European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/emj

“We were working together, apart”: Shifting fundamentals of pandemic

disrupted coworking environments
Marko Orel a, *, Manuel Mayerhoffer a, Zuzana Chytkova b
a
Department of Entrepreneurship, Prague University of Economics and Business, nám. Winstona Churchilla 1938/4, 130 67, Praha 3-Žižkov, Czech Republic
b
Department of Marketing, Prague University of Economics and Business, nám. Winstona Churchilla 1938/4, 130 67, Praha 3-Žižkov, Czech Republic

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper investigates the alterations of the coworking space model due to the disruptive nature of the COVID-
Coworking 19 pandemic, focusing on changes in users’ well-being, productivity, and engagement in community-driven
COVID-19 activities. Employing in-depth interviews, participant observations, and autoethnographic self-observations,
Disruption
the study explores the transition from a community-based work environment reliant on users’ proximity to a
Community-management
Well-being
hybrid workspace, where digitalised interactions complement users’ physical presence. The findings reveal that
Productivity although the digitalisation of coworking processes does not necessarily yield positive outcomes for users,
implementing effective virtual environments can provide greater flexibility, maintain the interplay between well-
being and productivity, and connect entrepreneurial ecosystems across regional and national boundaries. The
paper’s main contribution is thus the exploration of the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on coworking space dy­
namics and the transition towards a hybrid model that combines digital and physical presence to sustain
community-oriented atmospheres and further support users’ well-being and productivity.

1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted livelihoods and
transformed workplaces (Xiao et al., 2021). Many knowledge workers
started working from home, leading to work–family conflicts, reduced
productivity, and impacts on their physical and mental well-being
(Aplin-Houtz et al., 2021). In search of better remote work settings,
neighbourhood coworking sites became popular alternatives to tradi­
tional offices (Gruenwald, 2020; Reschke et al., 2021). Coworking
spaces, known for their social nature, offer flexible, membership-based
environments that foster collaboration and positively affect work per­
formance and well-being (Spinuzzi, 2012; Orel & Dvouletý, 2020; Par­
rino, 2015). Through collective action (Butcher, 2018; Orel & Bennis,
2021), individuals take mediated opportunities and affective atmo­
spheres to interconnect in supportive networks, commonly seen as
coworking communities (Orel & Alonso Almeida, 2019; Waters-Lynch &
Duff, 2021).
With venues relying on physical proximity, coworking spaces were
impacted by health measures to curb the COVID-19 spread (Alonso-Al­
meida et al., 2021). Social distancing diminished their appeal as pro­
ductivity boosters. Despite this, studies show coworking spaces retained
users during the pandemic’s first wave and later expanded due to
incoming remote workers from closed offices, particularly in urban areas
of Western countries (Gruenwald, 2020; Mayerhoffer, 2021). Coworking
spaces have implemented various measures, such as hygiene guidelines,
capacity restrictions, workspace modifications, and transitioned to
digital alternatives for community activities, which have led to a
decrease in physical proximity and collaboration (Jones, 2020; Berbe­
gal-Mirabent, 2021; Ceinar and Mariotti, 2021).
With the advent of COVID-19, many coworking spaces embraced
digital transformation, transitioning to offering digital memberships,
virtual collaborative platforms, and online community events, all to
preserve the essence of community-driven connection (Mayerhoffer,
2021). However, these organisational shifts have raised concerns about
their effects on coworking users’ well-being and productivity (Bouncken
and Aslam, 2021a). Such changes prompt questions about whether these
hybrid models can genuinely replicate in-person experiences and retain
the benefits traditionally associated with coworking spaces. Although it
is clear that coworking spaces have pivoted to sustain community con­
nections digitally, the impact of these adaptations on users’ mental
well-being and productivity remains uncertain. Recognising these gaps,
our inquiry is directed towards the following three research questions,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: marko.orel@vse.cz (M. Orel), maym03@vse.cz (M. Mayerhoffer), zuzana.chytkova@vse.cz (Z. Chytkova).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.002
Received 5 October 2022; Received in revised form 18 September 2023; Accepted 18 December 2023
Available online 30 December 2023
0263-2373/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Marko Orel et al., European Management Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.12.002
M. Orel et al.
starting with RQ1: how has COVID-19 affected the well-being and
perceived productivity of users of open-plan coworking spaces? Second
(RQ2.1), how have restrictions on physical proximity influenced in­
teractions within shared areas of coworking spaces, assuming that the
pandemic has potentially shifted the fundamentals of these environ­
ments, impacting the sociomateriality of user experiences? Third
(RQ2.2), to what degree can digital solutions replace their physical
equivalents in coworking environments, assuming that the coworking
spaces and their processes supporting users’ well-being and their
perceived productivity can be digitalised to a certain extent?
To answer these questions, this paper seeks to explore the ramifica­
tions of COVID-19 on users’ well-being and perceived productivity in
open-plan coworking spaces, the effects of physical proximity re­
strictions on interactions within communal areas, and the potential for
digital solutions to supplant their physical counterparts in these settings.
Our approach involves a multi-stage study, incorporating active obser­
vation of participants across four coworking venues during the pan­
demic’s initial waves, scrutiny of the support structures established by
coworking spaces and their managers, and exploring the digital tools
used to replicate social and communal aspects of coworking. Upon
analysing the gathered data and deliberating on the findings, this study
seeks to discern the pandemic’s impact on user well-being, productivity,
and interpersonal dynamics within coworking spaces while evaluating
the efficacy of digital solutions.
2. Literature review
2.1. The rising popularity of coworking spaces
Coworking spaces offer a dynamic blend of flexibility, allowing in­
dividuals to collaboratively “work alone together” within shared office
facilities while also engaging in networking events that bolster both
social and professional support (Spinuzzi, 2012; Spreitzer et al., 2015).
These spaces are designed to assemble knowledge workers, fostering a
physical closeness that enhances collaboration (Spinuzzi et al., 2019).
This environment uniquely interweaves passive sociality, characterised
by co-location, physical proximity, and the ambience that surfaces, with
active sociality, where interactions are deliberate and facilitated.
Together, these dimensions of sociality heighten the allure and effec­
tiveness of coworking venues (Bouncken & Aslam, 2019; Garrett et al.,
2017).
Since their grassroots inception in the mid-2000s, coworking envi­
ronments have burgeoned, primarily driven by technological advances
that empower knowledge workers to operate from virtually anywhere
(Rus & Orel, 2015; Orel & Dvouletý, 2020; Bouncken et al., 2020).
Coworking spaces, transcending their initial characterisation as mere
“third places,” have emerged as dynamic hubs for innovation, leveraging
co-location to open up the possibility for mediated social interactions,
thus enhancing users’ productivity, promoting collaboration, and
nurturing community bonds (Barwinski et al., 2020; Bouncken & Aslam,
2021a; De Peuter et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2019). Categories range from
individual-purposed spaces catering to freelancers and remote pro­
fessionals to more specialised domains like creation-purposed, group-­
purposed, and startup-purposed environments, each tailored to distinct
needs and professional contexts (Bouncken and Reuschl, 2018; Orel &
Bennis, 2021). Bridging this evolution, the rise of coworking venues as
lively and vibrant sites reflects their capacity for co-creation (Goermar
et al., 2021), merging work and social elements, offering professionals a
sense of belonging, enhanced visibility, and robust local-to-global
networking opportunities (Bouncken et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2019).
Their allure as the “in” place to be is further heightened by the frame­
work of sociomateriality, emphasising the symbiotic relationship be­
tween the physical infrastructure and human engagement (Bouncken,
Aslam, & Qiu, 2021). This perspective underscores the importance of
physical sites in shaping interactions, with coworking spaces driving
communication, linkages, and uniformity through their spatial
2
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
architecture, shared amenities, and digital tools (Aslam et al., 2021).
There are a handful of reasons for the broad appeal of coworking
environments stems from the benefits these spaces offer. First, cow­
orking spaces are viewed as positively influencing an individual’s well-
being by creating comfortable environments supporting users’ need for
flexibility and accessibility. An open-layout and shared amenities mean
that users work in proximity to each other (Parrino, 2015), providing
fertile ground for cultivating formal and informal relationships (Ross &
Ressia, 2015). Coworking management often moderates internal
networking activities, encouraging users to form connections and
providing them with opportunities for mutual support, resulting in
better work performance (Rus & Orel, 2015). Such active moderation is
conducted by so-called “community managers” who knit ties between
users who are not affiliated with the same organisation and thus lack
pre-established links through curating an affective, community-based
atmosphere (Orel & Alonso Almeida, 2019). Besides the active media­
tion, coworking spaces foster knowledge-sharing and sustainability by
exposing sustainability goals in their manifestos, communities, and
physical spaces, with knowledge-creation processes influenced by the
local community and environment (Bouncken et al., 2023). The latter
goes in line with the findings of Bouncken and Aslam (2019), who
highlight that coworking spaces facilitate tacit knowledge exchange,
social disembodiment of ideas, domain-related knowledge sharing, and
inter-domain learning through spatial co-location and collaboration
opportunities, suggesting institutionalised knowledge management
services enhancing outcomes.
Waters-Lynch and Duff (2021) discuss the “affective commons”, a
product of the “collective encounter”; or the interaction an individual
has with human and non-human elements. Users’ active engagement
with the space and amongst themselves forms a ‘buzz’ and a ‘vibe’
within a coworking site, and these compositional dynamics, in turn,
result in an affective ambience that supports users’ well-being and knits
them in networks of support. Coworking spaces use active and passive
mechanisms to construct a nurturing environment where individuals
build a community, obtain a sense of belonging, and identify a cow­
orking space as a ‘third place’ or a social surrounding that they perceive
as beneficial to their well-being (Brown, 2017).
Coworking spaces are routinely associated with positively impacting
an individual’s productivity. De Peuter et al. (2017) noted that working
independently from home can be problematic, mainly due to the dis­
tractions associated with losing a physical separation between work and
personal or family life. Conversely, ‘third places’ such as neighbourhood
cafés and libraries lack an affective ambience and can neither resemble
nor replicate a dedicated workplace. Endrissat and
Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (2021) concluded that hardware technology,
such as work-related tools, represents a crucial element in the material
environment purposed for individualised work optimisation. Having
other identifiable independent workers positioned in physical proximity
to each other creates a physical and intangible structure.
Moreover, as coworking spaces tend to encourage social interaction,
knowledge exchange, and networking between users, they can be
viewed as places that serve the role of the traditional office environment
and enhance it with leisure and socio-cultural activities. Such an envi­
ronment can facilitate the delivery of timely and accurate outputs by
knowledge workers (Bouncken & Reuschl, 2018). In line with that,
Bueno et al. (2018) confirmed a positive correlation between worker
productivity and the social benefits of regularly using a selected cow­
orking space. Coworking spaces also help to curb the blurriness between
an individual’s work and everyday life, assisting them in maintaining an
adequate work–life balance and leading to users’ ability to structure a
productive workday (Orel and Alonso Almeida, 2019).
However, these attributes of the coworking space model are pri­
marily a result of co-presence and group attendance within the physical
space. With the pandemic-driven disruption and social distancing
measures, it became unclear whether and how the pandemic would
impact users’ well-being and productivity, given the prospect of users
M. Orel et al.
losing their physical contact and relation to each other.
2.2. The pandemic-driven transformation of coworking spaces
Scholarly literature on how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted
the coworking model is relatively sparse and points towards a series of
knowledge gaps. What we do know, however, is that the pandemic has
largely disrupted businesses that rely upon users’ physical proximity to
meet their target groups’ needs. By restricting access to ‘plug and play’
physical infrastructure (Merkel, 2015), the simultaneous presence of
independent knowledge workers abruptly ceased, limiting opportunities
for users to interact, knit relationships and collaborate amongst them­
selves (Mayerhoffer, 2021).
It is crucial to classify measures these worksites have taken to curb
the spread of the novel coronavirus. First, most coworking spaces un­
dertook a soft approach of suggesting how users can protect themselves
and one another. These measures included hygienic guidelines (Ceinar
& Mariotti, 2021), circulation of usage guides and posting of visual
displays within the workspace (Jones, 2020) and clearly communicated
advice on how to use the common areas while keeping the expected
distance (Mayerhoffer, 2021). The extent to which users of coworking
spaces have followed these suggested guidelines has gone unreported.
Having said that, the second group of measurements could be labelled as
more restrictive and included limiting the usage capacity (Gruenwald,
2020), restricting access to and within the common areas (Berbe­
gal-Mirabent, 2021), modifying open workspace, and separating work­
tables (Alonso-Almeida et al., 2021).
Moreover, some coworking spaces went a step further to contain
previously triumphed physical proximity by cutting down the open-
ended common areas and redesigning them in private offices (Mayer­
hoffer, 2021). These adaptations have led to a decrease in the sense of
physical proximity and collaboration that was once a hallmark of cow­
orking spaces (Berbegal-Mirabent, 2021). Losing in-person interactions,
spontaneous networking opportunities and knowledge sharing nega­
tively impacted users’ well-being and productivity (Jones, 2020).
The third set of measures could be seen as trimming the prevailing
proximity principle by cancelling onsite community activities and
revising them to promote digital nearness. These measures included
ending joint sessions within the physical space (Berbegal-Mirabent,
2021) and moving them online. On the one hand, Mayerhoffer (2021)
notes that some coworking spaces initially started offering digital
memberships where homebound workers could use relevant online
services (e.g., chatrooms, group Zoom sessions, etc.). On the other hand,
Ceinar and Mariotti (2021) observe that a large proportion of coworking
spaces virtualised their activities and mimicked onsite activities by
organising online morning coffee sessions, virtual community lunches,
and fully digitalised learning activities. However, it remains unknown if
the said virtualisation of community-based activities and digitalising the
proximity can be as effective as in-person events in fostering camara­
derie, promoting a sense of belonging, and subsequently impacting
users’ well-being and productivity. Amid uncertainties, this study ad­
dresses the three key research questions outlined in the introduction.
Specifically, the research seeks to understand how COVID-19 has
affected well-being and perceived productivity in open-plan coworking
spaces and how the pandemic has altered interactions within these
shared spaces, especially regarding the potential digitisation of pro­
cesses that bolster users’ well-being and productivity.
By addressing these questions, we aim to examine the transition from
pre-pandemic coworking models based primarily on close physical in­
teractions to hybrid workspaces where digital communication comple­
ments in-person collaboration to overcome the social distancing and
restricted interaction that may impact the users’ well-being and
perceived productivity. Therefore, through this study, we strive to
demonstrate the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on coworking spaces. We
explore the transition towards a hybrid model combining digital and
physical presence to sustain user-centred and community-oriented
3
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
atmospheres and further support users’ well-being and perceived
productivity.
3. Methodological approach and data analysis
In flexible workspaces such as coworking environments, users’
behaviour includes various dissimilar preferences, interactions with
other workspace users, social norms, expectations, and subsequent
choices (Babapour & Cordero, 2022). With that in mind, a qualitative
contextual inquiry is commonly recommended to obtain rich data
(Bouncken, Qiu, et al., 2021) to help comprehend users’ workspace
usage patterns and their relationship with the office environment and
with other individuals (Fritz, 2014).
Intending to explore coworking space users’ understanding of how
their work performance and well-being changed due to the pandemic,
the study employed an in-depth qualitative interview technique, com­
plemented by ethnographic observations of selected coworking sites and
researchers’ self-observations. The user-centric research has been
designed to shed light on how individuals responded to evolving con­
ditions in their respective coworking space, with a particular focus on
their perceived work performance and discerned well-being.
Triangulation ensured a rich and comprehensive understanding of
the disrupted coworking environments and user-centric processes. The
study triangulated three qualitative data collection techniques carried
out within four leading coworking spaces in Prague to enhance the
generalisation of the findings within the parameters of the difficulties
around generalisation inherent to qualitative research.
3.1. Data collection & analysis
Authors have assumed the role of regular users as fully immersed
participant-observers, completing their observations in four individual-
purposed coworking environments in Prague’s Czech capital. The time
spent in these four spaces has been capped at an average of 50 h each,
totalling 200 h together, and conducted within the first and the second
waves of the pandemic between April 2020 and February 2021. The
extended period included months with more severe social distancing
measures and the summer months with slightly fewer measures. The
exposure to these varying degrees of social distancing has allowed for a
more accurate observation of the transition in dynamics and allowed for
more robust comparison.
All four coworking spaces were similar in size (around 400–500 m2),
members’ capacity (an average of 100 users) and pre-pandemic occu­
pancy (around 80–90%), with their location being positioned in central
Prague. Predominantly catering to individual users, the sampled cow­
orking spaces have been designed mainly for individual use (as opposed
to the group-purposed coworking spaces), and their community man­
agement approach and overall set-up were closely aligned with this
focus. Individual-purposed coworking spaces foster users’ well-being
and productivity by providing a supportive work environment that en­
courages social interaction, inter-institutional collaboration, and au­
tonomy while still offering the benefits of a structured, professional
space; the following study concentrated on the latter type of coworking
environment (Orel & Bennis, 2021).
As observed in Fig. 1, the three-part research process has been
structured as follows. First, the authors set a conceptual framework (see
Fig. 2) to explore how sampled coworking spaces transformed
throughout the first year of the pandemic and how users have inter­
preted the impact of these measures on their perceived well-being and
productivity. Two central aspects drove the development of the con­
ceptual framework. On the one hand, the impact of emerging work-
related policies (work-from-home, work-from-anywhere, social
distancing measures in the office) on worker outcomes has instigated
frequent discussions amongst practitioners and scholars, with media
coverage surging rapidly. On the other hand, we were aware of the
overwhelmingly positive evidence of user outcomes in coworking
M. Orel et al.
Fig. 1. Research process overview.
Fig. 2. Conceptual framework.
spaces. Still, we observed changing dynamics due to social distancing
measures during earlier COVID-19 infection waves. Based on that, we
developed the conceptual framework in iterative discussions to structure
our planned study and shed more light on the implications of these new
measures for the specific case of coworking space users and their
outcomes.
Based on the conceptual framework, the author team developed a
detailed interview guide protocol and participant observation guide­
lines. Notably, the observation guidelines were crucial due to the im­
mersion of the three scholars as participant-observers, with a focus on
understanding the changes around: a) spatial configuration (workspace
layout, workspace equipment, presence of spatial mechanisms); b)
mediation mechanisms (role of moderators, type of moderating tools,
organisational culture); and c) descriptive frequency of interactions
(planned and unplanned interactions, isolated working within the
workspace, exchanges between moderators and users). The field notes
have been collected using a shared online folder, visible to all involved
authors. This was especially useful for capturing our reflections-in-
action of moments of insight (Jonsen et al., 2018) and comparing our
observations in regular reporting and debate sessions, where we also
discussed challenges that we had faced in the research (e.g., a spike in
cases, occurred phenomena, etc.).
Second, after each observation period, authors disclosed their role as
researchers and signed up for full-time memberships to blend in with
other users. The community manager, who had initially served as an
access point for data collection in each coworking space, was
4
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
interviewed. These interviews commenced with questions about the
pandemic’s impact on the workspace and how the managers responded
to these challenges. Additionally, changes in the members’ needs and
behaviour were addressed. Lastly, the role of community management
and virtual coworking as an alternative to onsite proximity working
were discussed. Interviewing the community managers also helped
better understand the shifting dynamics from the point of users and the
management and governance of the coworking space. Moreover, their
perspectives provided further context to the data obtained from users.
Table 1 indicates a total of 24 interviews: four with community
managers and 20 with members across coworking spaces. The study,
focusing on individual-purposed coworking spaces, ensured diverse
participant representation by age, gender, and occupation for compre­
hensive insights. Researchers’ immersion and interaction with commu­
nity managers facilitated selecting participants who aptly represented
the space. These interviews delved into the coworking spaces’ signifi­
cance, especially post-COVID-19, emphasising well-being, productivity,
and shifts towards virtual coworking. Adopting a semi-structured
approach based on core questions, the exchanges provided a blend of
structured insights and open dialogues, averaging around an hour each.
Third, autoethnographic notes complemented the interview data.
The data was collected throughout the 2020–2021 period of the
pandemic, during which the effects of the novel coronavirus had still not
been fully understood. The authors subsequently exposed themselves to
possible infection by working alongside other individuals. In this regard,
it is necessary to evocatively and analytically note how authors
M. Orel et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 results.
Interviewees’ characteristics. This approach has resulted in the development of a post-pandemic
Coworking Coworking Coworking Coworking coworking space model that reflects upon the core themes and corre­
space A space B space C space D sponds to users’ evolved perceptions of well-being and productivity.
Interview Employed in Freelance Freelance Freelance With that in mind, the following section first outlines the pre-pandemic
1 marketing, consultant, writer, consultant, functioning of the coworking spaces, before delving into the concrete
male, late 30s male, early female, late male, late 30s disruptions and alterations. Lastly, we propose a post-pandemic cow­
40s 60s orking space model that may enable more flexibility while maintaining
Interview Entrepreneur, Freelance Freelance Employee in
2 female, early programmer, programmer, the service
user outcomes better.
30s male, early male, late 20s industry, male,
40s late 20s 4. Findings
Interview Entrepreneur, Employed in Employed Entrepreneur,
3 male, early 40s an NGO, content female, early
4.1. The pre-pandemic nature of a coworking space and user outcomes
female, mid writer, male, 30s
20s early 30s
Interview Employed in Freelance Freelance Entrepreneur, The pre-pandemic coworking space model observed within the left
4 sales, female, translator, programmer, female, early side of Fig. 5 has traditionally taken the physical space, typically an
mid 30s female, mid male, late 30s 40s open-plan work environment, which has enabled sociality amongst
30s
Interview Employed in Freelance Employed in Employee in
users.
5 the digital educator, the service service As such, and in line with the traditional understanding of coworking
industry, male, male, late 40s industry, industry, as a shared workspace, the respondents underscored the importance of
late 20s male, early female, mid the physical space as the cornerstone of their coworking experience and
30s 20s
a prerequisite for reaping the positive aspects of their membership. The
respondents frequently describe the lack of sociality in other workspaces,
understood the changing nature of coworking spaces and other users’ such as non-coworking shared offices, for instance laptop-friendly cafés,
behaviour through their bodily experience. These notes complemented or corporate workspaces.
the data collection process and were considered during the analysis. Other respondents also pointed to three crucial elements the physical
To capture the intricate concepts within the coworking spaces and space enables: (i) more extended periods for work; (ii) sociomateriality; and
make sense of both the organisational experiences and those of the users, (iii) flexibility of the space. First, the general amenities of the physical site
we used the Gioia methodology as a systemic inductive approach to offer a more protected environment for members (and their guests),
guide the study (Gioia et al., 2013). The said approach enabled us to engendering trust on the part of users that they can leave their personal
comprehend common patterns across the data set and benefit from the belongings unwatched to use the bathroom or go to lunch. Similarly,
immersion of all authors in the coworking spaces. The process unfolded with their membership fee paid, users do not feel pressured to order food
in the following manner: after transcribing the interviews and all au­ and drinks as they do in a café.
thors becoming familiar with the content, the first step was identifying Second, the sociomateriality, emerging due to the coworking site’s
first-order concepts that captured the emerging aspects. Ongoing dis­ physical proximity, fosters a productive atmosphere, enhancing user
cussion sessions enhanced our reflexivity and continuously challenged outcomes in terms of well-being and productivity. One of the ethnog­
our active role in the analysis process (Grodal et al., 2021), ultimately raphers noted the latter, who emphasised the comfortable, home-like
leading to a manageable number of first-order concepts. atmosphere within the observed workspaces. Furthermore, the
Following this, we examined these aspects theoretically, utilising our researcher noted that the highly flexible physical environment enables
expertise as “knowledgeable agents” (Gioia et al., 2013, p. 21) to create individuals to freely move around the space and change the location
second-order themes. After further discussion among the authors, these where they desire to work at any given time:
themes were refined into aggregate dimensions, forming the data One of the respondents said he changes places for different tasks to stay
structure. Whilst the Gioia technique would imply the development of a productive. He sits at the long desk downstairs (where he has a base,
single data structure only, we decided to split the development across meaning his bag), then moves with his computer to the standing desk, then
the two key periods of 1) pre-pandemic and 2) pandemic data and create moves to the gallery space, then makes a phone call […]. (Researcher 1,
two data structures instead. This has allowed to provide more detail in A)
the distinct analyses and aggregate findings afterwards more effectively
for the subsequent discussion, rather than merging the time dimensions Sociality fills the physical spaces through the subthemes of social
during the analysis already. connections (active sociality), mediation & community management, and
To better illustrate the underlying changes, we first established the passive sociality. Whilst overlapping, they differ in core elements and
data structure for findings related to the pre-pandemic state (see Fig. 3). levels of analysis. First, on an individual level, the social connections
This approach allowed for a more comprehensive exploration of pre- constitute crucial parts of the members’ active social life, with one of the
pandemic dynamics and guided our analysis of observed shifts. respondents going as far as describing how their coworking space has
Following the development of the data structure of the pre-pandemic “really been [their] entire social life” (Interviewee C-5) and describing
state, we developed the data structure of findings related to the how “pretty much all the things that [they] do started or connect in some
pandemic disruption (see Fig. 4). By triangulating and cross-comparing way” (Interviewee C-4) to their coworking space.
accounts of pre-pandemic dynamics with pandemic disruptions, we When viewed on a group level, such a multiplicity of serendipitous
could explore the interrelationships of second-order themes and aggre­ encounters and fruitful interaction creates a sense of community.
gate dimensions. The subsequent development of a grounded theory Moreover, with the physical space and its sociality, these co-located
model ensued to illustrate the shift in the fundamental model of an professionals can draw from the high levels of expertise and turn to
individual-purposed coworking space. The compiled fieldnotes and their community when it comes to professional problem-solving and
autoethnographic self-observations took the same content coding advice, as reported by the community manager of coworking space A:
approach, with notes being first rechecked for quality, reflected upon, And here, it is very easy for you to connect with the talented people who
cross-referenced to complement each other, and finally written up in the do this within the community. So, people help each other within this one
form of summarised findings for triangulation and enhancement of space, and there is no need to call an agency or department that is sitting

5
M. Orel et al.
Fig. 3. Data structure – pre-pandemic.
in another country, for example, where you would have a hard time ar­
ranging it. (Manager A)
To enhance and improve the sociality of the coworking space,
mediation or community management emerged as a core contributing
6
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
factor. In describing their self-perception of their role as a community
manager of coworking space D, the respondent specifically highlights
both the individualised needs of members, as well as how they aim to
create an environment to accommodate these needs and allow each user
to benefit from their coworking experience in the way they each prefer:
M. Orel et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 4. Data structure – pandemic disruption.

Well, I just want them to feel like at home and to love to come here. […]
And then I want to teach them how to be independent and enjoy it by
themselves because I cannot lead anyone by hand, even though some of
them I have like that [laughter]. So, for me, it’s to build up the environ­
ment for them to feel safe and feel happy, so they can enjoy their work
from here and get something back from it, either contacts or socialising or
events or whatever. (Manager D)
With the physical and social spaces in mind, we find evidence that
coworking spaces enable an affective common ground through passive so­
ciality for their members. As such, the collective effort of the social actors
in this physical space creates a beneficial atmosphere, driving the
members forward:
I needed a place where I would be surrounded with people who were
working a lot. Let’s say like working hard. Before I was doing, was coming
here, I was mostly working at home, but then … and coffee bars as fun, but
was liking like social contact. It’s difficult to start talking with people in a
coffee bar. So then I needed a space where I could have this social contact,
but also when we were working hard at it, it really stimulates me to, if I see
other people working around me, It stimulates me to work as well. And the
social contact, just having short conversations over coffee is great. I really
need that. (Interviewee C-4)
Thus, the physical space, and the way in which members fill it

7
M. Orel et al.
Fig. 5. Pandemic disruption of coworking spaces.
through their social interaction (while also providing a quiet co-location
for the sake of productivity), creates an atmosphere that allows members
to balance productive work and social contact in the way they desire.
This sociomateriality, put in the words of a researcher who has self-
observed her changing level of productivity:
Today, I’m sitting at the gallery. It has more a private feeling to it, as you
look out and the desks are rather large. This being more of a private place
is also documented by the fact that people take out more stuff to the table
(snacks, cups, bottles …). I, too, feel like I can set up camp here with more
comfort, at the table downstairs – I do not feel so free, as there are many
other people sitting around. Today, there are two people sitting there at the
long table and they chat continually, which is quite disturbing. I’m glad
I’m up. (Researcher 1, A)
The above-described pillars function as the building blocks for the
interplay between individual productivity and well-being. Members
experience a higher level of well-being due to their connections with
other members in the coworking space, which leads to higher perceived
levels of productivity, and vice versa. Respondent C-4 also debunks the
supposed waste of time associated with social interaction when viewing
productivity as the highest priority, noting how the interconnectedness
of well-being and productivity is enhanced when time is invested to
engage with other members:
The social aspect when I talk to people, I think it lifts up your mood
somehow. When you’re happy, you’re more productive. So in that way,
even if I would probably lose some time that I spend on talking with
people, I still, at the end of the day, I’m more productive than if I would be
when completely alone, working at home or from some other place.
(Interviewee C-4)
In addition to how the environment, built around the physical and
social space, enhances individual outcomes, the interviewees further
accentuate the direct link between social interaction and those out­
comes. With coworking space users typically consisting of unaffiliated
individuals, respondent D-2 stresses how they perceive higher levels of
8
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
happiness by default, instead of the somewhat lower levels of happiness
in corporate environments. The coworking-specific “happiness spill­
overs” appear to add to the positive atmosphere:
I think, you know, when you see smiling everyone for the whole day
and everyone is smiling to you, it’s somehow … it’s just nicer than when
you see it, the sad faces of your colleagues, that maybe are not so
satisfied with the task that they are getting. You can always find a lot of
happy people. Maybe that is also a plus of coworking. I think, generally,
there are like a lot of really happy people. Because a lot of them are
private entrepreneurs and they do what they want, you know, as
opposed to the office where everyone is working for a company for
someone, and they’re not so happy. (Interviewee D-2).
Similarly, the members can take advantage of various offers and
events to draw learning from coworking and grow personally and pro­
fessionally. For instance, Respondent B-3 discusses how collaboration
with a local summer school they attended as a student, as well as the
frequent lectures and newsletters, complement their experience in the
coworking space:
These are always three short lectures, 20 minutes long, they are topics that
in some way try to promote science and some topics. Mostly young pro­
fessionals who work in the field speak there. And since it’s in collabora­
tion with the summer academy, which is a summer school for high school
students, where I went as an organiser, lecturer, and actually as a high
school student, there’s always a person from us who speaks there, so I
know people there and it’s nice that it’s in the space where I work. […].
And sometimes I actually go to other things that they mediate. So the
[coworking space] seems great to me in that it also offers these different
events. (Interviewee B-3)
4.2. Pandemic-driven disruption
With the COVID-19 pandemic, the outlined dynamics in coworking
spaces have been disrupted (see Fig. 5, right side), and these disruptions
are likely to alter the coworking model over the long-term. Elements of
M. Orel et al.
the pre-pandemic model have shifted as coworking spaces grapple with
the impact of the new circumstances, rapidly altering and adjusting their
operations and in so doing, upsetting the balance which underpins the
coworking experience.
As a result of the imposed restrictions and lockdown measures,
coworking spaces were forced to adapt to the physical space set-up to
meet the new requirements around social distancing, wearing of face
masks, and using disinfectants. Where possible, coworking spaces
remodelled their floor plans, as with coworking space D:
Basically, each room that was empty they could use and work from. So it
wasn’t that hard to find your own spot in a time when it got a bit crowded,
the weather was nicer, so we could use the garden as well, still people had
to wear masks, and afterwards the rules changed and the workspace was
available without masks, so you didn’t have to have it. Actually, this
helped a lot, when people didn’t want to work from here when they had to
be in a mask full time. So, when this changed, many more people came
back. (Manager D)
Where the coworking space remained open, the goal was to create
the feeling of a COVID-safe container, creating a set of rules within the
environment to enable users to use the physical space still and feel
comfortable about doing so. In this regard, Respondent B-2 recalls how
the efforts of the coworking space to comply with the rules created a
sense that they were contributing to the “flattening of the curve,” a
phrase used during the first and second infection waves in Czechia to
describe such public health measures:
I felt like they were complying with the rules, like wearing masks, for
example, when people were here wearing masks, I felt it’s good. You
know, we’re preventing the spreading of the disease. So, yeah, I think it
was a good thing. (Interviewee B-2)
One of the researchers observed unplanned mechanisms that users
started to employ to create social distance between themselves and other
individuals:
It is visible that individuals prefer not to share the tables with other users:
each desk has at least two chairs behind it. People visually “reserve” these
chairs with their personal objects in order to occupy them. (Researcher 2,
C)
With fewer users at the physical coworking space, and some deciding
to work from home until they felt safe returning, the interviews reveal
that members longed for face-to-face interaction. For example, respon­
dent D-3 outlines the various phases they went through:
Around April [month with the tightest restrictions], I decided to stay at
home because I knew I can work from home. […] It was not so bad. But
then after one month I felt like I need socialising with people. I knew that
there were not so many people here anyway, and you have to be careful.
But once I understood that, okay, it’s getting better. (Interviewee D-3)
Despite the need for socialisation, a researcher observed that one of
the selected coworking spaces ceased holding mediation activities
entirely. However, it appears that the openness of a physical space still
played a role in supporting unplanned interactions, as users still tended
to socialise to a limited extent:
There are no community events at the moment. In comparison with the
pre-pandemic period, it seems that the mediated activity has been reduced
to a bare minimum, while the non-moderated and spontaneous in­
teractions are much more common. (Researcher 2, C)
It appears that after the first month of working solely from home, the
desire for both active social interactions and the passive sociality from
co-location became much stronger, affecting their well-being. The
experience is mirrored by other respondents such as B-4 in describing
how the renewed opportunity for interaction with “living people …
other than family members” benefitted their outcomes:
9
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
It’s definitely support. It’s the difference between working at home and
working here, and even though I live in a house in the nature, I perceived it
as effective in retrospect, the numbers were great, so the first day I came
here, it was really refreshing for me. (Interviewee B-4)
With coworking space users working from home and frequently in
solitude, the respondents seem to have both i) shifted their under­
standing of productivity and well-being and ii) suffered from some
feelings of anxiety due to the pandemic. This can be attributed to the
absence of a physical coworking space and the relative lack of social
interaction and “vibe” they had previously enjoyed.
I think I realised that it’s really up to everyone, how they manage to deal
with it, because suddenly there was a lot of free time and it really
depended on you what you did with it. Yeah, there was almost no external
pressure […]. One probably realises that it’s up to them how to do it, but
that they could then transfer it to the ordinary post-covid life. (Inter­
viewee B-4)
Additionally, the interviewees frequently reported on pandemic-
induced strain and anxiety, particularly those working as freelancers,
solo-entrepreneurs, or as part of small companies. With the pandemic
taking a toll on businesses, the related worries appear to have compelled
the interviewees to rethink their approach to professional activities to
ensure their businesses stay afloat.
So, in Corona, for instance, I’m additionally stressing out about money. I
feel like I need to make some extra money in case some other project falls
off or something doesn’t work. […] It’s like … it’s putting this additional
strain in the back of your head, also whilst working, I’m also thinking like
… is it impressive enough? It’s additional … additional stress, which I’m
usually not having because I’m pretty aware of what kind of output I
should produce. (Interviewee D-5)
The shifting thoughts appear to shape the respondents’ future
approach to work by identifying core activities that maximise value,
whilst focusing on well-being in avoiding unnecessarily long working
hours and lower-value activities. The following quote from Respondent
A-2 exemplifies this well:
I changed this during the coronavirus, and I believe now that it is enough if
a person works for three or four hours, on the things they have to work on,
it will move forward. […] And if I’m dealing with this and seeing the
results there, I feel like I’m not unnecessarily digging into details that are
insignificant, so that’s good. (Interviewee A-2)
4.3. Coping mechanisms and (inefficient) digitalisation
With the pre-pandemic balance within coworking spaces disrupted,
we see a range of coping strategies pursued. Specifically, facilities
frequently implemented digital solutions to substitute for the lack of
social interaction in a physical environment. Yet, whilst seemingly
beneficial for the well-being and productivity of members, the evidence
paints a rather grim picture concerning the effectiveness of such virtual
environments.
To cope with the pandemic’s new situation, the data revealed a
substantial shift towards the digital environment to compensate for the
loss of the physical site, the related interactional effects, and the atmo­
sphere so crucial for the interplay of well-being and productivity. The
structure and function of virtual interaction can take on various forms.
For example, we find evidence of more active sociality, such as member
lunches, coffee breaks, and other informal events, which have been
shifted to the digital environment with little change. Second, to rekindle
the coworking atmosphere, users can take advantage of virtual cow­
orking sessions for passive sociality, as highlighted by the community
manager of coworking space C:
So, as I said, this event [meaning virtual coworking sessions] is more for
creating the coworking atmosphere, even working remotely and people,
M. Orel et al.
let’s say they just work together at the same time, for like 20 to 25 mi­
nutes, and then they take five minute break to discuss the ideas. So, it’s
kind of like a brainstorming. (Manager C)
The members’ longing for interaction was reflected in the digital
environment. The community manager of coworking space D even
remarked on how previously passive members were much more inclined
to join digital events:
Well, when they were at home, some of them were actually more active.
[laughter] They felt alone, so they joined our events. I met some of the
people that never joined physical members lounge, but they came to the
coffee. (Manager D)
To continue their efforts in community-building under the new cir­
cumstances, the role of the community managers seems to have
expanded to include keeping in touch with members and facilitating
their interaction in the virtual environment. The community manager of
coworking space B, for instance, reported:
To try and keep the community together, I’ve talked to more or less all the
members, our members over the two months over the phone, finding out
how they’re doing, what happened to them, and if we can help them in any
way. (Manager B)
Despite these efforts, however, the initial spike of success in the shift
to the digital environment was short-lived, and participation dropped
quickly. Whilst this came as a surprise to some, the community manager
of coworking space A pointed out how the pandemic has impacted their
members’ personal lives, leaving little room (and perhaps will) to join a
rapidly increasing array of virtual interaction opportunities:
To put it bluntly, it didn’t work, it didn’t work at all as well as the physical
encounter worked here. Just a handful of people got involved. I think it’s
completely natural and to be expected. It is necessary to imagine that
those people, when they started working in their home office, they had
their families, they had their children at home as they did not go to school,
how many times they could not give them to their grandparents because of
quarantine, as they are a vulnerable group. And it should be borne in mind
that these people often had to do far more activities during the day than
they did before. […] now a million different webinars have been pouring
in on you from all sides. (Manager A)
One of the ethnographers regularly took part in these sessions while
‘working together’ within the space and having a sense of loneliness:
These virtual coworking events are meant for users to have a sense to sit
together and rely on the digital proximity to boost their work performance.
We, as users, base our relations on a common goal – to produce as much
as possible – and support each other by sharing relevant skills and
knowledge to those who would need it. However, the last session has seen
a very minimal verbal interaction between users. One of the interviewees is
a regular member of these events and has indicated that these virtual
coworking sessions represent a large proportion of her social life. So, it
appears that verbal interaction is not really necessary and that the people
just work along each other. (Researcher 2, C)
Our interviews with members find varying reasons for the lack of
participation. For some, the offers are simply “not interesting” (D-5) or
they “cannot imagine any value it could give” them (D-1). Others, such
as Respondent C-2, pointed to the disruption to workflow caused by
rigid structures of the virtual coworking sessions in coworking space C,
which used the Pomodoro technique, with 25 min of work and a 5-min
break. He went on to explain:
I guess it could bring more structure to the workday. But … for me, or for
me specifically probably no, just because the nature of the work is not like,
you know, when you get deep into the work, especially the programming,
you don’t want to wrap it up. I don’t want to just break it off and you
don’t want disturbances, right? So … for me, I don’t think so. I did try,
10
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
like, you know, pomodoro, is it that they just didn’t work for me.
(Interviewee C-2)
5. Discussion
The findings initially emphasise coworking environments’ complex
dynamics before the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding RQ1, which ex­
plores how users perceive the role of coworking spaces in their perceived
productivity and personal well-being, we identified several key com­
ponents. The physical location of the coworking space, though less
overtly important now than before the pandemic, is essential for
enabling interactions and consequently shaping sociomateriality
(Bouncken, Qiu, et al., 2021). The interdependency between the phys­
ical site, the social aspects of the space, and the affective atmosphere
contribute to making the coworking space an essential component of
users’ professional and personal lives through the affective commons.
The essence of coworking as a ‘third’ place is manifested in increased
well-being and productivity levels. These two aspects are interdepen­
dent; individuals who feel well are more likely to perform well, and vice
versa.
However, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced new challenges to
coworking users’ well-being and productivity, as reduced in-person in­
teractions and increased remote work have disrupted the balance be­
tween sociality and affective atmosphere, ultimately impacting the
effectiveness of coworking spaces as the said ‘third’ place. Some users
have adapted by leveraging digital tools to maintain connections and
collaboration, thereby mitigating the adverse effects on their well-being
and productivity to a certain extent.
The answer to RQ2.1 should be sought in the impacted and changed
coworking ambience that started to take place after restricting the
physical proximity and moderated interactions between users. With the
COVID-19-pandemic, this balance and the affective commons of cow­
orking have suffered from an evaporation rate (Waters-Lynch & Duff,
2021) in that the pandemic-induced lockdown restrictions and social
distancing measures have caused a failure to sustain the coworking’s
communal ambience, resulting in the disruption of common resources
and benefits. In other words, the pandemic has resulted in a loss of the
positive atmospheric vibe within these coworking spaces, which, in turn,
has affected the outcomes of users and their understanding thereof.
The evaporation of the affective commons was the result of two key
aspects. First, despite enhanced community management efforts, the
lack of active sociality through events and mediated interaction amongst
others was insufficiently substituted in the virtual environment. Second,
due to the restricted use of the physical site and some users deciding to
stay at home entirely, the coworking space members lacked passive
sociality from being around other like-minded people as white noise.
The lack of active and passive sociality has altered the resulting atmo­
spheres and the affective commons they create. In fact, it could be
argued that the newly emerged situations (i.e., social distancing and
virtual interaction) have confronted the community with a novel social
dilemma, for which the affective commons and their underpinning
norms had simply not been prepared yet, and thereby depleting it faster
than it could be regenerated.
The outlined discussions suggest a transition towards a more hybrid
post-pandemic model for the future functioning of coworking spaces,
enabling us to trace the answer for the RQ2.2 in such a hybrid setting, as
shown in Fig. 6 the functioning of the physical space and its effect on the
sociality and the affective commons is enhanced by the virtual envi­
ronment in place. Thus, the intricate dynamics that have paved the way
for the success of coworking have to be reshuffled to allow users to reap
the benefits of their coworking experience. Nevertheless, the original
functioning of the underlying coworking model is less affected and even
improved with the opportunities offered by the expansion to the virtual
space as an additional place of encounter, interaction, and community-
building.
M. Orel et al.
Fig. 6. Post-pandemic coworking space model.
To ensure that the added virtual dimension can be successful, how­
ever, it requires effective management and governance of the affective
commons of the coworking space. Waters-Lynch and Duff (2021) outline
five principles for this purpose. We consider the core principle of
“constructing a narrative of the commons” as crucial, as it provides the
required framing of the value creation process of the coworking spaces.
By ensuring that the inclusion of a virtual coworking environment is
based on shared understanding together with the user base, its adoption
by the community is far more likely. This aspect further underscores the
growing importance of the community managers to navigate the tran­
sition and mediate in a way that allows the remaining principles to
function, i.e. ensuring the value understanding is shared with newly
joining members (principle 2), knitting close relationships with mem­
bers to understand changes of the health of the commons (principle 3),
facilitating contributions and addressing counterproductive behaviour
(principle 4), and lastly, continuing to involve members in decisions
which impact the commons (principle 5).
Implementing an effective virtual environment can also benefit op­
erators in navigating uncertainty. Governmental restrictions tied to
COVID-19 infection rates necessitate a flexible coworking model, pre­
serving well-being and productivity even during lockdowns. This post-
pandemic model emphasizes flexibility in a volatile setting. As seen
throughout the data analysis, COVID-19 has redefined coworking ex­
periences, particularly in understanding well-being and productivity.
For one, the time spent working from home and frequently in solitude
has forced users to reflect on the coworking space’s role and the sense of
community it provides. These realisations have differed strongly across
interviewees. The prolonged home-based work made users reconsider
the coworking space’s community value. Interviewees’ revelations
varied: some cherished family time during remote work, while others
missed in-person interactions at coworking sites.
To our surprise, the experience with endeavours in virtual environ­
ments has fallen short of their anticipated benefits. Despite early spikes
in participation, interest had quickly waned for various reasons. The
collected data shows that digitalisation cannot substitute for the phys­
ical site as the core prerequisite for social interaction to nurture the
affective commons of coworking and nurture the positive interplay of
members’ well-being and productivity. The COVID-19 pandemic
11
European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
disrupted the coworking model, emphasising the importance of hybrid
settings that combine digital and physical presence to sustain a
community-orientated atmosphere and create new forms of socio­
materiality. The role of community managers and the use of mediation
mechanisms to influence users’ well-being and support their work per­
formance thus becomes crucial in guiding the transition process into
such hybrid settings, where new norms emerge to rebuild or enhance the
coworking space’s affective commons.
Nonetheless, the partial failure of virtual environments to gain
traction with our sampled set of users during the first wave of the
pandemic does not justify discarding them altogether. Instead, we pro­
pose viewing the digital components of coworking environments as a
complementary element to enhance the coworking experience and its
affective commons. Not only does it add greater flexibility for users
concerning community-building whilst changing location (e.g., digital
nomads or members relocating for extended periods), but it also allows
the managers of coworking spaces to reach other entrepreneurial eco­
systems across regional and national boundaries.
6. Concluding remarks, limitations, and implications for future
research
The study portrayed how the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted
coworking spaces by limiting the physical proximity between their users
and seeking alternatives for hybrid forms of interaction. If Spinuzzi
(2012) concluded that coworking spaces represent a combined highly
flexible social space where individuals can be “working alone together”,
the pandemic disrupted the coworking model to the extent that it could
now be defined as supporting individuals who are “working together
apart.” Although users’ well-being might be impaired due to the lack of
both active and passive sociality of moderated interactions, social
events, and physical co-location, productivity remains strongly linked to
the accessibility to the physical site of a selected coworking space, which
had previously constituted a central pillar for the sociomateriality of the
user experience.
With that in mind, the study points towards a gradual transition
towards a hybrid post-pandemic model in which coworking spaces
combine digital and physical presence to sustain a community-
orientated atmosphere and thereby create new forms of socio­
materiality. The collected data shows that the concept of fully virtual­
ised coworking processes, such as community gatherings, group work
sessions or knowledge-transfer events, has fallen short of its anticipated
benefits, underscoring the need for a hybrid setting. Moreover, the study
points to the importance of community managers and their additional
challenge in guiding a transition into such a hybrid setting, in which new
norms are emerging to rebuild or enhance the coworking space’s af­
fective commons.
It is vital to note that the study’s main limitation is the lack of
generalizability of the findings and the focus on individual-purposed
coworking spaces only. However, a collection of extensive and rich
data enabled us to vividly describe the novel subject of pandemic-driven
disruption and the transformation of coworking environments. More
importantly, it captured changing behavioural patterns and attitudes of
coworking space users, the alteration of their perceived well-being and
work productivity that has been previously linked to the benefits of
physical proximity and subsequent interactivity, and alternative mech­
anisms that tend to support users digitally.
This raises several essential questions that warrant further scholarly
exploration. First, how can coworking spaces maintain their affective
atmospheres when faced with external disruptions that prevent in­
dividuals from gathering and interacting freely? Second, what new
technologies could support the effective digitalisation of coworking
processes, such as internal events that foster the development of tightly
knit communities and encourage active sociality? And finally, what is
the role of community managers in managing and governing affective
commons in hybrid coworking settings, and what functional moderation
M. Orel et al. European Management Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

mechanisms can they employ within these environments? Further De Peuter, G., Cohen, N. S., & Saraco, F. (2017). The ambivalence of coworking: On the
politics of an emerging work practice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 20(6),
research will be needed to fully understand how the coworking model
687–706.
has transformed due to the pandemic and to identify the new models Endrissat, N., & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2021). From sites to vibes: Technology and
that will eventually emerge – or have already emerged, at least to some the spatial production of coworking spaces. Information and Organization, 31(4),
extent. Understanding the latter will be crucial for comprehending Article 100353.
Fritz, J. H. (2014). Researching workplace relationships: What can we learn from
coworking spaces’ transformative and adaptive nature in the face of qualitative organisational studies? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4),
future exogenous shocks. 460–466.
Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. A. (2017). Co-constructing a sense of
community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organization
Acknowledgments Studies, 38(6), 821–842.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in
This research was supported by The Czech Science Foundation inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organisational Research
Methods, 16(1), 15–31.
(GACR), project number 20-06716S. Goermar, L., Barwinski, R. W., Bouncken, R. B., & Laudien, S. M. (2021). Co-Creation in
coworking-spaces: Boundary conditions of diversity. Knowledge Management Research
References and Practice, 19(1), 53–64.
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving rigor in qualitative analysis: The
role of active categorization in theory building. Academy of Management Review, 46
Alonso-Almeida, M. D. M., Escat, M., & Perez-Encinas, A. (2021). Coworking spaces:
(3), 591–612.
Threat or opportunity to face crisis situations. Medical Sciences Forum, 4(1), 23.
Gruenwald, H. (2020). Coworking spaces in Germany during the Covid-19 crisis utilised
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
for homeoffice and homeschooling. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and
Aplin-Houtz, M., Javadizadeh, B., & Churchill, A. (2021). Mom Guilt, Work family
Economics, 57–67.
Conflict, and cognitive dissonance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academy of
Jones, D. (2020). The future of coworking? White paper. https://openwork.
Management Proceedings, 2021(1), 16402. Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of
agency/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/The-Future-of-Coworking-Wh
Management.
ite-Paper-OpenWork-Agency-May-29-2020.pdf,05.10.2021.
Aslam, M. M., Bouncken, R., & Görmar, L. (2021). The role of sociomaterial assemblage
Jonsen, K., Fendt, J., & Point, S. (2018). Convincing qualitative research: What
on entrepreneurship in coworking-spaces. International Journal of Entrepreneurial
constitutes persuasive writing? Organisational Research Methods, 21(1), 30–67.
Behavior & Research, 27(8), 2028–2049.
Mayerhoffer, M. (2021). The impact of covid-19 on coworking spaces: Evidence from
Babapour Chafi, M., & Cobaleda-Cordero, A. (2022). Methods for eliciting user
Germany. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 23(3), 170–185. https://doi.org/10.1108/
experience insights in workplace studies: Spatial walkthroughs, experience curve
JCRE-10-2020-0044
mapping and card sorting. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 24(1), 4–20.
Merkel, J. (2015). Coworking in the city. Ephemera, 15(2), 121–139.
Barwinski, R. W., Qiu, Y., Aslam, M. M., & Clauss, T. (2020). Changing with the time:
Orel, M., & Alonso Almeida, M. D. M. (2019). The ambience of collaboration in
New ventures’ quest for innovation. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 30(1), 18–30.
coworking environments. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 21(4), 273–289.
Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2021). What do we know about co-working spaces? Trends and
Orel, M., & Bennis, W. M. (2021). Classifying changes. A taxonomy of contemporary
challenges ahead. Sustainability, 13(3), 1416.
coworking spaces. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 23(4), 278–296.
Bouncken, R. B., & Aslam, M. M. (2019). Understanding knowledge exchange processes
Orel, M., & Dvouletý, O. (2020). Transformative changes and developments of the
among diverse users of coworking-spaces. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10),
coworking model: A narrative review. Technological Progress, Inequality and
2067–2085.
Entrepreneurship, 9–27.
Bouncken, R. B., & Aslam, M. M. (2023). Bringing the design perspective to coworking-
Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange.
spaces: Constitutive entanglement of actors and artifacts. European Management
Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 13(3), 261–271.
Journal, 41(1), 101–113.
Reuschke, D., Clifton, N., & Fisher, M. (2021). Coworking in homes–mitigating the
Bouncken, R. B., Aslam, M. M., Gantert, T. M., & Kallmuenzer, A. (2023). New work
tensions of the freelance economy. Geoforum, 119, 122–132.
design for knowledge creation and sustainability: An empirical study of coworking-
Ross, P., & Ressia, S. (2015). Neither office nor home: Coworking as an emerging
spaces. Journal of Business Research, 154, Article 113337.
workplace choice. Employment Relations Record, 15(1), 42–57.
Bouncken, R. B., Aslam, M. M., & Qiu, Y. (2021b). Coworking spaces: Understanding,
Rus, A., & Orel, M. (2015). Coworking: A community of work. Teorija in Praksa, 52(6),
using, and managing sociomateriality. Business Horizons, 64(1), 119–130.
1017–1038.
Bouncken, R. B., Kraus, S., & Martínez-Pérez, J. F. (2020). Entrepreneurship of an
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative
institutional field: The emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models.
activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441.
The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), 1465–1481.
Spinuzzi, C., Bodrožić, Z., Scaratti, G., & Ivaldi, S. (2019). “Coworking is about
Bouncken, R. B., Qiu, Y., Sinkovics, N., & Kürsten, W. (2021a). Qualitative research:
community”: But what is “community” in coworking? Journal of Business and
Extending the range with flexible pattern matching. Review of Managerial Science, 15
Technical Communication, 33(2), 112–140.
(2), 251–273.
Spreitzer, G., Garrett, L., & Bacevice, P. (2015). Should your company embrace
Bouncken, R. B., & Reuschl, A. J. (2018). Coworking-spaces: How a phenomenon of the
coworking? MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 27.
sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship.
Waters-Lynch, J., & Duff, C. (2021). The affective commons of Coworking. Human
Review of Managerial Science, 12(1), 317–334.
Relations, 74(3), 383–404.
Brown, J. (2017). Curating the “third place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity.
Xiao, Y., Becerik-Gerber, B., Lucas, G., & Roll, S. C. (2021). Impacts of working from
Geoforum, 82, 112–126.
home during COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental well-being of office
Bueno, S., Rodríguez-Baltanás, G., & Gallego, M. D. (2018). Coworking spaces: A new
workstation users. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 63(3), 181.
way of achieving productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 16(4), 452–466.
Yang, E., Bisson, C., & Sanborn, B. E. (2019). Coworking space as a third-fourth place:
Butcher, T. (2018). Learning everyday entrepreneurial practices through coworking.
Changing models of a hybrid space in corporate real estate. Journal of Corporate Real
Management Learning, 49(3), 327–345.
Estate, 21(4), 324–345.
Ceinar, I. M., & Mariotti, I. (2021). The effects of covid-19 on coworking spaces: Patterns
and future trends. New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development
Trajectories: A Worldwide Investigation, 277–297.

12