. Woman, especially women with young children, are interesting in co-workplaces, because they are often struggling to balance their employment and family responsibilities (Johnson, 2013). According to a survey conducted in 2015, the average age of coworkers is 39 year old, whereby 52% is male and 48% is female. Only 9% of the surveyed people work for companies with more than 100 employees (Corporate real estate journal, 2016).
Even though the coworking movement has its origins among freelancers, entrepreneurs, and the tech industry, it is increasingly relevant for a broader range of people and organizations. In fact, coworking can become part of a company’s strategy, as a result of the new ways of working. An increasing number of companies are incorporating coworking into their business strategies (Spreitzer et al, 2015). Therefore, the user group of coworking spaces are not only freelancers, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers but also employees from organization that implemented the new ways of working. Other authors also mention small and large firms as users of coworking spaces, because of the changed business strategies of multiple organization nowadays (Parinno, 2015; Capdevila, 2013; Spinuzzi, 2012).
However not all authors considered the similar user group, because Moriset (2013) mentions that cowork spaces were developed for people who worked from home that needed another place to work. This means that everyone could cowork in a cowork environment, there is no specific user group. Also Deijl (2011) mentioned other users of cowork spaces. Deijl (2011) interprets that students also make use of coworking spaces to learn for their exams or to work with projectgroups. Spinuzzi (2012) does not mention a particular user group. However, two different types of coworkers are mentioned in the article of Spinuzzi (2012), namely good neighbors and good partners. Good neighbors make use of cowork spaces as a professional place to meet with others. Good neighbors are often owners of small businesses or consultants. Those users trust the other users, and are therefore not anxious to leave their property unattended. Good neighbors desire to communicate with other coworkers. Good partners visit cowork spaces for face-to-face meetings with other users of coworking spaces. Good partners are often freelancers and entrepreneurs, who seek for a community. However, they do not meet with clients in a cowork space (Spinuzzi, 2012).
Despite the fact that little research is done about the user profile of coworking space, it can be concluded that the most mentioned users are: freelancers, entrepreneurs, self-employed workers, small firms, extended workers, large firms and students.
2.2.5 Motivation and advantages of cowork spaces
Now the reasons and drivers of the development of coworking and cowork spaces are elaborated, the motivation and benefits for the users of coworking spaces will be explained.
The common motivations of people to go to a cowork space are:
– Being part of a community
– Knowledge and idea sharing
– Coworker collaboration
– Coworker interaction
– Professional support from other coworkers
– Creative atmosphere
– Networking with coworkers and their network
– Low capital investment
The common benefits of people, who cowork space are:
– Increase in social capital
– Feeling less isolated
– Increased innovation
– Increased productivity
– Increased skill set
– Higher income in long term
– Increased stimulation of self-reflection and self-education
– Getting a better work-life balance
– Increased business network
– Higher job satisfaction
Disadvantages of home-based working
Most authors cite that the reason why people go to a cowork space is because of the disadvantages of working alone. The most coworkers, around 60% of them, worked home-based before working in a cowork space (Merkel, 2015). Those people are excluded from networking and trust-building opportunities and without separation between their personal and work lives (Spinuzzi, 2012). Johnson (2013) interprets that cowork spaces avoid the dual risks of home-based working. Those risks might be working too little because of interference from non-work activities, being isolated and working too much because there is no separation between work and private with home-based working. For example, when independent workers or employees bring additional phone and data lines into their homes, which may facilitate telework, but this may also expand work hours at the expense of time with family and leisure. According to Dunlop (2017) isolation is one of the key problems that freelancers deal with. They are seeking for human contact, a community of fellow independent workers. For this reason, independent workers seek for a cowork place to work in and to have ‘collegues’ around them.
According to Johnson (2013) cowork spaces offer the flexibility and convenience of working at home, but without the risks and disadvantages. For that reason, multiple independent workers and employees from organization, which implemented the new ways of working, want to work in a coworking space.
Increased performance
Another motivation for independent workers and flexible employees to work in a coworking space is to optimize their productivity, creativity and efficiency (Waber et al., 2014; Johns and Gratton, 2013). In the same vein, people often prefer to work in a cowork place, because they think that their performance will improve more quickly than in a traditional office environment or at home (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). Nowadays, many companies support their employees who work from home to join co-working spaces because off the benefits, which are reported by independent co-workers. These benefits include enhanced collaboration, productivity and job satisfaction (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). The research of Spreitzer, Bacevice and Garrett (2015) suggests that the combination of a well-designed work environment and a well-curated work experience are part of the reason that people who cowork show a higher level of thriving than people who work in corporate offices. In addition, people who cowork have substantial autonomy and can be themselves at work. In the same vein, Spreitzer et al (2015) describe that users of coworking spaces have more job control, because they can decide when, how and how long to work. Besides, users of coworking spaces do not feel the pressure of competition between the other coworkers, because of all the different sectors other coworkers are active in. For this reason, coworkers do not have the feeling that they have to fit in a specific group, which makes it much easier to tell about their job, activities of projects. Therefore, the users frequently describe what they do, which can make what they do seem more interesting and give them the feeling of status (Spreitzer et al, 2015). Deskmag states that: ‘Social circles increase significantly, business networks grow, huge jumps in productivity are seen, health and private life factors improve, isolation decreases, and over one third of coworkers surveyed confirmed that their income increased since joining’ (Deskmag, 2013, p 7)
Networking and community
Coworking spaces can accommodate the users with great opportunities to identify new talent, to make deals, to meet with a variety of new people and to discover new ideas, or to host events that target potential customers, partners and collaborators (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). In addition, the dynamic energy of cowork spaces contribute to the experience that users of coworking spaces have, that they feel like that they are part of something larger than themselves and that others care about their success and want to help to develop their ideas further, to be part of a community (Corporate real estate journal, 2016; Dunlop, 2017). A survey, which is conducted by researchers of the University of Michigan in 2004, validated that belonging to a community was the most common reason for people to go to a coworking space. 84 % of the participants of the survey cited that interaction with others was their reason for going to a cowork space, followed by random discoveries and opportunities and knowledge sharing (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). Users of co-workspaces often seek for connections with others. This is a big reason why people go to a communal space instead of working from home, which might cause isolation (Spreitzer et al, 2015). However, it is not compulsory to connect or socialize with other users of a co-workspace, because users can choose when and how to interact with each other. Acoording to Spreitzer et al. (2015), users of coworking spaces who communicate less with other users, still feel a strong sense of identify with the community, because those coworkers know there is the potential for interaction if they wish to do so.
Better than any other model of work organization
Waber et al. (2014) interprets that co-working spaces address, better than any previous model of work organization, the five conditions that characterize knowledge work. Those are:
1) Access to information
2) Access to knowledge
3) Access to symbolic resources
4) Access to social capital
5) Access to opportunities for serendipity.
Other motivations and benefits are also mentioned in various articles, but are not frequently mentioned, such as sustainability. A co-workplace, which is nearby the home of the users, result in a reduced emission from automobiles commuting/ CO2. This is particularly when users of cowork spaces can travel to their coworking place by foot or by bicycle. The location of coworking spaces nearby the homes of the users may contribute to the development of more sustainable communities (Gurstein, 2001). Also retaining and attracting future employees is mentioned in an academic article, because organizations support co-working spaces to attract and retain talent, by providing additional amenities and built-in flexibility, which seems to be increasingly essential for the employees of the future (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). As elaborated in the previous chapter, students are already introduced to similar concepts of coworking. Therefore, companies are aware to provide similar facilities to their future employees.
2.2.6 Disadvantages of cowork spaces
Many coworkers seem to go to a cowork environment in order to avoid the disadvantages of home-based working and to benefit from the advantages of cowork spaces, such as an increase in productivity, networking and collaboration. However, there are also some drawbacks of working in a cowork environment.
The most cited drawback of a cowork environment is excessive noise and distraction (Corporate real estate journal, 2016; Dunlop, 2017). Most cowork spaces have an open play layout, which might cause acoustical challenges and visual distractions. For this reason, coworkers may not be able to concentrate well. Anis Qizilbash, who runs a sales training business, utilized cowork spaces for six-month but does not intend to continue. “I felt uncomfortable and it was hard to concentrate. Often there would be music playing and, being an introvert, I hated the open-plan workspace.” (Dunlop, 2017). Besides that, the wide variety of users present in a cowork space may contribute to an unpredictable environment, which fail to have a common courtesies of a traditional corporate office (Corporate real estate journal, 2016). This has also to do with a lack of connection, which is another mentioned drawback. Employees, who utilize cowork spaces as part of the new way of working (remote workers), might lose a connection with the company they are working for. Due to another location and no personal interaction with employees, employees might lose their relationship with the company and develop closer relationships with employees from other companies or freelancers, entrepreneurs and self-employed workers. Those remote workers might, in addition, lose a connection from the business operations and worry about being overlooked for opportunities in career development (Corporate journal, 2016). Also security, intellectual property and other competitive concerns are considered drawbacks of coworking and cowork spaces. Security breacher also happen in traditional corporate offices. However, as Corporate real estate journal (2016) mentions, the risk is greater in a space where the individuals are not working for the same employer. Furthermore, in a cowork environment the individuals may not even know each other. For that reason, many coworkers experience difficulties with leaving their belongings unattended, when away from their workspot for a few minutes. Not only their belongings are in risk, but also their competitive assets, including intellectual property and confidential information, which addresses another drawback: Privacy (Corporate real estate journal, 2016).