A new book about Coworking, Coworking Spaces, and Coworkers.
A new book about Coworking, Coworking Spaces, and Coworkers.
The “Future of Work” is often touted as a gig economy, and for many jobs, a remote gig economy. Almost any work that centers on the Internet can be done anywhere. Growing legions of remote workers prove that this is not only feasible, but very productive . And many workers prefer to “phone it in” via the Internet.
(Remote working is not necessarily freelancing or gig working. Many conventional employers allow some workers to work from home, and there are many geographically distributed collaborations. On the other hand, many gig workers are expected to provide their own infrastructure and workplace, so they may well work from home. So, remote working is a very important aspect for most gig workers.)
(I’ll also note that remote working and distant collaboration has been happening since we invented the Internet. It’s kind of the whole point of the Internet. So much of this is not really new or unprecedented, except it has become ubiquitous.)
By now it is clear that remote working has its challenges. Indeed, the isolation of remote working is the key problem that coworking is designed to solve. Besides finding a coworking community, what should remote workers try to do?
This month, Kevin Payne suggests “7 tips for being a happy and successful remote worker” . He is writing for the Freelancers Union, but the “tips” apply to workers no matter what their contractual arrangements.
What are his tips?
1) Set boundaries
2) Designate a dedicated working area
3) Change things up
4) Make a schedule (and stick to it)
5) Know your priorities
6) Invest in the right tools
7) Don’t forget yourself
The first tip is actually the crux of the matter. When you work at home, there is no physical separation between “work” and “not work”, and more importantly, between “work” and “home/family/everything else”. Whatever may be wrong with conventional workplaces—and there are plenty of things to complain about—they definitely are psychologically and physically separated from “home”.
The other tips are mainly about how to set and keep these boundaries. An important part of this is psychological, hence “know your priorities”. This also involves at least two sets of priorities—work and not-work—and also two distinct sets of activities. Hence “a dedicated work area”, a schedule, and the right tools.
These are good tips, for any worker, remote or not. And there is no one right way to do it, so find your own way.
But even if you have a great gig and a great home office and manage to balance your life with work, you still are working alone. People are not meant to be alone all the time, and sooner or later most people are unhappy without colleagues and human contact.
This is, of course, one of the big reasons why people join a coworking community. Coworking is a “respite from our isolation” (a la Klaas, 2014 ). Indeed, Payne suggests joining a coworking space.
“Some remote workers and freelancers work in coffee shops, while others sign up for coworking spaces.”
I will go farther, to point out that the coworking space actually solves many of these other problems. There is a boundary, it is a dedicated space, it has the right tools—including like-minded workers to actually talk to.
In short, a coworking space is just the thing for remote workers.
So, Bob’s top “tip” for remote working is “find a local coworking community”. You’ll be happier, healthier, and probably successful.
This month, the Freelancers Union* asks “Where are all the freelance characters on TV?”  They point out that even in more or less realistic shows, few people identify themselves as “Freelancers”, even in cases where they work as writers and similar gig workers. Worse, some of the portrayals are wildly unrepresentative of how real freelancers live. Is anyone surprised that corporate entertainment media is oblivious if not outright hostile toward the lives of real workers?
(In part, there is a semantic issue here. Actors and Writers generally are gig workers, but they identify with their profession, not with their contractual arrangement. A thespian is “an Actor”, not “a Freelancer”. May dramatists just don’t think about “freelancer” as an identity for a character.)
The article hones in on the apparent lack of medical insurance even for characters who get hurt or have a baby. Huh? If the only thing you find unrealistic about Sex and the City is that the show doesn’t discuss medical insurance….
Eventually, it becomes clear that the FU is actually advocating their own insurance products, which explains that specific emphasis. And, yeah, its important, and yeah, I’m glad the FU is on it.
Anyway, the title does actually raise a good point. Freelancing and Coworking are important work life experiences for a growing number of people, and something that young people should know about because they may want to or have to be part of the gig economy. So it would be nice to have realistic role models in popular culture—for better or worse.
Personally, I’m not going to watch anything that spends a lot of time worrying about the challenges of health insurance for gig workers. But why not have a ‘cheers’ set in a coworking space? Why not have more shows about interesting gig workers, and fewer shows about obnoxious billionaires?
It would be particularly valuable for young people to see and to identify with some good examples of gig workers. People who have to hustle for gigs, are responsible for delivering their contracts, who constantly learn, and who are good members of a coworking community. People who more or less successfully balance work and family life. Etc. You know–real people.
So, how could this come to be?
Well…the FU surely has within its membership more than enough talent to create such popular fiction in every medium. It would certainly be apt for freelancers of the FU to tell our own story this way….
*Disclosure: I am a proud member of the FU.
The Freelancers Union* is all about The Future of Work. More specifically, it is about The Future of Workers, which is something I’m very concerned about.
This is also something that I talk about a lot. A lot!
So, I was challenged by the title of an article by Krystel Leal, “Do we really need to talk so much about the future of work?” 
Hmm. What is she driving at?
First of all, she doesn’t seem to answer or even seriously address the headline question. But she, in fact, wants to talk and keep talking about the future of work. So I guess the answer must be “yes”.
Her main points are that (a) things continue to change rapidly, so a worker will have to be flexible and continue to adapt for her whole career, and (b) everything else is pretty much moot.
Much of what she says is hardly new, though I have to say that she seems to be projecting recent trends way too far into the future. Saying that the “terrain” is “digital” is not really accurate now, at least in most places and for most people. And even if “digital” work continues to be important, the specifics will probably be radically different. (Just as for instance, we are already seeing the global Internet fragmenting into multiple national and privately run sub nets.)
But this just makes her basic point more clearly: it’s difficult to know what skills might be needed and what opportunities (if any) might be available, even in a few years.
She does have a good point that coworking, nomadism, and other “work models” aren’t really to the point. You can do the same work in a lot of different ways, in different workplaces, with different contractual arrangements.
The real question is, what kinds of arrangements to workers like, and how can workers have a decent life. Some workers like digital nomadism, some prefer freelancing, different workers find community in different coworking spaces, and so on. As long as workers have good choices and are free to choose, this is the best of all possible worlds.
But is that going to be true? We already see that the vast majority of workers in certain sectors are freelancers. If you have the choice of freelancing or not working, that’s not much of a choice.
We have seen arrogant companies simply ignore labor laws, eliminating what little legal protections their “contractors” might have as employees. A contract that only one side controls is not much of a contract, and this is not so much “freelancing” as piecework.
For many workers, the choice is working from home or a coworking space. This is essentially “bring your own office”, pushing the overhead of a workspace onto the worker. If this is not compensated for, then this is simply another pay cut. So, actually, it might well matter quite a bit whether the employer or the worker has to provide the infrastructure.
Leal has a pretty positive view of this world, which, no doubt, is what she delivers for her clients. I’m less sanguine about this brave new world.
Bus we both think it something to keep talking about. And I’m sure we will continue to natter on, whether you want it or not! : – )
* Disclosure: I am a proud member of the FU.
It’s that time of the year—time for recaps and predictions for next year. One of the pundits to watch is Sensei Liz Elam of the Global Coworking Unconference Conference.
So, what’s on Elam’s mind this year.
Looking back, she sees a lot of girls in 2019. As in female-oriented coworking operations and the Women Who Cowork alliance. This is part of the continuing fluorescence of what Elam calls “niche” coworking, which I would just call “coworking”.
As a founder of GCUC Elam has been caught in the cultural struggles between “authentic” coworking and the “service office industry”. She seems to be regaining her footing this year, flatly declaring:
And, by the way, “WeWork isn’t coworking”
So, take that!
Elam has also been a leader in advocating that community coworking is an antidote to lonliness, and therefore is a key part of health and wellness.
For 2020, she has some generic predictions (prices will either go up or down, coworking spaces will get larger and smaller).
Sensei Elam has her own views on what will drive coworking growth in 2020, and these are classic Elam:
Real Estate Costs: Coworking allows you to take it off the books
Worker Disengagement: 66% of their workers are disengaged. Coworking, on the other hand, makes employees happier, healthier and more engaged.
Mental Wellness: The most expensive healthcare issue for all corporations globally is the mental health crisis. If connection cures the disease of addiction then community can cure the disease of loneliness. 89% of coworkers reported being happier in a coworking space.
Attracting and Retaining Talent: Gen Z not only doesn’t want to work in your dated office, they won’t. They need space that they choose.
She predicts a recession someday, which will “hurt”. My own view is that it will hurt fast and hard, because the gig economy is basically designed to shed workers in an instant. Coworking will dive early and sharply, and I can’t help but think that many operations will fail.
Elam argues that “community” still is “is the secret sauce of coworking” (which it always was). She also asserts that “community” “can’t be measured, seen or touched”. She wants to “level up”, and “figure out how to measure community”.
Excuse me. I was an Anthropology major, and have a degree in Social Psychology. We actually can observe and measure community. <<Call me.>>
She also wants to “scale it [i.e., “community”] in a teachable way”. I’m not sure what that means exactly. However, I do have to point out that “community” is something that doesn’t actually scale up. And, for my money, I wonder why you even want to scale up. The point of community is that you know each other, which is generally limited to 200 people or less.
IMO, the goal is to go wide, not big. We need lots of opportunities for small, local communities (i.e., niches).
Maybe that’s what Sensei Liz is thinking, I’m not sure.
My experience has been that Elam has her head screwed on right, so everyone should pay attention to what she says.
“How long have we as an industry been explaining that WeWork isn’t coworking?”
The Coworking Library held a “meetup” in Warsaw in November . The speakers discussed their current research on coworking in Europe. I’m very glad to see that coworking is (finally) attracting attention of social scientists. I’ve been saying for a long time that there is a lot of interest here, and these investigators are taking interest.
This particular meetup was fairly informal, a sort of “what have you been working on” session, rather than refereed papers. (There are papers associated with the research, but those are reported elsewhere.)
So what have these folks been working on?
The overall impression is that the big picture hasn’t changed. Coworking is still about “community, community, community”. And the reported benefits are about the same as reported many times before, including in my book.
One of the speakers (Marko Orel) discusses a taxonomy of coworking, i.e., what do people mean by the term? As he points out, the terminology has been evolving and mutation rapidly. And, I would add, the terms were never sharply defined in the first place. While creative ambiguity is beneficial for marketing and Internet yapping, it is problematic for academic research. It’s not clear that any two studies are even talking about the same thing. I look forward to his result in the future.
Another speaker (Viktoria Heinzel) is looking at “rural” coworking, which I’ve written about. It’s not clear from the slides how this concept is defined or which specific “rural” areas were studied. The summary of points seems consistent with other work on the topic, including the potential for ”recruitment & return of skilled workers/ young talents”.
Anita Füzi examined what attracts workers to a specific space. The basic finding is that social factors; i.e., “community, community, community”; are what matters most. And she points out that “One space is not better than the other”. As I have said many times, there is no one right way to do it.
The fourth speaker (Miryana Stancheva) explores the idea of looking at coworking spaces as “a living organism”, specifically, through the ideas or Erik Erikson. I’ve never studied Erikson in any detail, though I am familiar with the general topic. This approach requires applying concepts such as “ego development” to coworking. She seems to be trying to create improved coworking communities through this analysis.
I strongly agree with the importance of a developmental model. She also considers the development of satisfaction and happiness, not just numbers and revenue. But, I’ll have to reserve judgement as to whether this particular interpretive framework works well.
I mean, maybe a coworking community is like a child or a family, in some ways. But maybe not in others. For one thing, coworkers can walk away at any time. For another, there is usually very little hierarchy. And for another thing, the community is usually largely self-selected. These features probably have a major impact on both happiness and the development over time.
Overall, it is useful to have this kind of academic exchange. Too much of the discussion of coworking is Internet-grade natter, with little attempt at academic rigor or clarity. Me, I like footnotes.
It is unfortunate that there isn’t an equivalent effort on this side of the Atlantic. Perhaps it would be possible to add a virtual component, for those who don’t mind video-ing in from far away.