University of Economics, Prague
Master’s Thesis
2020 Zhanna Pavlova
1
University of Economics, Prague
Faculty of Business Administration
Masters field: Management
Title of the master’s thesis:
Social interactions in coworking spaces:
Case Study from coworking spaces based in Prague
Author: Zhanna Pavlova
Supervisor: Marko Orel , Ph.D.
2
Declaration of Authenticity
I hereby declare that the master’s thesis presented herein is my own work, or fully and specifically acknowledged wherever adapted from other sources. This
work has not been published or submitted elsewhere for the requirement of a degree program.
Prague, 26.08.2020 Zhanna Pavlova
3
Title of the Master’s Thesis:
Social interaction in coworking spaces: Case Study from coworking spaces based in Prague
Abstract:
The thesis is based on the idea of the topic of social interactions in coworking spaces. The first part of the work will be devoted to the theoretical overview, i.e. the description is social interaction itself to understand its nature, characterization of coworking spaces and its importance, usefulness, and applicability. The second part will be dedicated to the practical representation of the topic and research. Consequently, to show valuable and relevant results I will use the qualitative methods for collection of the data, which in turn means interviews with the members of coworking spaces and analysis of the gathered data. It will give the possibility to see the situation from different points of view, understand what plays a
significant role in interaction in this type of working space, and at the same time to recognize advantages and disadvantages of coworking spaces when it comes to communication between coworkers in such environment.
Key words:
Coworking spaces, social interaction, communication, creative environment
4
Table of Content
1. Introduction ... 6
1.1. Overview ... 6
1.2. Purpose of the study... 7
2. Literature Review ... 9
2.1. Physical working environment ... 9
2.2. Coworking space concept ... 11
2.3. Coworking space history ... 14
2.4. Trends on the market of coworking spaces ... 17
2.5. Users of coworking spaces ... 20
2.6. Design characteristics of coworking spaces ... 22
2.7. Motivation to join coworking spaces ... 23
2.8. Social interactions in coworking spaces ... 24
3. Methodology ... 29
3.1. Research Questions ... 29
3.2. Qualitative research ... 30
3.3. Semi-structured interviews... 30
3.3.1. Procedure of gathering the interviews ... 32
3.3.2. Goals of the interviews ... 33
3.3.3. The structure of the interviews ... 33
3.4. Research Sample ... 34
3.5. Methods of data analysis ... 37
4. Results ... 41
4.1. Physical setting and design of the coworking spaces ... 41
4.2. Reasons to join the coworking space ... 43
4.3. Role of the community manager ... 46
4.4. Approaches to stimulate the social interaction in coworking space ... 47
4.5. Ways of communication and collaboration in coworking spaces ... 48
5. Discussion ... 51
5.1. Discussion of key findings ... 51
5.2. Limitations of the research ... 53
5.3. Suggestions for future research ... 53
6. Conclusion ... 55
References ... 57
Appendix ... 66
Appendix 1. Interview guideline ... 66
5
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of coworking spaces worldwide ... 18
Figure 2. Number of people using coworking spaces worldwide ... 19
Figure 3. Number of coworking spaces by continent ... 20
Figure 4. Work Lounge, Common space, Prague ... 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Types and definitions of collaborative workspaces ... 15Table 2. Overview of the Interviewees ... 31
Table 3. Basic description of the interviewees ... 35
Table 4. Themes and codes overview ... 39
6
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
This paper is dedicated to investigation and exploration of social interaction arising in the coworking spaces. These working environments can be perceived as a shared working place (Spinuzzi, 2012), where individual freelancers, independent consults, remote workers, startup, and even small establishments are the members (Merkel, 2015). The business environment is very fast-changing (Heerwagen & Kampschroer 2007), the number of remote workers is increasing (Noguchi, 2018). Coworking spaces became the new possibility for such type of working force to find their place for jobs to be done. At the same time, such a working environment provides them autonomy, flexibility, and all the necessary equipment for comfortable workflow (Mulcahy, 2017). Due to the facts mentioned above the coworking spaces are increasing in the amount around the world (Knoll workplace research, 2016).
The physical setting of the working environment has an impact on people from different sides.
The well-organized layout of the office space, the design of the place influences workers' satisfaction and performance as well as it has a direct impact on the way of the
communication between coworkers (Becker, 2007). People joining the coworking spaces would like to socialize, to find the community, and to develop new professional skills (Gandini, 2015).
Coworking spaces provide their members with a vast variety of benefits and advantages. It started with the personal needs of the future member such as 24/7 access to the office, internet connection, flexibility of schedule, private and common zones as well as quite acceptable renting price (Weijs-Perree, 2018; Waters-Lynch et al, 2016). Moreover, comfortable place with the possibility to interact daily with other professionals, to share ideas and knowledge, to find potential team, to collaborate for different projects with coworkers, only increase the motivation to join the coworking environment (Spinuzzi, 2012; Merkel, 2015; Cohen, 2011).
Social interaction is an integral part of the lives of people. The ways of communication and ability to build relationships with others at some point characterize us as members of society.
It can be applied not only to the personal side of a person's life but also has its meaning in work (De Jaegher et al., 2010). Coworking spaces are helping to solve the issue of social isolation for those who used to work at the home office. Besides, it can deal with the problem
7
of different types of distractions for people who were using, for example, coffee places or other public spaces. The corresponding environments foster interaction between coworkers in a variety of ways, give the chance to be the part of the community where members trust and support each other. People there are open for new opportunities and knowledge sharing, coworking environment motivate them and increase productivity (Bouncken & Reushl, 2018;
Moriset, 2013).
The history of coworking spaces is fascinating and starting in the 19th century. During this time, this concept was displayed in diversified forms and formats (Orel & Dvoulety, 2020).
Eventually, the first coworking space was founded in San Francisco in 2005 by the computer programmer Brad Neuberg (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013). Since that stage, the market for coworking space is increasing and expanding each year (Deskmag, 2019).
The first part of the work is committed to the introduction of the comprehensive literature review. This chapter consists of a description of the main concepts and history of coworking spaces. Further, trends on the market, characteristics of users and design, motivation to join the coworking environment are exemplified. Lastly, social interaction in the coworking space is specified and defined. The next section of the paper is devoted to the practical part of the work. Chapter three will describe the methodology used in the conduction of the research.
Chapter four presents the results of the research carried. And chapter five consists of the discussion of key findings, limitations, and suggestions for future research. Lastly, the conclusion covers the summary of the whole work accomplished.
1.2. Purpose of the study
The concept of coworking space gained the attention of the researches in the world, for instance, Spinuzzi (2012), Merkel (2015), Bouncken & Reushl (2018), and others. They are exploring the topic from a different point of view and perspectives. Knowledge creation and sharing, networking opportunities, and collaboration, productivity, and motivation are essential parts of the coworking space environment were explored and investigated (Moriset, 2013; Gandini, 2015).
8
This study aims to learn and understand social interaction creation in coworking space as well as describe the nature of the communication among coworkers. The following research questions will be needed to fulfill the above goals:
1. What influences social interaction in coworking spaces in a positive way?
2. What are the drivers stimulating the social interaction in coworking spaces?
3. How does successful social interaction in coworking space look like?
4. Does coworking space provide a possibility for cooperation and collaboration to the members?
9
2. Literature Review
This chapter of the paper focuses the attention on the extensive literature review in order to provide the necessary information, data, and statistics on the chosen topic. Firstly, the concept of physical working environment will be introduced in the theoretical background with the purpose to familiarize the reader with the fundamental points from which it will be more convenient to move to the concept of coworking space. Subsequently, the history and
evolution of the coworking space model will be introduced. The depiction and explanation of the trends with statistical data attached, users/members characteristics in addition to features of the physical setting of a shared office environment will continue the flow of the chapter.
The next part of the section will be concentrated on social interaction, its definition, perception at the workplace, concluding with deep insights on socialization in coworking spaces.
The aim of this chapter is to present the well-prepared theoretical overview through the literature review, where the relevant secondary data (articles, books, reports, etc.) from reliable sources were collected. It will serve as the basement for the next chapters committed to the research.
2.1. Physical working environment
The impact and influence of the working environment on people was studied throughout the years and described an extensive number of researches. In modern world awareness and realization of the connection between the working space where the job is performed and employees' productivity, motivation, and outcomes are very important. Nowadays the business environment is very fast-changing, brand-new possibilities and opportunities are arising every day. Hence, it is necessary to adjust to the situation and recognize the needs of the workers at the workplace (Heerwagen & Kampschroer, 2007). According to Becker (2007) in his article “ Organizational ecology and knowledge networks” workplace can be defined as “ a system in which physical design factors both shape and are shaped by work processes, the organization’s culture, workforce demographics, and information
technologies”. The author also theorizes that for the working environment to be
advantageous, all of its parts should work in “dynamic harmony”, which means each segment of working space has to be considered thoughtfully especially when it comes to its
interconnection, integration, and interaction.
10
Another important point which should be taken into consideration is the actual design of the workplace. Some of the accessible studies explored the interdependence and influence of the physical working environment and positive working outcomes. Thereby, Sailer et al. (2009) disclose that the composition and layout of the space have a direct effect on the level of interaction and social communication. Briner (2000) identified three types of features in the physical workplace influential on the psychological environment. The author firstly
mentioned such factors as light, heat, and noise and its impact on the working flow. The second point was the physical setting of the space, which can shape and determine the
different types and ways of communication within the environment. The third suggestion was physical safety in the workplace. The last point is meaningful for the psychological state of mind of people at work as it is directly affecting their contentment, productivity, and
motivation to perform the job assignments. Kegel (2017) in his comprehensive research has concluded that “the design of the physical work environment can have a positive or negative effect on organizational success and the people who work there...the physical work
environment can influence organizational outcomes, such as performance, collaboration, innovation, effective human resource management, and profitability”.
In previous paragraphs the general situation with the physical working environment was described, meaning its impact on working flow and people, positive and negatives effects.
Nevertheless, the crucial point is that traditional working space is changing. What are the reasons for the transformation? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to move from the perspective of the conventional and commonly acceptable physical setting of the
workspace.
First of all the term “gig-economy” should be presented and described. The concept is not new to the world however, the rise of the independent workforce led to the fact the gig-
economy enlarged enormously around the globe. In fact, it means that freelancing individuals, independent workers, and contractors are providers of particular projects or job tasks i.e. they work on temporary engagement and get paid for the specific assignment being done. (Istrate
& Harris, 2017). Gig-economy workers put their efforts to present the high-quality outcome of their work rather than to focus the attention on the fact that they spend 8 hours at the office 5 days per week. For this particular type of worker, time and location do not play an essential role in the job to be done (Mulcahy, 2017). The working process in gig-economy has a
11
positive impact through better matching between job opportunity and personal skill of the person taking the job as well as it provides more flexibility in schedule and the choice of the task to be done (De Stefano, 2015). One of the considerable benefits of the concept is the diversity of people with different backgrounds, skills, and professional experience along with a variety of possible job offers (Broughton et al., 2018).
On the other side according to Spinuzzi (2012) independent workforce is people who previously used to work from home and later joined the coworking spaces. It can be
connected to the fact that the home office can be accompanied by a lack of social interactions, communication, loneliness, and other inconveniences affecting job performance and the psychological state of the person. Consequently, taking into consideration what was said above, the necessity and usefulness of coworking spaces are arising. Such a type of possible working environment can be perceived as a new optimal option for those who need to combine the most advantageous parts from the home office and traditional office
environment. As a matter of fact, coworking spaces provide the possibility to be in a well- structured and convenient office environment with substantial autonomy, freedom, and flexibility (Mulcahy 2017).
The number of coworking spaces is increasing globally each year. Not only the independent workforce but also businesses of all sizes recognized the benefits of using such a working environment. Hence, small teams or employees who are working remotely can be advised by the companies to join coworking space in order to enhance flexibility, help their employees to make connections and collaborations with other parties and partners. Movement and joining to this option of the workplace can be a successful strategy both for business and independent employees based on the benefits and opportunities provided (Knoll workplace research, 2016).
2.2. Coworking space concept
The term coworking space emerged in the modern world relatively recently, but year after year the concept gained attention and build a strong positive reputation among nowadays workforce. Progressively more and more independent freelancers, startups, and
small/medium-sized businesses decide to move to coworking spaces. But what exactly coworking space is?
12
There are various definitions of this term, nevertheless, as the concept is quite recent all the researches and studies are based and provided by the people experienced in the usage of such spaces (Merkel, 2015).
According to Coworking Wiki (n.d.), the concept of coworking can be described as followed:
“ The idea is simple: independent professionals and those with workplace flexibility work better together than they do alone. Coworking spaces are about community-building and sustainability. Participants agree to uphold the values set forth by the movement’s founders, as well as interact and share with one another. We are about creating better places to work and as a result, a better way to work“.
Basically, this type of office environment enhances people from different professional and knowledge backgrounds to work in the same place. In reality, these employees are renting the desk or small office with other possible and offered office facilities. What is essential in this case is that they have common spaces where the interaction and communication take place, where workers are open to each other, where they are shoulder to shoulder with well-qualified professionals from the same or different areas of experience. As a matter of fact, the structure and organization of coworking spaces lead to the building of a new form of competent and experienced network (Gandini, 2015). The possibility to be in the same space day-to-day with a great variety of entrepreneurs allows co-workers to grow as professionals and learn from others. It is common practice in the coworking spaces for diverse events to be organized, for example, workshops or training. The flexibility of the layout of the shared offices provides the users to be free in their choice of how and in which ways to use the offered space and
facilities, which in turn only support positively their desire to cooperate and interact with others (Fuzi, 2015).
More than that, Spinuzzi (2012) define the coworking as “shared working environments”
where people from the diverse background can connect with each other in order to “create knowledge and benefit from it” (Spinuzzi et al., 2018), by that coming to the perception of
“working alone, together” (Spinuzzi, 2012). Consequently, coworking space is not only about the new way of office-renting possibility, but it’s also about the culture such places promote as well as communication and values which people are sharing in there. (Merkel, 2015). By its nature open and shared working environment accentuate “cooperation over competition”
(Cohen, 2011) what allow people to create a supportive and healthy network of professional
13
among themselves. With all the benefits provided by coworking space as the working place, people in there find their work-life more effective and productive (Cohen, 2011).
When it comes to the discussion of values, five main points are to be specified: community, collaboration, openness, diversity, and sustainability. The vision of coworking space from this point of view gives the possibility to recognize the advantages and distinctive features of it from other forms of physical working environments. Based on the all above-mentioned information, with rising usage and practice of such workplace among people worldwide, completely different and unique coworking spaces were developed and introduces to cover the needs of people from a variety of working fields (Merkel, 2015). Usage and presence of individuals in coworking spaces influence not only positive interaction among co-workers but also encourage knowledge sharing for further learning, what under other conditions has a valuable effect on diversification and collaboration necessary for the innovation (Capdevila, 2013).
Bouncken et al. (2018) in their study took a look at coworking spaces from both positive and negative points of view taking into consideration such characteristics as:
• Diversity and community,
As was mentioned above the concept of an open working environment establishes a diversified community of people who shared common culture and values. Specifically, the culture and environment of each coworking space are the reasons how future members made their decision to join the working place. The wrong choice can affect negatively the
workflow, productivity, and performance causing dissatisfaction and stress.
• Interaction and distraction,
The physical setting of coworking space serves as the major point fostering the interaction among members of this space. Nevertheless, the open design of the area can be distracting for people due to noise, talks, or meetings in common zones evoke distractions and lack of focus on the work process. Basically, from one side while the open space provides the possibility for interaction and communication for personal or business goals, on the other side members who are coming to work are being distracted from their primary mission for the job to done.
14
• Cost and benefits
In order to access the coworking space users usually should pay the fee (Waters-Lynch et al, 2016). The price is lower compared to renting their own office space. At the same time
despite the fact the coworkers are existing in a collaborative environment (Rus & Orel, 2015), it is necessary to achieve a certain position in the network. It took a lot of effort and time and can be risky in the end.
Furthermore, Ross & Ressia (2015) identified five categories to characterize the coworking spaces. The first point is membership duration either short-term or long-term contract agreements. Secondly, it can be a community workspace (i.e. community center) or professionally/privately run centers. The third point is concerning the arrangement of the coworking spaces, it follows that location can be in the hybrid area, or on the other hand, it can have the whole building dedicated especially for that coworking space. Another important factor is the environment as it is either a non-collaborative or on the contrary very creative collaborative. Last but not the least characteristic is dedicated to the users of the coworking spaces, mainly it is based on their background, previously gained experience, and skills.
Consequently, heterogeneous and homogeneous members were identified in such type of working space (Ross & Ressia 2015).
Coworking spaces are the environment, which remote workers, small establishments, and startups can decide to join with an eye to be present in the place with a shared vision,
collaborative community, and supportive network. The purpose of such a decision is to move from social isolation at home office towards the more flexible and convenient space with people from different working experiences and knowledge (Fuzi et al., 2015).
2.3. Coworking space history
The history of coworking spaces dates back to the 19th century in the format of a flexible work environment. The reasons for this development are the automation of work, which began to emerge at that time. Even though, it was at the turn of the 20th century when the workforce began the transition “from industrial environments to the administratively-centred office spaces” (Orel & Dvoulety, 2020). In many senses it is influenced life of people, especially the social aspects of it. The entire workflow, in which collaboration and communication has become an integral part, began to change and acquire a new focus,
15
which eventually led to the way we now see and understand the working environment (Orel
& Dvoulety, 2020).
Through the years the types of the collaborative environments were changing coming to the understanding and concept of the coworking spaces. Table 1 is the visual representation of the different categories of collaborative working spaces with definitions and years of recognition.
Table 1. Types and definitions of collaborative workspaces
Year Type Definition
1959 Business Incubators
Business incubators are an “economic development tool” (Sherman &
Chappell, 1998) created to help newcomers in the business environment i.e. preparation of business and marketing plans, consulting, and other support services; help in establishing the team of professionals.
Furthermore, the arranged flexible working places, facilities, and other equipment are offered (Sherman & Chappell, 1998).
1978 Serviced Offices
The type offices which are fully-equipped, well-organized, and most prepared to be occupied right away. The structure of serviced offices gives the possibility to give a space for one person as well as for a group of people in the way both of the parties will be satisfied with the given place in the area. All the necessary equipment, furniture, etc. are provided (Reed & Stewart, 2003).
1995 Hacker Spaces
Hackerspaces are designed with the purpose of people with the same interests (in this case the work with technology) to engage and carry out the projects together, collaborate, communicate and share the knowledge between each other (Hackerspaces.org, n.d.)
2005 Coworking Spaces
The type of working environment where people with different experience and professional background are working in the shared office space intending to join the community, build a network, find in coworker collaboration, knowledge sharing and socialization (Coworking.com, n.d.; Spinuzzi, 2012; Merkel, 2015; Bouncken et al.,2018).
16 2005 Maker
Spaces
“A makerspace is a collaborative work space inside a school, library or separate public/private facility for making, learning, exploring and sharing that uses high tech to no tech tools” (Makerspace.com, n.d.).
2005 Startup Accelerators
Accelerators are the established projects which help entrepreneurs to deliver their products in the right way on the market place with the help of a group of startups to create for a defined time (Dempwolf et al, 2014).
2012 New Learning Spaces
According to Waters-Lynch et al. (2016), new learning spaces are the environments with the primary attention to the knowledge workers who value hard skills as well as soft skills
Source: author’s table, adapted from Waters-Lynch et al. (2016)
Coming back to the history, the timeline starting in 1995 in Berlin, where the first C-base was founded. This place can be debrided as a hackerspace, where people can get together and work at the same location. These spaces can be perceived as the first “pre-models” of coworking spaces in the world. Nevertheless, the story continues in 1999, when Bernard DeKoven put in motion the word coworking “as a way to identify a method that would facilitate collaborative work and business meetings coordinated by computers…. His method aimed to support collaborative work through a non-competitive approach while giving people the opportunity to work on their own projects” (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013). Around the same year, two places vaguely resembling the idea of coworking space opened in New Your City.
Both of the places were created in order to provide people with the possibility of a flexible, comfortable, and pleasant working environment. In 2002 in Vienna, the first coworking space named Schraubenfabrik or community center for entrepreneurs was founded. Later on, it was expanded, new spaces were launched and it led to the creation of the first local network of coworking spaces (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013)
The year 2005 is the official year of the first coworking space based in San Francisco. The founder is Brad Neuberg computer programmer, who was struggling during his work in a startup as he wanted to work in the environment which provides flexibility and autonomy as well possibility to interact and communicate with other people. In 2014 Neuberg in his blog said that the decision was made in order “ to create a new kind of space to support the
community and structure that I hungered for and gave it a new name: coworking”. Space was based in Spiral Muse with the offer of five to eight desks two days a week, free Wi-Fi, along
17
with shared lunches, meditation breaks, massages, bike tours, and strict closing time of 5.45 pm (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013). In the very beginning, when the decision was made, Neuberg posted an invitation on his blog with very important words for further coworking movement (Waters-Lynch et al., 2016):
“Traditionally, society forces us to choose between working at home for ourselves or working at an office for a company. If we work at a traditional 9 to 5 company job, we get community and structure but lose freedom and the ability to control our own lives. If we work for
ourselves at home, we gain independence but suffer loneliness and bad habits from not being surrounded by a work community.
Coworking is a solution to this problem. In coworking, independent writers, programmers, and creators come together in the community a few days a week. Coworking provides the
"office of a traditional corporate job, but in a very unique way” (Neuberg, 2005).
At the same time in 2005 another opened space named nowadays as Impact Hub was launched in London by the group of social entrepreneurs in the loft. The movement was developing and growing fast and soon it spread around the world (Impact Hub, 2018).
The third story is coming from Germany, Berlin where the St. Oberholz was the first café which gave the possibility for people to get access to Wi-Fi and work on their laptops. At this moment St. Oberholz has a real coworking space above the coffee place (Foertsch & Cagnol, 2013).
These examples depict how coworking was born in a different part of the world. From a different perspective, ideas and desires the concept and term coworking space began to exist.
Throughout the years perception was changing adapting to the changes in the business environment. Stories above were the first step to illustrate how to find the balance and ideal place for those who were not working in traditional office spaces or people on home offices to separate their personal life, working environment and to have social interactions with other people (Waters-Lynch et al., 2016).
2.4. Trends on the market of coworking spaces
The market of coworking spaces is increasing and expanding from year to year. More and more individual workers are moving to such working environment. Before discussion of the
18
situation this year, the statistics from previous year is important to highlight in order to see the change and development of the market. In the report by Deskmag (2019) was noted that by the end of the year 2019 approximately 2.2 millions of people will work in coworking spaces globally. Which means that the number of spaces itself increasing as well as the size and capacity of the area. Remarkable note is that the bigger the coworking space in size and bigger amount of members it has, the better the situation is for the space in terms of
profitability and stability on the market. Also the average number of people grow to 90 people per location. Despite the fact the amount of members increased, around 28% of the spaces raised their average price and in result almost all of them were able to boost their profitability (Foertsch, 2019)
Nevertheless, the overall statistics for 2020 is lower than in previous years due to situation in the world concerning COVID-19 pandemic, the growth is expected in 2021 (Di Risio, 2020).
Figure 1 represent the change in number of coworking spaces from 2018 to 2020 and the projection from 2020 to 2024.
Figure 1. Number of coworking spaces worldwide
Source: author’s graph, adapted from Alberto Di Risio, Coworking resources (2020) According to Kojo & Nenonen (2017), the main drivers which accelerate the development and growth of the coworking spaces are “new ways of working, attractiveness, work-life balance, economic efficiency, sustainability, and regional development” (Kojo & Nenonen, 2017). At the same time coworking spaces are designed and organized with the purpose to foster productivity, creativity, and well-being of the co-workers. The workspace atmosphere
19
is one of the main factors for collaborations and knowledge sharing between members of shared office spaces (Orel & Alonso-Almeida, 2019).
Figure 2. Number of people using coworking spaces worldwide
Source: author’s figure, adapted from Alberto Di Risio, Coworking resources (2020)
Figure 2 represents the number of people who is using coworking spaces globally from 2018 to 2020 and expected projections from 2021 to 2024 (Di Risio, 2020). From the graph it is visible that the number is growth throughout the years and amount of people who will use coworking spaces as their job environment increasing significantly. It is based on the fact that co-worker share between each other not only the office space but they also share social
aspects beside the physical setting. Coworking spaces give the possibility and motivate people to build strong community of teams for further mutual working projects and collaborations.
For individual workforce usage of sharing working environments benefits in those aspects as division of working and personal life, socialization, communication, productivity and
efficiency (Bouncken & Reuschl, 2018).
The statistics for post pandemic situation shows the following trends in numbers such as 26%
higher number of seats per request, 96% longer terms of contracts, 76% higher share of people asking for private offices in the coworking environment. Nowadays the statistics is simpler to forecast because coworking spaces are becoming more attractive and suitable as the trend in movement towards remote work among the people is expanding around the world (Di Risio, 2020).
20
Also it is worth to mention the main geographical spread of the coworking spaces in the world.
Figure 3. Number of coworking spaces by continent
Source: author’s figure, adapted from Alberto Di Risio, Coworking resources (2020)
The top 3 leading countries by the number of coworking spaces located are the United States, India, and the United Kingdom. Notably, the market of shared working environments are the most fast-growing in Germany and India (Di Risio, 2020)
2.5. Users of coworking spaces
In previous chapters we were discussing the patterns of workings environment, what is coworking, which values it brings for the members. But who are exactly the users of the coworking spaces around the world? There are several kinds of research and statistical information about the different types of users of a shared office environment. As a matter of fact, according to the Gensler Research Institute in their survey was stated that one in seven respondents use coworking spaces at least for some time during the regular working week.
The respondents are actually full-time employees from companies with more than 100 people.
Nevertheless, for such type of workers coworking is the opportunity to have an alternative workplace rather than the office environment. What is also interesting from the survey is that people using both traditional working environments and coworking spaces are showing higher scores in experience and effectiveness. And to the greatest extent, it is coming from the
21
possibility to access the shared office and not the actual time spent there. (Gensler Research Institute, 2019)
In the study conducted by Coworker in 2019, the data collected gave the opportunity to recognize the demographics groups in coworking spaces, their behavior, expectations, etc.
Thus, the outcome of this research will help to understand better why people choose such type of workplace as their working environment. The creation of their values during their
coworking experience and which characteristics should the coworking space has to become a better place for its users (Coworker, 2019).
According to Coworker (2019), such groups as freelancers- 16.61% and digital nomads- 2.82% are represented only by 19.43% together as the users of coworking spaces. In reality, such percentage sharing is surprising as mostly the coworking space environment was characterized by these two groups of users. SMEs – 37.93% and startup teams – 27.12% in addition with large corporation- 2.35% are giving 67.4% all together. The number is quite remarkable, which only proves the fact that coworking space environments have a positive influence on work performance and effectiveness. The last two groups are remote workers either as solo entrepreneurs – 7.68% or corporate- 5.49%. The percentage of these two groups together – 13,7%. Overall, the survey brought interesting results concerning the division and representation of users in coworking spaces nowadays (Konya, n.d.)
In order to compare and see the difference in numbers, in 2017 Deskmag published the Global Coworking Survey where 41% of people using shared office environments are freelances, 36% - employees, 16% - employers and 7% are people operating in other activities. The biggest group is still IT members of coworking spaces, followed by PR, marketing, and salespeople, lastly the third small group of consultants (Foertsch, 2017). According to the 2019 Global Coworking Survey conducted by Deskmag, the number in percentage are not very much different from previous years, however, what is notable that there was an increase of younger and older people starting to use the coworking spaces as their workplace
(Foertsch, 2020).
22
2.6. Design characteristics of coworking spaces
This subchapter is dedicated to the physical setting or in other words layout of the coworking spaces. In many ways, the design of the working space is making it unique. That is what happened when the coworking spaces were launched in the world. Mainly it is depended on the fact that people in shared offices feel themselves as part of the community because the ways of communication of the working place dispose of this interaction (Spreitzer, G. et al., 2015).
The traditional image of coworking space is “ an open-floor plan with shared workspaces where co-workers can easily interact with each other. This multi-tenant office concept offers, compared with traditional multi-tenant offices, more informal spaces/facilities such as coffee corners, a kitchen, meeting rooms, 24/7 access, internet access, printer, and copying facilities, lounge space, and other informal spaces” (Weijs-Perree, 2018). Also, workers in such
workspace have private offices, calling, and meeting rooms. Due to the 24/7 access to most of the coworking spaces, people feel more flexible and adjustable to the working hours. They are no longer depended on the eight hours shift five days per week schedule, it gives more control over their workflow (Spreitzer, G. et al., 2015).
The aim of the well-structured design of the coworking spaces environment laid deep in the values, which this type of workplace tries to promote and to convey. It includes collaboration, openness, community, accessibility, and sustainability (Coworking wiki, n.d.). Nowadays, the nature of work is becoming more autonomous and versatile, people on remote working conditions are switching to coworking spaces in order to fulfill the work needs, but also not to feel alone, to find like-minded people and to socialize. At the end of the day, shared offices accomplish the first needs of its members. Nonetheless, throughout the years the layout has changed and became more comfortable and convenient. It is visible that not only the idea of
“working alone, together” (Spinuzzi, 2012) but the possibility to be in this particular type of working space with its exclusive features of arrangement and construction (Spreitzer, G. et al., 2015; Weijs-Perree, 2018; Orel, 2019).
For a better understanding of the physical setting of coworking spaces in the present days, several webpages of coworking spaces around the Czech Republic were checked and investigated to find relevant photos to serve as a visual representation of the working place
23
environment in there. Figure 4 illustrates the design and layout of the common area in the Work Lounge in Prague, Czech Republic.
Figure 4. Work Lounge, Common space, Prague
Source: Work Lounge (n.d.)
2.7. Motivation to join coworking spaces
The modern business workplace environment is changing and moving forward followed by new trends, people's needs, and overall transformation in our world. The Internet and technologies completely adjusted our daily life. The variety and the amount of information accessible, productivity, and effectiveness which technologies brought to us, it is impossible not to notice all this influence if you are living in the current century. It is also concerning the way how workflow and working process modified as well, in turn, this led to the need for a new perspective and vision of the workplace. Hence, coworking today is one of the main trends in the market (Kojo & Nenonen, 2014; Martinez, 2014).
Motivation to join the coworking spaces is coming from different perspectives and needs of people when it comes to the decision of working place. Starting from the beginning when the number of remote workers increased, firstly, they chose to work from home, coffee places, sometimes libraries and all the other possible suitable spaces. Nevertheless, mentioned locations have a lot of disadvantages that were affecting negatively the working process such
24
as lack of communication, motivation, disability to distinguish personal and professional life (Rus & Orel, 2015; Weijs-Perree, 2018; Fuzi, 2015).
According to Deskmag, there are several main reasons why it is beneficial to become a member of a coworking space. First of all, it is the possibility to expand your network. When you are working from home, the chances to meet new people who can be valuable or helpful for you are very low. Joining the coworking space brings you the opportunity to be the part of the community of professionals with such different backgrounds, from whom you can get support and who can potentially be your client. Another good point is that the working in well-organized and designed space can positively influence your creativity, change the mindset as well as the interaction with other employees it is always a chance to see the problem from a different perspective. The third reason is actually the motivation, sometimes to boost your inner power to continue working. In the space where a person can watch other people working, it will lead to the creation of a productive atmosphere for the job to be done.
At the same time usage of coworking space can be very advantageous from the financial point of view. Sending the day working at the coffee shop several times per week at the end of the month will not have such a big difference in the amount of money as if a person pays the fee in a shared office environment. For startups and small-sized establishments usage of
coworking spaces even more beneficial from this point of view (Martinez, 2014).
Kojo & Nenonen (2014) suggested in their study that the drivers that helped such type of space to reach the level at which it is now are the following: “new ways of working, attractiveness, work-life balance, economic efficiency, sustainability, and regional
development” (Kojo & Nenonen, 2014). Work in shared offices is based on the idea of mutual trust and support, principals, and values. Based on that people who are joining the coworking spaces are becoming part of the community with a friendly and productive atmosphere (Fuzi, 2015).
2.8. Social interactions in coworking spaces
This paper is dedicated to studying social interactions in coworking spaces. In order to understand how the communication is built and developed, it is necessary to identify what is social interaction itself, how it is understood at working place and then how it is perceived and encourage in coworking spaces.
25
According to De Jaegher et al. (2010) social interactions “are complex phenomena involving different dimensions of verbal and nonverbal behavior, varying contexts, numbers of
participants, and – frequently – technological mediation. They impose strict timing demands, involve reciprocal and joint activity, exhibit a mixture of discrete and continuous events at different timescales, and are often robust against external disruptions. Essential to interaction is that it involves engagement between agents” (De Jaegher et al., 2010).
The Society for Human Resource Management in the job satisfaction and engagement report (2016) identified through the survey that 40% of respondents concluded communication and social interaction at work with the colleagues motivate and increase their engagement at working place, at the same time 77% of respondents are satisfied with their relationships with a coworker at work. Another valuable point is that the choice of communication approach is very important depending on the specifics and uniqueness of the environment (SHRM, 2016).
Even though nowadays most of the jobs are creative and collaborative in many senses, the communication between coworkers influences the overall work perception and satisfaction in many ways such as motivation, commitment, and desire to stay or to change the work in the future (Tschan & Semmer, 2004). At traditional working environment there are two types of social interactions classified:
1. Task-related interactions i.e. people communicating with each concerning work- oriented topic to accomplish the given assignment.
2. Private interactions between colleagues i.e. communication between coworkers which characterized as more informal and not work-related. It can occur not only at the workplace but also outside the office environment, for example, team buildings (Tschan & Semmer, 2004).
At the same time, despite the fact that people are dependent on communication with others, the level of social interaction is decreasing. Smith (2013) in the article noted that “ social connections are as important to our survival and flourishing as the need for food, safety, and shelter. But over the last fifty years, while society has been growing more and more
prosperous and individualistic, our social connections have been dissolving. (Smith, 2013).
26
Coworking spaces, on the other hand, are helping to solve the issue with “professional isolation” (Moriset, 2013). Mainly its because in their nature the aim of this working place with such a comfortable social atmosphere in which people can trust each other, where they feel themselves open to build the relationships with coworkers in both formal in an informal way pursuing the possibility of collaboration and communication (Spinuzzi, 2012: Moriset, 2013; Gerdenitsch et al., 2016). Moreover, being a member of a coworking environment can positively influence work-life balance (meaning division between personal and professional life sides) decreasing the probability of potential conflicts, in turn, it leads to a more stable health state (Orel, 2019). Kojo & Nenonen (2014) in their study suggested that there is a necessity for coworking spaces in the modern world. “ The popularization of information and collaboration technologies in the workplace in addition to global economic changes and the requisites of sociability has created a need for flexible office locations that support mobile and collaborative work” (Kojo & Nenonen, 2014).
According to Gerdenitsch et al. (2016), social interaction in coworking spaces can arise in different ways and directions, but mainly two types were identified:
1. A casual way of social interaction i.e. people in such an environment is taking part in small every day chats with coworkers in common areas.
2. A professional way of social interaction i.e. this type of communication is applicable in cases where coworkers are discussing some work-related issues such as ideas sharing, feedback, advice, or possible teamwork.
Coworking spaces, therefore, are the places where people are trying to find the possible direction to socialize and to become part of the community (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte
& Isaac, 2016). Consequently, coworking spaces represent the working environment that is foster the feeling of belonging to something, open and accessible sharing of knowledge, ideas, recourses, etc. between people in a shared working environment (Orel & Alonso-Almeida, 2019). “Community type of organization of work and the culture of collaboration are the two most important conditions for getting work done by creative individuals” (Rus & Orel, 2015).
People withing coworking spaces share not only the office place but also the social aspects of being together. It encourages members to find the right people for communication for future collaboration in teams, projects, etc. (Bouncken & Reushl, 2018). Shared physical spaces that promote social interaction will positively influence a member’s motivation and ability to
27
interact with others, share their experience and knowledge. The physical setting of the area has an impact on the possibility and opportunity for people to have face-to-face
communication. The accessible, open and well-structured layout of the office will boost the probability of coworkers talking to each other (Cabral & van Winden, 2016).
Simultaneously, a variety of events, workshops, and other types of activity within the coworking space promote and strengthen the social interaction among the members of the working environment. There is a positive influence of networking on business performance with an increasing number of events organized in the coworking spaces (Cabral & van Winden, 2016). Training (meaning seminars or workshops) can help the member to create a positive environment for further communication with each other during the learning process as well as develop and gain new competencies and experience (Bouncken et al., 2018).
Nevertheless, the physical presence of employees in coworking space does not directly lead to communication and social integration between coworkers. It can happen because people are not sharing a common goal, values, or even interests (Merkel, 2015; Gerdenitsch et al. 2016).
It leads to the conclusion that it is not enough to be present in the working environment.
Ultimately, each person is coming there to work on his/her own with the goal of the job to be done without any interaction or social activity with others (Spinuzzi, 2012). The provision of the space and other necessary features of the space is not sufficient for coworking space to become a place where interaction and social connection take place.
In order to foster and develop the interaction among coworkers the role of the manager of coworking space is worth to be discussed (Ivaldi et al. 2018). “Community is, therefore, a communication network carefully designed and sustained by coworking managers in order to fulfill the most important resource of the working creative class i.e. unrestricted flow of information.” (Rus & Orel, 2015). According to Merkel (2015), the manager of the coworking space is called “host” and there are two types of the so-called hosts that can be determined based on their role in the working environment such as “service provider” or “visionary”. The first type of manager is the one who is taking care of the space environment to be coinvent, comfortable, and fully-equipped. Whereas visionary manager is more concerned about people in coworking space i.e. creating the right atmosphere, where member will feel themselves motivated, inspired, and interactive with others (Merkel, 2015).
28
Management of coworking space is the people who promote and pursue interaction and communication in the environment. They are connecting the members, introduce newcomers which lead the faster and easier bond building between the users. At the same time managers are connecting their tenants not only with the inside world but also can be helpful with changes and news from the outside of coworking space (Cabral & van Winden, 2016). The biggest challenge of the manager in a shared environment is to promote and to keep the relationships between members, foster knowledge and experience sharing plus create a positive atmosphere and sense of community with the purpose of collaborative opportunities and professional development (Ivaldi et al. 2018). Nevertheless, conflict resolution is also should be communicated from the very beginning between the manger and future member to avoid the potentially unpleasant situation within the space (Bouncken et al., 2018). Different strategies and techniques can be used to promote and stimulate the right social interaction and communication among the users of coworking spaces (Merkel, 2015).
29
3. Methodology
This chapter is focused on the description of the research design of this paper. Firstly, the research questions are presented. The next part describes why qualitative research was used, following by the explanation of the choice of interview types, its procedure, goals, and structure. The fourth section is dedicated to the research sample and the method of analysis is finishing the chapter.
3.1. Research Questions
1. What influences social interaction in coworking spaces in a positive way?
Assumption: There are a lot of aspects and factors which can have an impact on
communication among the people at the working place. Design of the space, facilities, events organized in coworking space can influence and encourage the interaction in the way co- workers will be satisfied and happy within the environment.
2. What are the drivers stimulating the social interaction in coworking spaces?
Assumption: The desire of people to socialize, to find a friendly environment, and join the community of professionals can be the drivers for people to come to coworking spaces in the first place and then to stimulate them to interact with different members in there.
3. How does successful social interaction in coworking space look like?
Assumption: The successful social interaction in coworking space can be described as an atmosphere where people can feel the support from others in both work and non-work related issues, where the well-organized collaborative network exists.
3. Does coworking space provide a possibility for cooperation and collaboration to the members?
Assumption: The way how the interaction between coworkers within the space is built and stimulated gives the possibility for people to trust each other and openly communicate, which in turn leads to cooperation and collaboration.
To answer the research questions semi-structured interviews with the respondents from several coworking spaces based in Prague were conducted. Further subchapters are dedicated
30
to the description of methods, approaches, and strategies which were used in order to collect and analyze the data.
3.2. Qualitative research
Qualitative research is an extensive concept which is covering a big range of approaches and techniques. Mainly it gives the possibility with the application of a variety of methods to explore and investigate the experience of people. At the same time, qualitative research is not only about using the specific method but the ability to gather and to understand the
perspective of the participants of the research and interpret it to reach the goal of the study (Hennink et al., 2020). Consequently, this particular type of research “refers to the meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols, and descriptions of things” (Berg, 2001).
One of the main features of qualitative research is its focus on answering questions like “ why?”, “what?” , “how?” and the procedure of gathering information due to the specification of research itself (Ritchie et al., 2013; Berg, 2001). The most common methods of data collection in qualitative researches are interviews (structured, semi-structured, non- structured), focus groups, and observations (Hak, 2004; Galanis, 2018; Gill et al., 2008).
Despite the fact that qualitative and quantitative researches were designed in order to achieve the same goal – to explore and investigate the world around us – approaches and directions are significantly different. Whereas quantitative research focuses its attention on the data which can be measured and interpreted statistically (Aspers & Corte 2019), qualitative research aimed to present an in-depth and interpreted perspective of the social aspect of our world (Ritchie et al., 2013).
The concept of coworking spaces is relatively recent and has already gained attention among the people who work remotely (Spinuzzi, 2012; Merkel, 2015). Consequently, there are a lot of things to learn, to explore and investigate in this area. In this case, the qualitative method is suitable for this purpose, especially with regard to the subject matter of this paper.
3.3. Semi-structured interviews
Interviews are one of the methods used in qualitative research with the purpose to gather the necessary information (Kitchin & Tate, 2000). The term can be defined as an oral or worldly
31
way of communication between two people, where one of them called the interviewer is trying to bring out the from another part of the conversation (Clifford et al., 2016). One of the main benefits of the personal interview is that the interviewer is focused on the person being interviewed. More detailed information can be collected based on face-to-face interaction causing a deeper understanding of the respondent’s feelings, experience, motivation as well as the context of the situation (Ritchie et al., 2013).
The difference between structured and semi-structured interviews is the following. The first approach required from the interviewer the prepared and standardized list of questions.
During the interview, the order and the flow of the asked question will be mostly the same.
On the other side, semi-structured interviews have a higher level of flexibility, the
questionnaire in this case served as the core base for the process of getting the information (Clifford et al., 2016; Harvey-Jordan & Long, 2001).
Hence, a semi-structured interview approach was used in this work with the purpose to answer the research questions. The combination of a predetermined list of questions and the acceptable level of flexibility in the relation to the flow of the interview as well as the ability of the interviewer to create a comfortable atmosphere for the interviewee to feel free to answer the questions to get the necessary information from respondent’s perception and experience (Ritchie et al., 2013; Clifford et al., 2016; Gill et al., 2008).
In order to collect all the necessary information to answer the research questions, 11 semi- structured interviews were conducted. Even though the personal interviews are more preferred in this case, 8 out of 11 were face-to-face and 3 out of 11 were made via phone call or Skype.
The reason for this is that interviewees were not in the Czech Republic at that moment. For personal interviews, the author has visited several coworking spaces based in Prague (see Table 2.) Further details on the procedure will be described in the next subchapter.
Table 2. Overview of the Interviewees
Interviewee Coworking Space Position/Role Interview
Interviewee 1 Locus Workspace Coworker Personal
Interviewee 2 WeWork Manager Personal
Interviewee 3 WeWork Coworker Personal
32
Interviewee 4 WorkLounge Manager Personal
Interviewee 5 WorkLounge Manager Personal
Interviewee 6 WorkLounge Coworker Personal
Interviewee 7 WorkLounge Coworker Phone
Interviewee 8 WorkLounge Coworker Personal
Interviewee 9 WeWork Coworker Personal
Interviewee 10 WeWork Coworker Skype
Interviewee 11 Coffice Coworker Phone
Source: Author’s own table
3.3.1. Procedure of gathering the interviews
Meetings with interviewees were arranged through email communication, via phone agreement or face-to-face conversation. Before the interview, each of the respondents was informed in advance about the goal of the interview, the approximate time the interview will take, data collection methods, and that it will be used only for research purposes. In order to avoid the possible misunderstandings, it was explained to the interviewees for what reasons they were contacted and what is the purpose of the research. It was done so people would understand if they participate in the survey and contribute to the study. In the end, people who agreed to participate were asked where it will be more convenient for them to arrange the interview. Respondents who were interviewed via phone or Skype the suitable time was discussed and agreed. The question about the place, where we can conduct the interview, was introduced because not all of the participants are using coworking spaces on a daily basis.
Also, it was done to show them respect and gratitude for their agreement to participate as well as give the chance to choose the most comfortable place for them to have a collaborative and positive interview. At the same time, the coworking space was the most preferable location for the interviewer to see the environment, physical setting, and feel the atmosphere of the working place.
All the interviews were recorded with the usage of mobile phone, the time of the interviews was in the range between 20-30 minutes. The recording was further transcribed in written form for further usage in the analysis.
33
3.3.2. Goals of the interviews
Several goals were pursued in conducting these interviews:
1. First of all, it was made to get the perspectives, understanding, experience, and insights of the people from the coworking environment on the topic of the research e.g. social interactions between coworkers within the space.
2. The second goal was to see the potential difference in answers from coworkers and managers of coworking spaces on the same questions with the purpose of better understanding and taking into consideration both of the points of view.
3.3.3. The structure of the interviews
The questionnaire was divided into sections: introduction and main part. The first section was dedicated to the questions where the interviewer get to know the respondent with the intention to win over the person and create a comfortable atmosphere for both parties. This part
includes a question like:
• Could you please introduce yourself? What is your position/role in the coworking space?
• How long have you been working at this coworking space?
• What made you decide to work in this particular coworking space?
The main part includes three blocks devoted to the specific direction of the topic regarding coworking space. In the first section there are questions for identification of the description of the area (i.e. physical setting of the environment), other people ( i.e. professional area of coworkers), type of the relationships among them:
• How would you describe this coworking space?
• What kind of companies/people work here?
• What do you like the most about working at this coworking space?
• In what ways do coworkers mainly interact with each other? Could you specify?
34
The next section is about the role of community managers and their importance for stimulation of social interaction in the coworking space between the members, also the influence of pandemic on the organization of the events:
• How would you describe the role of the community manager in the coworking space?
• What efforts do manager(s) make to stimulate the interaction among coworkers?
• How pandemic changed these events taking place in the space?
The third section is important in identifying the connection between the design of the coworking space and communication as well as is there any impact of the layout on the possibilities to interact for coworkers:
• Where do the interactions among coworkers mainly take place? Why?
• What kind of interaction does the design of this coworking space promote?
• Does the design of this coworking space give a possibility for coworkers to easily make interactions with others? Why/Why not?
The last question was added with the purpose for people to complete their answers if something was not mentioned or include some more insights to the topic in case something came up to the mind of the respondent during the interview:
• Is there anything you would like to add that we have not discussed so far?
The full list of questions used during the interviews can be found in the Interview guideline in Appendix 1.
3.4. Research Sample
In total 11 respondents from four different coworking spaces in Prague, Czech Republic was interviewed for this study. Moreover, three interviewees out of 11 were managers from WeWork and WorkLounge spaces, the rest of the participants were regular members of these working environments. The decision to involve both parties was made to introduce and investigate the perspective of opposite sides presented in coworking spaces. The main criteria
35
for the selection of the potential respondent were to be a member of the coworking space in Prague and the position/role in the space: either manager or coworker.
The combination of snowball and stratified purposeful sampling was used in this research.
The first technique used by the researcher when one or two respondents are already identified and included into participation in the survey and by their suggestions other possible
participants are recommended. The process can repeat itself until the moment the sampling size is sufficient for the data gathering. The benefits of a snowballing sampling can be
recognized in the possibility to find the most suitable respondents that matching the sampling criteria based on the proposal from the people who are familiar with the research purpose and goals. Also recommended people are more likely willing to participate and feel themselves more comfortable to be included (DeCarlo, 2018).
Stratified purposeful sampling is another approach with the purpose to choose the potential participants of the sample group based on the identification of specific characteristics of the respondents in order to fulfill the necessary interests and achieve the main goal of the research. Nevertheless, this technique is followed with the possibility to compare the data collected as even though the sampling is stratified purposefully, it is still random sampling (Llewllyn et al., 2004).
Table 3. Basic description of the interviewees
Interviewee Description
Interviewee 1 Interviewee 1 was recommended by the author’s friend. She is working as an individual translator and interpreter from Czech to English and vice versa. What is interesting she was one of the members of the first
coworking space in Prague, which started to work in 2009. Later on, the Interviewee 1 joined the Locus coworking space and used it from time to time. Before the decision to be a freelancer, the interviewee was working in traditional office space. This interview gave the possibility to author gather interesting information from the person with a huge experience.
Interviewee 2 The contact to Interviewee 2 was found through the author’s professor from the University. She is one of the managers in WeWork coworking space in Prague for almost a year. Before WeWork Interviewee 2 was
36
working in different companies based in Prague and then the opportunity to join a great community of people in WeWork appeared and was recognized as an opportunity for the new experience.
Interviewee 3 Interviewee 3 was a recommendation from one of the respondents in the survey. She is an independent consultant for quite some time already.
The decision to join the coworking space was made due to the fact that the home office is no longer was an option and such an environment provides a bigger range of possibilities both in the professional and social aspects of working life.
Interviewee 4 Interviewee 4 is also one of the managers but in the WorkLounge coworking space in Prague. She joined the space more than a year ago.
Previously Interviewee was working in traditional offices and when the possibility to join the coworking space came, she used this chance due to the personal desire to change the working environment for something more creative. Interviewee 4 was personally contacted by the author.
Interviewee 5 Interviewee 5 is a colleague of the previous participant. She is the manager of one of the branches of the WorkLounge in Prague. Around 4 years the Interviewee is working in this space. Before she was a
freelancer herself, home office and coffee places started to affect work productivity and efficiency. That was one the reason to join the
coworking space as a member but then she decided to take the position in the management of the space.
Interviewee 6 Interviewee 6 is one of the team members of a SME in the WorkLounge.
She is working on the creation of communication and content strategies.
They are for a while in this coworking space. The interviewee joined the company when they were already working there. She liked the idea to join a small team of professionals, in coworking space with a great location.
Interviewee 7 Interviewee 7 had a phone interview due to the fact that he was out of Prague at that moment. He is part of a small IT firm. By the
recommendation of the friend he was considering joining the coworking space, but later he became the part of the team and in order to find some place with all the necessary facilities and adequate price, they decided to choose the coworking environment.
