Coworking spaces: a new way of achieving productivity

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to explore the relationship between coworking spaces and productivity. Design/methodology/approach A research model was designed to carry out the analysis. Specifically, this model attempts to reveal the influence of social interactions and the coworking environment on productivity. Furthermore, three moderated variables were incorporated into the model: gender, age and level of education. A Web-based survey was conducted. Findings The findings confirm the positive influence of social interactions and coworking environment on productivity. Research limitations/implications There are two limitations. First, it is based on the perception of coworkers. It would be interesting to add the perception of coworking space managers to provide more solid findings. The second limitation is that it has not suggested any additional potential factors which could affect productivity. Practical implications Implications of this study are grouped into two categories. First, from an academic perspective, it contributes to the development of knowledge about the increasing use of coworking spaces. Second, from a managerial perspective, this paper highlights how environmental factors and the facilities of a workplace can help to achieve better conditions for productivity, in particular in coworking spaces. Social implications Furthermore, the use of social interactions in professional relationships can be understood as an alternative way to carry out new ways of doing business. Originality/value This paper contributes to the enrichment of knowledge-concerning coworking spaces developed a pioneering study.

Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models

“…However, coworking spaces are also created in the countryside as centers of entrepreneurship (Fuzi 2015). The interior influences the atmosphere of coworking spaces and the interaction between the users (Bueno et al 2018;Orel 2019;Waters-Lynch and Duff 2019;Bouncken and Reuschl 2016). The interior is purposefully designed to be more informal than traditional office concepts (Schopfel et al 2015).…”

User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic

“…Fuzi ( 2015 ) describes these spaces as environments that facilitate social support, innovation, creativity, knowledge sharing and collaboration. Besides attracting people with different profiles and social interactions being central to the concept, coworking spaces also enhance productivity (Bueno et al 2018 ), stimulate knowledge transfer among coworkers (Kopplin 2020 ), and create a working community (Weijs-Perrée et al 2016 ) that can be perceived as a source of social support for coworking space users leading to higher quality and satisfaction of work (Gerdenitsch et al 2016 ).…”

“…As a result, Bouncken et al ( 2020a ) call for the identification of global success factors of coworking spaces. As research has not yet identified whether user preferences for coworking spaces are consistent across countries (Bueno et al 2018 ; Mitev et al 2019 ), it remains unclear whether the international models are able to cater multi-national and local needs. Therefore, this paper aims to answer the research question: Are user preferences consistent among coworking space users across different countries?…”

Inclusion through use and membership of co-working spaces

“…Similarly, tele-working is not generally linked to self-employment. Yet, in co-working spaces, self-employed individuals may present a significant proportion of users (Bueno et al, 2018). The drivers for mobile working and coworking are numerous, some of these coincide.…”