Working in a cocoon: (Co)working conditions of office nomads – a health related qualitative study of shared working environments

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The flexible working and business model of coworking spaces inherits the provision of workspace and further the construction of a network for entrepreneurs, creative and knowledge workers. Until now, research on coworking spaces is scarce in the field of health sciences.

OBJECTIVE:

This study investigated reasons and motives for working in coworking spaces and working conditions under health related aspects. Demands and resources while working in coworking spaces were analyzed according to a theoretical model for (Job-demands-resources model – JDR) perceived working conditions.

METHODS:

Twenty semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with coworkers (n = 14) and coworking operators (n = 6) in Berlin, Hamburg, and Munich. Participants were asked to describe the reasons and motivations for working in coworking spaces and their perceived working conditions. Transcripts were analyzed according to content analysis.

RESULTS:

The most mentioned reason for using coworking spaces were the community aspect (n = 15) followed by the alternative to home office (n = 12). Negative job demands seem to result from unfavorable ergonomic conditions, working disruptions, miscommunications and missing privacy. Time flexibility, social surrounding and increased productivity were interpreted as job resources.

CONCLUSIONS:

These results can be seen as a basis for further quantitative research in order to generalize these findings, by testing hypotheses and develop workplace-related concepts for health management.

Keywords

Coworkers coworking spaces qualitative approach

1 Background

1.1 Definitions and history

“Coworking is the flexible working of knowledge workers largely independent of each other at a common, institutionalized location” [1]. This institutionalized location – the coworking space – is an integrated and flexible business and working model. It focuses on the needs of entrepreneurs, creative and knowledge workers. Besides the provision of workspace, the construction of a network for knowledge exchange, innovation, and further education is of primary importance [2].

Coworking spaces address five interconnected key values: Collaboration (creating common values), community (precondition for collaboration), sustainability (financially and careful use of limited resources), openness (sharing ideas and information) and, accessibility (financially and locally) [1 –3].

The first beginnings of coworking brings us in the 1990s, were coworking-type spaces were already available (e.g. hackerspaces) [5]. In 2005 the official first so-called coworking space opened in the USA and since then, this concept became popular worldwide [4, 5]. In Germany the first space operating under the key values was founded in Berlin 2009 [5].

1.2 Characteristics and users of coworking spaces

Coworking spaces differ from each other in their design, size, clientele, the situation according to city size, with various differences regarding services and ambience [1]. To a various extent the following core elements can be found in every space [2]. People pay rents depending on their usage for their desks and office infrastructure (e.g. Wi-Fi, electricity, printing services) [6]. There are three main types of workstations: flexible desks used mostly in open-plan offices (“first-come, first-served”), fixed desks each assigned to one coworker and private offices that offer space for small teams. Additional premises include meeting rooms available for rent and areas for coffee drinking, eating and relaxing. Lockers, company addresses or post services can be added, depending on the needs of the coworkers [2, 6].

Coworkers are autonomous and flexible concerning their usage of coworking spaces [1]. Switching places within the coworking space; even working from different coworking spaces in other cities/countries is possible (“office nomads”) [7].

Users are described as a heterogenic group. However, a few trends regarding demographics are observable. Coworkers are mostly freelancers, (meaning they are not employed with a company and have to look after their income and social security for themselves) with various occupational backgrounds. On average more men are working in coworking spaces and the largest age group is between 25 and 39 years [7].

1.3 Theoretical background

The German legislation requires employers to perform adequate assessments in order to explore and eliminate potential health risks for their workers (Arbeitsschutzgesetz, §5). Additionally, there are regulations about setting up and operating workplaces (Arbeitsstättenverordnung, §1). Coworking spaces are not bound by these regulations as they do not fall under that scope (Arbeitsstättenverordnung, §2).

The job demands-resources model (JD-R model), analyzes job demands and job resources in various occupational settings (Fig. 1) [8]. “Job demands refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical and/or psychological (cognitive and emotional) effort or skills and are therefore associated with certain physiological and/or psychological costs” [8] (e.g. unfavorable ergonomic conditions or client specific stressors). Job resources “refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are (...) functional in achieving work goals” or those, reducing “job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs” or aspects which “stimulate personal growth, learning and development” [8] (e.g. autonomy and support and feedback via clients) [8, 9]. It is assumed that job demands lead to stress whereas job resources are motivational. This two-stage approach helps to figure out weaknesses and strengths of working conditions in coworking spaces in order to predict possible organizational outcomes (e.g. health problems or increased work engagement) [8].

Fig.1

Job demands-resources model adapted from [8].

1.4 Current state of research

Together with the rise in the popularity of coworking, rose the academic interest in this arrangement and scientific studies have been conducted in various fields (e.g. economics, sociology, communication science) [6, 10]. Nevertheless, to our knowledge there is limited research about coworking spaces in the field of health sciences. Therefore, the findings of other fields of study as examples will be used to show an overview about what has been detected in previous research regarding motivational factors, working conditions in coworking spaces, and working conditions of freelancers.

1.4.1 Motivational aspects for working in coworking spaces

One characterization of current user groups of coworking spaces showed, that mostly freelancers in web-based or artificial jobs relocated their tasks from home office to coworking spaces, which were close to their private homes [11]. The most common reasons for working in a coworking space reported in other studies were aspects of socialization (e.g. community, less isolation, networking), knowledge exchange, efficiency aspects (e.g. more creativity, productivity, motivation, day structure) and the flexibility regarding time and infrastructure [11 –13].

1.4.2 Social interaction in coworking spaces

Gerdenitsch et al. [14] conducted two studies about social interaction in coworking spaces. The results of the first study showed that social interaction appears as social support. The second study investigated the effect of social support in coworking spaces while contrasting social support among coworkers and among colleagues in conventional workplace settings. In both groups, the experience of social support was positively related to satisfaction in working performance; specifically achieving objectives and work quality. In conventional workplaces the effect of social support among colleagues on performance satisfaction was mediated by self-efficacy. However, within the coworkers sample “time pressure moderates the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between social support, (...,) and performance satisfaction such that the mediating effect will be stronger when time pressure is high” [14].

1.4.3 User group of freelancers

Freelancers are a large part of the user group in coworking spaces. Research on their working conditions shows that freelancers have a high degree of autonomy but their income is insecure, and so their working situation differs from employees [15]. The working situation of freelancers with regard to their health was analyzed in a study carried out by the University of Hamburg in 2007 [9, 15]. The results show that income insecurity, time pressure, emotional dissonance, working under uncertainty, and client specific stressors have a negative impact on health (health hazards). However, other factors of freelancing have positive implications. Social support via clients, communication and interaction at work, scope of action, decision-making, and flexible working hours were perceived as health promoting factors [9, 15].

2 Study aims

The presentation of existing studies revealed that there is a gap in the exploration of occupational health aspects in coworking spaces. In order to develop a health promoting working environment, it is necessary to identify possible health concerns requiring action. Furthermore, the importance of coworking spaces has increased, as more and more people are not bound to fixed workplaces any longer.

The aim of this explorative study was to answer the following questions:

What are reasons and motives for working in coworking spaces?

What are perceived working conditions with regard to

Ergonomic conditions (e.g. light, furnishings)?

Health promotion structures (e.g. sport activities during work time)?

Organizational aspects (e.g. working times, structure of the day)?

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Study design

This exploratory study utilized a qualitative approach. Data were collected in a natural setting by conducting semi-structured interviews [16].

3.2 Participants and study setting

All interviews took place from November 2015 until April 2016 in 10 different coworking spaces in Berlin, Hamburg and Munich. Inclusion criteria were: independent coworking spaces not being bound to universities or companies, with coworkers of diverse professions, with more than ten workplaces and non-temporary spaces.

Two groups were interviewed: experts and coworkers. The total sample contained six experts and 14 coworkers (N = 20). Inclusion criteria were: experts were those who founded a coworking space or were involved in the day-to-day business of operating the space. Interviews with experts were conducted to get insight into organizational structures and working conditions. Identification of experts were done via research on each space. Ten different spaces were involved in the study. The recruitment of experts was carried out via email or telephone. Inclusion criteria for participants of the coworkers group were: sufficient language skills in German or English, and a working membership in coworking spaces more than three months. Coworkers were recruited with the assistance of experts, via people-to-people links and announcements via internet (private Facebook pages of spaces). Recruitment and the interviews were carried the same person.

All participants received verbal information about the purpose of the study, their tasks and the voluntary participation. Prior to the interview they had to sign an informed consent form. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board and Medical Association Hamburg. The study is in accordance with Helsinki Declaration of 1964.

3.3 Interview guideline

Five out of six expert interviews were conducted face to face at each coworking space. Due to time and place issues one expert interview was conducted via telephone. Most coworker interviews took place face-to-face at each coworking space. Again, due to time and place issues three interviews had to be conducted via videoconferencing (Skype). All coworker interviews were held in German, except for one in English. The interviews were digitally recorded with the prior agreement of the participants.

Two interview guides based on specific topics, guided by prior research were developed to direct these interviews. Interview topics for experts comprised personal professional background, development of the coworking space, ergonomic conditions, infrastructure in the coworking space and the coworkers (e.g. their communication or daily organization).

The interview guide for coworkers (Table 1) was divided in two parts according to the research questions in this study. The first part addressed motives and reasons for working in a coworking space. The second part included perceived working conditions. Finally, coworkers had to rate their satisfaction with working in the coworking space on an 11-point scale from 0 to 10, where 0 meant very unsatisfied and 10 very satisfied/nothing to improve.

Table 1
Interview topics list coworkers

Topic Content

Introduction Information, informed consent, confidentiality

General Data Demographics

Reasons and motives Previous experiences in coworking spaces, reasons for working in shared working environments, fears

Working conditions

General structures Health promoting offers, break times, premises, child care

Ergonomics Furniture, lighting-conditions, noise, temperature

Day organization Worktime, reconciliation of work and private life

Communication and support Collaboration and support among coworkers

Atmosphere General working atmosphere, work performance

Health aspects Strains in the setting coworking space, time pressure, consequences

Conclusion Improvements, characteristics of coworker, final assessment

Topic	Content
Introduction	Information, informed consent, confidentiality
General Data	Demographics
Reasons and motives	Previous experiences in coworking spaces, reasons for working in shared working environments, fears
Working conditions
General structures	Health promoting offers, break times, premises, child care
Ergonomics	Furniture, lighting-conditions, noise, temperature
Day organization	Worktime, reconciliation of work and private life
Communication and support	Collaboration and support among coworkers
Atmosphere	General working atmosphere, work performance
Health aspects	Strains in the setting coworking space, time pressure, consequences
Conclusion	Improvements, characteristics of coworker, final assessment

3.4 Data analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim according to simple rules of transcription [17, 18] by one member of the research team. Data analysis was done with a query plan on the basis of qualitative content analysis according to Mayring [19]. Categories were derived from the text material without being referenced to theoretical concepts (inductive category development) [20]. Categories were deduced by working through the material, revised and reduced in other steps and finally interpreted and discussed [19]. Sociodemographic data were analyzed quantitatively.

Coding was done via MAXQDA 12, a software for computer based qualitative text- and data analysis [20].

Quantitative data from satisfaction survey and demographics were analyzed for descriptive statistics via IBM SPSS Statistics 22.

4 Results

4.1 Sociodemographic data coworkers

Fourteen coworkers participated in the interviews; more than half of them were male (n = 9). Ages ranged from 27 to 50 years, with a mean age of 36.64 years (SD = 7.24). Most of the coworkers were solo self-employed (n = 9), two were working in a team, and three were employed with a company. Four of the participants worked in the Information Technology or consulting sector, other sectors were graphic/web design, media/journalism, and public relations/marketing. Eight coworkers had flexible desks and six had fixed desks. Five of the 14 interviewees were working part-time in the coworking space and nine full-time. Nine had a university degree. Ten coworkers had no experience in working at a coworking space before their current space.

4.2 Reasons and motives

Altogether eight reasons and motives for working in shared office environments were mentioned (Table 2).

Table 2
Reasons and motives for working in coworking spaces

frequency

Reason and motives Description Coworkers Experts

Community Social interaction with others n = 9 n = 6

Being a member of a community

Alternative to home office Separation of work and private life n = 8 n = 4

Professional cooperation Contact, exchange, collaboration and support on a professional level n = 5 n = 4

Financial accessibility Cheap and flexible workplace for individuals n = 4 n = 4

Professional working environment Office equipment n = 3 n = 3

Working atmosphere to be productive

Specific opening hours

Geographical accessibility Short distance between private home and workplace n = 3 n = 0

External influence Decision on the workplace was made by employer n = 2 n = 0

Organizational structures Flexible work place and working hours n = 2 n = 0

No responsibility for organizational tasks

		frequency
Community	Social interaction with others	n = 9	n = 6
	Being a member of a community
Alternative to home office	Separation of work and private life	n = 8	n = 4
Professional cooperation	Contact, exchange, collaboration and support on a professional level	n = 5	n = 4
Financial accessibility	Cheap and flexible workplace for individuals	n = 4	n = 4
Professional working environment	Office equipment	n = 3	n = 3
	Working atmosphere to be productive
	Specific opening hours
Geographical accessibility	Short distance between private home and workplace	n = 3	n = 0
External influence	Decision on the workplace was made by employer	n = 2	n = 0
Organizational structures	Flexible work place and working hours	n = 2	n = 0
No responsibility for organizational tasks

4.3 Perceived working conditions

Perceived working conditions were divided into three sub-categories: Ergonomics (sub-category 1) including furniture, lighting conditions, noise and temperature. Working times, reconciliation of work and private life, individual productivity as well as break times are subject-matters of sub-category 2, called possibilities for day structures. Community and social activities (sub-category 3) comprise sporting activities, social events, and communication. According to the sub-categories, negative and positive statements were extracted. During the interviews, coworkers specifically mentioned some aspects that were either promoting or unfavorable for an individual’s health. These aspects were assigned to the respective topic within the sub-categories.

4.3.1 Ergonomics

In general, furniture, lightning conditions, noise levels and temperature perceptions depended on the respective coworking space, the location of the individual work place and the architecture of each building. Table 3 shows positive as well as negative statements, which have been made during the interviews regarding ergonomics.

Table 3
Sub-category 1 ergonomics

Negative statements Positive statements

Furniture •Chairs did not suit ergonomic standards •Chairs could be adjusted in height, provided backrests or placed users in an upright sitting posture

•Height of desks was not adjustable •Use of private chairs at fixed desks

•Working at laptops was perceived as not comfortable since the neck is flexed forward •Stand desks to allow changes in working position

•Provision of notebook racks

•Opportunity to bring own external screen

Lighting conditions •Little light for daily work (especially in winter) •Big windows illuminate room enough for respective work situation

•Individuals have different needs regarding brightness at the workplaces •Additional lamps could be brought privately or were available

•Moving location to another flexible desks with better lighting

Noise level •High noise levels with more people in the same room •Dedicated recreation and quiet areas (e.g. coffee lounge, quiet rooms, phone cabins)

•People making noise (e.g. when making phone calls) perceived they were disturbing others •In bigger spaces sounds were better damped, so noise was not perceivd as a disruptive factors

•Interruptions by noise led to concentrations problems, lack of privacy and were perceived mentally exhausting

•High noise levels impacted on concentration and created higher stress levels (unfavorable health aspect)

Temperature •Too cold in winter •Comfortable temperature

•Too hot in summer

	Negative statements	Positive statements
Furniture	•Chairs did not suit ergonomic standards	•Chairs could be adjusted in height, provided backrests or placed users in an upright sitting posture
	•Height of desks was not adjustable	•Use of private chairs at fixed desks
	•Working at laptops was perceived as not comfortable since the neck is flexed forward	•Stand desks to allow changes in working position
		•Provision of notebook racks
		•Opportunity to bring own external screen
Lighting conditions	•Little light for daily work (especially in winter)	•Big windows illuminate room enough for respective work situation
	•Individuals have different needs regarding brightness at the workplaces	•Additional lamps could be brought privately or were available
		•Moving location to another flexible desks with better lighting
Noise level	•High noise levels with more people in the same room	•Dedicated recreation and quiet areas (e.g. coffee lounge, quiet rooms, phone cabins)
	•People making noise (e.g. when making phone calls) perceived they were disturbing others	•In bigger spaces sounds were better damped, so noise was not perceivd as a disruptive factors
	•Interruptions by noise led to concentrations problems, lack of privacy and were perceived mentally exhausting
	•High noise levels impacted on concentration and created higher stress levels (unfavorable health aspect)
Temperature	•Too cold in winter	•Comfortable temperature
	•Too hot in summer

Coworkers also described being more physical active in a coworking space in comparison to a traditional office.

All these findings concurred with the observations of experts. Ergonomic chairs, a bright interior design, and a quiet basic volume were major aspects during the concept development and are still of importance for the operators for possible improvements in the current spaces.

4.3.2 Organization of day structures

Coworkers described the benefit of high personal flexibility in coworking spaces. Though not being bound to designated times, most of them described regular working hours from approximately 9am to 7pm (n = 10). During the interviews, four out of five coworkers working part-time reported flexible working times without specific patterns.

Time pressure was named several times as an unfavorable health aspect, but not specific in the setting coworking space. The perception of a working atmosphere within the respective coworking space, had a positive effect on the mitigation of time pressure, thus leading to more motivation and increased productivity.

Interviewees described various ways to spend their break time. In particular, kitchen facilities, food offerings, relaxation areas, or similar options were mostly available within the coworking spaces. Except one, all coworkers reported taking breaks during their working time.

In general, coworkers mentioned that freelancing facilitates the reconciliation of work and private life. Some coworking spaces offered the possibility to bring children or dogs, if supervision was guaranteed and others were not disturbed by their presence. Some coworkers experienced the possibility of bringing children in exceptional situations or dogs as facilitation for reconciliation of work and private life.

Most participants described increased productivity due to the possibility of changing workstations, higher internal motivation, the presence of a real working atmosphere, and infrastructure in comparison to a home office. Other coworkers did not mention any differences concerning their productivity in the coworking compared to other work environments.

The work itself was mentioned as another health promoting factor. By means of flexible arrangement of tasks, coworkers observed more autonomy and influence at work, which positively affected their mental health, job satisfaction and well-being.

These statements again concurred with those of the experts. Furthermore, experts described the advantageous offer of greater freedom concerning the organization of day structures and time scheduling in comparison to traditional offices with stricter rules.

4.3.3 Community and social activities

In coworking spaces, working disruptions through direct approach or neighbors talking were described as more likely than in closed single offices. In cases of time pressure, these events were reported as an additional burden. Generally, coworkers described lack of privacy as an aspect that influenced health negatively.

It was mentioned that active networking is necessary, if support of and cooperation with others is desired. The exchange and collaboration with others was seen positively. Physical proximity facilitates collaboration. Thus, coworking spaces were conducive for networking; coworkers got input from other professions and the contact was described as being less forced.

“(....) Yes through the openness, you have the chance to get in contact with others more easily, by having people sitting around you and having eye contact, visual contact, noticing a conversation it is more communicative as in comparison to office atmosphere. And it ’s also very exciting, because you have the possibility to establish various different contacts. ” (Translated from German: Interview 11)

Having a social structure and a network was perceived as positive for their own health. Through exchange with different professions the opportunity to brainstorm with others about work problems, in order to find a solution is possible. Social pressure was mentioned as being less in comparison to traditional offices. The existing social pressure through the presence of working people was described being motivating for the own work. Additionally, some coworkers perceived no competitiveness among themselves. A positive prevailing mood was good for individual’s health.

“It is also very liberating, that there is no competition. It is thus a positive mood and there I also notice that it affects my health (... ) anyway, the work doesn’t pull me down, it builds me up.” (Translated from German: Interview 7).

The amount of additional social offers (e.g. sport activities or network events) varied between the coworking spaces. Some sport activities were offered by coworkers, rather than the coworking space. On the other hand, some coworking spaces offered sport activities, but coworkers reported they had no need for them. Networking or similar activities were offered to various extents. Most of the coworking spaces provided such events in the form of knowledge exchanges, workshops, informal meetings or common meals.

Experts also perceived the community aspect to be of high importance and health promoting; especially for mental health.

“I believe, that at least for mental health it is extremely beneficial that they can get help and support, when they despair in difficult projects alone at home or begin to feed the washing machine out of frustration (...).” (Translated from German: Interview 2)

4.4 Final satisfaction assessment

The overall final evaluation showed the satisfaction of coworkers with their working environment. All of them reported being satisfied (above five on the scale), on average 8.23 (SD = 0.84, range 6.5–10).

4.5 Improvement suggestions by coworkers

Despite the overall positive evaluation, coworkers mentioned some suggestions for improvement. These suggestions relate to office infrastructure, lighting conditions, and temperature. Coworkers also mentioned in the interviews that coworking spaces could be improved by adapting them more to health needs, for example more ergonomic furniture (e.g. height adjustable chairs/tables), better artificial light sources, and concepts for heating in big spaces.

“An obstacle is I believe that there is actually only a minimal structure of equipment, chairs and tables and that fact is certain.” (Translated from German: Interview 5)

Furthermore, more quiet areas were requested when making confidential telephone calls in order to avoid disturbances. As well, more network events were requested. In addition, some coworkers reported a need for better kitchen facilities. Even a desire for rules regarding common facilities was requested, e.g. clearing away dishes in kitchen areas.

5 Discussion

The present study aimed to explore working conditions and health aspects in coworking spaces. Our findings will be discussed in detail and analyzed according to the JD-R model. Methodological considerations, practical implications and recommendations are discussed.

5.1 Discussion of reasons and motives

First, motives and reasons for working in coworking spaces were depicted. Based on the number of mentions, the most important motives for working in coworking spaces were the community aspect and the alternative to home office. This also confirms the findings of previous research. Gerdenitsch et al. [14] found coworkers mainly working in coworking spaces in order to engage in social interactions. Spinuzzi [13] and Hartman [6] reported that coworkers searched for an alternative to home office and coffee shops. Surveys among employees found that it is stressful to take work home [21], indicating that it might be less stressful for coworkers to work from coworking spaces instead of working from home. The cooperation with various professions, a dedicated working environment and the financial accessibility were found in Döring’s research [11]. Based on these findings, it can be assumed that coworking spaces offer mainly the possibility to have a social surrounding and to separate work and private life.

5.2 Perceived working conditions – JD-R model

With help of the JD-R model the study results of perceived working conditions will be assigned to demands and resources in each sub-category.

5.2.1 Demands and resources regarding ergonomics

Results of this study can be classified as demands and resources within sub-category 1, ergonomics. Physical demands coworkers may have to face while working in coworking spaces are non-adjustable office chairs, no alternating sitting-standing position, poor body posture while working at the laptop, insufficient light or too much artificial light, high noise levels and temperatures too hot/too cold. These demands can be seen as strains, which may result in adverse health effects as previous research indicates.

Working at the laptop and prolonged sitting are risk factors for developing health disorders (e.g. musculoskeletal disorders, cardiovascular diseases or type 2 diabetes) [22 –24]. Several studies reported reduced health risks by specific health interventions (e.g. ergonomic training and implementing sit-stand workstations) [25 –27] or chair modification (e.g. adjustable arm rests and in height) [28].

Quality criteria for illumination at the workplace include a high level of natural light, glare and reflection limitation, and an easy customization option, [29] which is often not available in coworking spaces, as it was reported in the interviews. Inadequate lighting conditions may result in health consequences (e.g. seasonal affective disorder) [29].

Coworking spaces are mostly designed like open-plan offices, with various people in the same space. The perceived noise levels are similar as in open-plan offices. Coworkers and experts described noise as a disruptive factor and as well as a factor, which influences health negatively. Comparisons to open-plan offices show that noise can also be seen as a source of discomfort [30]. High noise levels may result in tension, harassment increased blood pressure and higher stress hormone levels. As these noise level are based on subjective perceptions it’s hard to set general limits [31].

Finally, there are some challenges, which have to be faced, when thinking about climate in coworking spaces. The temperature perception of people is very different and the inability to influence the ambient temperature, negatively affects individuals and can even lead to stress reactions [32].

It is possible for coworkers to bring their own chairs to the coworking space when having a fixed desk and coworkers described more physical activity in a coworking space in comparison to a traditional office. Not being bound to a specific place offers the opportunity to change place in case of high noise levels or bad lighting conditions and therefore mitigate those demands.

5.2.2 Demands and resources regarding organization of day structures

The findings of sub-category 2, organization of day structures, are interpreted as resources. These include time variability, positive time pressure, good reconciliation of work and private life, various possibilities for break times and increased/consistent productivity.

Previous research indicated that there is an association between a high variability of working hours with increased health impairment, especially if the variability is not self-directed [33]. If the variability of working hours is self-controlled, the effect is weaker [33]. Coworkers have the possibility of high variability of working hours. Nonetheless, interviewees mostly reported regular working hours despite flexibility of work hours. Coworking spaces have specific opening hours, so that the time frame for usage is clearly defined. Therefore, coworkers have a self-controlled limited variability for working within the coworking space, which might lower the risk of health impairments. “Thus, paradoxically, some limited form of structure enables an optimal degree of control for independent workers” [34].

As demonstrated in several research studies time pressure is a very prevalent stressor in the present working world [35] and it is rated amongst the harmful aspects of freelancers’ mental health [9]. Interviewees described time pressure being reduced by the presence of a working atmosphere (e.g. through social surrounding, office equipment).

Coworkers reported facilitated reconciliation of work and private life. Reasons for this might primarily be the autonomy coworkers have regarding their workplace [11, 12].

Work breaks contribute to the improvement of work performance and reduce negative physical symptoms [36]. As there are several possibilities for taking breaks in coworking spaces, the chance that coworkers actually take work breaks might be higher than in home offices. The statements of interviewees also indicate this that they take regular breaks.

One organizational outcome of these resources could be the increased productivity, which was mentioned many times by the interviewees.

5.2.3 Demands and resources regarding community and social activities

Topics of sub-category 3, community and social activities will be classified as job demands and job resources. Working disruptions and missing privacy are interpreted as job demands whereas the social surrounding, less perceived psychological strain and a higher motivation are assumed to be job resources.

Working disruptions, which were reported during the interviews may cause negative emotions like frustration or anger which may have an impact on the development of mental stress and decreased work quality [37]. Additionally, coworkers mentioned missing privacy while working in coworking spaces as a health hazard, due to concentration difficulties and increased stress.

The social surrounding, less psychological strain and a higher motivation may result in positive organizational outcomes. Social support may result in higher performance satisfaction [14, 38]. Quantitative studies among employees have demonstrated, that exchange and collaboration with the team or colleagues are perceived resources in the workplace [21]. One study showed that communication with others even serve as coping strategy for personal stress [39]. Finally, less psychological strain and a higher motivation were perceived to influence health positively.

5.2.4 Discussion of overall final assessment

The overall final satisfaction assessment in section 4.4 showed, coworkers were satisfied with working in a coworking space. This can be firstly explained by the various reasons and motives for working in coworking spaces, as described in Section 4.2 and 4.3. Secondly, previous research of coworkers report higher levels of thriving in comparison to employees due to “the combination of a well-designed work environment and a well-curated work experience” [34].

5.3 Methodological considerations

There are a number of strengths and limitations of the current study.

Firstly, as there is very little research about working conditions in coworking spaces available this study is an innovative approach in order to achieve a baseline for further research. The qualitative approach of this study allowed exploring health relevant topics without rash quantifications [18, 19]. With the help of the JD-R model it was possible to determine demands and resources in this setting. Due to the variety of coworkers and various coworking spaces in three different cities (maximum variation strategy) the results showed a wide range of perspectives which is optimal in qualitative approaches [16].

A major limitation of this study is that we have not conducted any observations of the workplaces to confirm that what the interviewees have told us was correct or that it accurately depicts the workplace. It is only the interviewees opinion of the workplace.

Coworking spaces are very international and users have various background languages [7]. As the interviewer has a German background and proficient English skills, interviews could only be conducted in those two languages; coworkers who did not speak these languages were excluded. Although the interviewer’s language skills are proficient there is the potential for miscommunication during the interviews. However, only one interview was conducted in English, and so the influence on the overall results are likely to be negligible. There are also some challenges when conducting interviews in one language (German) and analyzing them in another language (English). To reduce potential loss of meaning staying in the original language as long as possible is recommended [40]. Interviews were transcribed and content was reduced and paraphrased in the original language, coding was done in English. By translating quotes back and forth from two different people with fluent English skills it was ensured that the meaning and the content was the same as in the original language. Due to time and place issues, not every interview could be conducted face-to-face. The alternative were telephone interviews which were a promising and resource-friendly alternative [41]. This method does not allow for inclusion of gestures and facial expressions, and for the purpose of the present study body language was considered secondary to the verbal information provided by participants. Another alternative data collection method was via videoconferencing (Skype). In comparison to telephone interviews, it allows “at least a mimicked face-to-face interaction” [42].

In addressing credibility, we attempt to demonstrate that a true picture of the phenomenon under scrutiny is being presented.

To allow transferability, we provide a detailed description of the context of the research field and whether the findings can justifiably be applied to the other research settings. Participants were selected purposively.

To ensure dependability and confirmability, we included an audit that involves examination of the inquiry process to validate the data, whereby a researcher accounts for all the research decisions and activities to show how the data were collected, recorded and analyzed. In addition, we gave a rich and extensive set of details concerning methodology and context. The Auditor also crosschecked the inquiry process: raw data of the interviews and records collected from the field, test transcriptions. In addition, the interview guideline was reviewed by different experts, supervisor, other lecturers, and fellow members. The intercoder reliability, which verifies the accordance of different evaluators, cannot be determined as the analysis was done by just one person. This limits the confirmability of the data, and statements about the reliability of interpretations on applied procedures cannot be made [43].

5.4 Practical implications

The discussed results give an idea what demands and resources for working in coworking spaces are like. These findings just represent 20 different opinions out of ten different coworking spaces, quite a small sample that does not allow generalization of the findings. In order to make valid statements, (e.g. for the future development of health interventions) it is necessary to quantitatively expand research and include observations. Future research could address the aspects especially with regard to physical and/or mental health issues: Interior design of coworking spaces, organization of working times of spaces and coworkers, flexibility of work, reconciliation of work and private life and the component of being part of a community within a coworking also with regard to challenges freelancers have to face due to their self-employment

Due to the diversity of coworking spaces, all conceptions should be customized to the specifics of each coworking space. General legal regulations as they exist in traditional workplaces are not recommended for coworking spaces. Firstly, the structure of a company is completely different and not comparable to a coworking space; and secondly, users are autonomous in their usage. The obligation to comply with strict legal requirements would change the heterogeneous microstructure that makes every coworking space unique. Nonetheless, the implementation of adequate health assessments and interventions are recommended for coworkers’ health.

6 Conclusion

The findings of this study provide information about reasons and motives for working in coworking spaces. Possible job demands and job resources with regard to (co)working conditions were described. More research is needed in order to investigate the feasibility of health promoting workplace concepts especially regarding the individual resources and demands of the users and coworking spaces differ from each other.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all coworkers and experts for their time and cooperativeness. Without their participation and assistance this study would not have been possible.

References

Rief

, Stiefel

K-P

, Weiss

, Bauer

. Faszination Coworking: Potenziale für Unternehmen und ihre Mitarbeiter (The fascination of coworking) 2014. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer-Verl.

Schürmann

. Coworking Space: Geschäftsmodell für Entrepreneure und Wissensarbeiter (Business model for entrepreneurs and knowledge workers). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2013.

Kwiatkowski

, Buczynski

. Coworking: Building Community as a Space Catalyst, 2011.

Foertsch

. 4.5 New Coworking Spaces per Day. 2013. http://www.deskmag.com/en/2500-coworking-spaces-4-5-per-day-741 (15. October 2017, date last accessed).

Foertsch

, Cagnol

. The History Of Coworking In A Timeline. 2013. http://www.deskmag.com/en/the-history-of-coworking-spaces-in-a-timeline (15. October 2017, date last accessed).

Hartmann

. Coworking oder auch die (De-) Mediatisierung von Arbeit (Coworking or the (de)mediatization of work). In: Wimmer

, Hartmann

, editors. Medien-Arbeit im Wandel: Theorie und Empirie zur Arbeit mit und in Medien. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2016. pp. 177–204.

Foertsch

. The Coworker’s Profile. 2011. http://www.deskmag.com/en/the-coworkers-global-coworking-survey-168 (15. October 2017, date last accessed).

Bakker

, Demerouti

. The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007;22:309–28.

Grunt

. Analyse der Arbeitsbedingungen von Freelancern (Analysis for working conditions of freelancer), 2007.

10.

Cagnol

. The hidden treasures of coworking. 2013. http://www.deskmag.com/en/coworking-library-studies-881 (15. October 2017, date last accessed).

11.

Döring

. Zusammen flexibel ist man weniger allein? Eine empirische Analyse der neuen Arbeitsform Coworking als Möglichkeit der Wissensgenerierung (empirical analysis of coworking as possibility for gaining knowledge), 2010.

12.

Pohler

. Neue Arbeitsräume für neue Arbeitsformen: Coworking Spaces (New work spaces for new types of work). Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie. 2012;37:65–78.

13.

Spinuzzi

. Working alone together. Journal of Business and Technical Communication. 2012;26:399–441.

14.

Gerdenitsch

, Scheel

, Andorfer

, Korunka

. Coworking Spaces: A Source of Social Support for Independent Professionals. Frontiers in Psychology. 2016;7:581.

15.

Clasen

. Die Arbeitsbedingungen von Freelancern: Entwicklung und Validierung eines Instruments zur stressbezogenen Analyse der Arbeit von Freelancern (Working conditions of freelancers: Development and validation of an instrument for a stress related analysis) [Dissertation]. Hamburg: Universität Hamburg, 2008.

16.

Creswell

. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, Calif., London, New Dehli, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE, 2013.

17.

Dresing

, Pehl

. Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse: Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende (Transcription and analysis of interviews). 5th ed. Marburg: Dr. Dresing und Pehl GmbH, 2013.

18.

Kuckartz

, Dresing

, Rädiker

, Stefer

. Qualitative Evaluation: Der Einstieg in die Praxis. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften/GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden, 2008.

19.

Mayring

. Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000;2.

20.

Mayring

. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (Qualitative Content Analysis: Basics and techniques). 11th ed. Weinheim: Beltz, 2010.

21.

Techniker Krankenkasse. TK-Job- und Gesundheitsstudie: So geht’s Beschäftigten (Health study of employees), 2016.

22.

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. OSH in figures:Work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the EU - Facts and figures. Luxemburg, 2010.

23.

Proper

, Singh

, van Mechelen

, Chinapaw

MJM

. Sedentary behaviors and health outcomes among adults: A systematic review of prospective studies. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:174–82.

24.

Windel

, Wischniewski

. Büromöbel und Arbeitshaltung (Office furniture and body posture). In: Seidler

, Euler

, Letzel

, Nowak

, editors. Gesunde Gestaltung von Büroarbeitsplätzen: Arbeitsmedizinische Aspekte, physikalische Einflussfaktoren, Gefahrstoffexposition, Organisationsformen. Landsberg am Lech: Ecomed Medizin, 2015.

25.

Alkhajah

, Reeves

, Eakin

, Winkler

EAH

, Owen

, Healy

. Sit-stand workstations: A pilot intervention to reduce office sitting time. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:298–303.

26.

Engelen

, Chau

, Bohn-Goldbaum

, Young

, Hespe

, Bauman

. Is Active Design changing the workplace? - A natural pre-post experiment looking at health behaviour and workplace perceptions. Work. 2017;56:229–37.

27.

Mahmud

, Kenny

, Md Zein

, Hassan

. Ergonomic training reduces musculoskeletal disorders among office workers: Results from the 6-month follow-up. Malays J Med Sci. 2011;18:16–26.

28.

van Niekerk

S-M

, Louw

, Hillier

. The effectiveness of a chair intervention in the workplace to reduce musculoskeletal symptoms. A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:145.

29.

Plischke

. Beleuchtung (lighting) - Human Centric Lighting. In: Seidler

Euler

Letzel

Nowak

30.

Perrin Jegen

, Chevret

. Effect of noise on comfort in open-plan offices: Application of an assessment questionnaire. Ergonomics. 2017;60:6–17.

31.

Maue

. Akustik (acoustics). In: Seidler

, Euler

, Letzel

, Nowak

32.

Bux

. Klima (climate). In: Seidler

, Euler

, Letzel

, Nowak

33.

Janssen

, Nachreiner

. Health and psychosocial effects of flexible working hours. Rev Saude Publica. 2004 ;38(Suppl):11–8.

34.

Spreitzer

, Bacevice

, Garrett

. Why People Thrive in Coworking Spaces. Harvard Business Review. 2015;15.

35.

Immerfall

. Zeitdruck als kulturübergreifender Stressor (Time pressure as cross-cultural stressor). In: Genkova

, Ringeisen

, Leong

FTL

, editors. Handbuch Stress und Kultur: Interkulturelle und kulturvergleichende Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, 2013 , pp. 449–455.

36.

Blasche

. Arbeitspausen (work breaks) - Aus Sicht der Erholungsforschung. Österreichisches Forum Arbeitsmedizin, 2014.

37.

Rigotti

. Kommunikation im Büro (communication in offices). In: Seidler

Euler

Letzel

Nowak

38.

Sarkar

, Taylor

, Lai

, Shegog

, Paxton

. Social support for physical activity: Comparison of family, friends, and coworkers. Work. 2016;55:893–9.

39.

Holton

, Barry

, Chaney

. Employee stress management: An examination of adaptive and maladaptive coping strategies on employee health. Work. 2015;53:299–305.

40.

van Nes

, Abma

, Jonsson

, Deeg

. Language differences in qualitative research: Is meaning lost in translation? European Journal of Ageing. 2010;7:313–6.

41.

Niederberger

, Ruddat

. “Let’s talk about sex!” On the Applicability of Telephone Interviews in Qualitative Social Research, 2012.

42.

Sullivan

. Skype: An Appropriate Method of Data Collection for Qualitative Interviews? The Hilltop Review, 2012.

43.

Gläser-Zikuda

. Qualitative Auswertungsverfahren (Qualitative analysis). In: Reinders

, Ditton

, Gräsel

, Gniewosz

, editors. Empirische Bildungsforschung: Strukturen und Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2011, pp. 109–19.

		frequency
Reason and motives	Description	Coworkers	Experts
Community	Social interaction with others	n = 9	n = 6
	Being a member of a community
Alternative to home office	Separation of work and private life	n = 8	n = 4
Professional cooperation	Contact, exchange, collaboration and support on a professional level	n = 5	n = 4
Financial accessibility	Cheap and flexible workplace for individuals	n = 4	n = 4
Professional working environment	Office equipment	n = 3	n = 3
	Working atmosphere to be productive
	Specific opening hours
Geographical accessibility	Short distance between private home and workplace	n = 3	n = 0
External influence	Decision on the workplace was made by employer	n = 2	n = 0
Organizational structures	Flexible work place and working hours	n = 2	n = 0
No responsibility for organizational tasks