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

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].

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig.1

Job demands-resources model adapted from [8].

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.

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.

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.

4.1 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).

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.

4.4 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.

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.

5.1 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.

5.3 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.