A new book about Coworking, Coworking Spaces, and Coworkers.
A new book about Coworking, Coworking Spaces, and Coworkers.
Senssei Cat Johnson is an enthusiastic supporter of ”Women Who Cowork”, a new “alliance” that is “a growing network of supporters and allies and a beautiful vision to transform the way we work.”
As I document in my 2018 book, one of the key features of contemporary coworking is that it is whatever the workers want it to be. And it surely can be what female workers want it to be. A woman who is her own boss has a woman for a boss!
So what, specifically is this “beautiful vision” which Sensei Cat eloquently invokes?
First of all, this is clearly coming from the perspective of women who lead and operate coworking spaces. Individual workers may benefit and enjoy participation, but WWCO invites you to “Join the professional community of women who create, inspire and lead coworking businesses.”
There is nothing wrong with that, and, of course, community leadership is the make or break element of any successful coworking community, so this is certainly at the heart of things.
These women are also founders of the GCUC conferences, and are deeply involved in the evolution of the “industry”. In fact, their manifesto has the telling sentence, “We believe coworking is the industry best positioned to achieve the goal of 100% gender parity in leadership and funding accessibility.”
There is lots of talk of gender equity everywhere, but it is interesting to see what the WWCO think are the crucial facets: leadership and funding accessibility. Power and money. Yup. I can’t disagree with that.
Of course, WWCO is going to be about more than that, but, hey, give me money and power and I can make stuff happen!
Inevitably, part of the mission of WWCO will be advocating for women coworkers, recognizing success, busting myths, and generally promoting the “beautiful mission” of “Yes, We Can.”
As I have written many times, coworking is all about community, and community all about being “us, together”—for pretty much any value of “us”. We see coworking communities that serve geographical neighborhoods, vocational categories, and of course all kinds of social and lifestyle groupings.
But I must be quick to say that across all demographic, geographic, and identity slices, coworkers share a broad base of common needs, goals, and working life. Everyone is using the same technological base, navigating similar career paths, and struggling with the same life-work challenges. Truly, we’re all in this together, even though we may “clump” into relatively homogeneous “us” groups sometimes.
Women have always had a strong role in coworking, even if some of the “clumps” are pretty masculine. Since freelance workers are free to choose their workspace and coworkers, many women and men (and whatever other gender self-identifications) are happy to find a community with women leaders, and will choose to join.
While it may be a stereotype to think that women are “better” at community than men, it is certainly true that women can create and sustain community very well. There have always been successful female leaders, and there certainly should continue to be so.
From this perspective, WWCO is basically playing a game that has already been won.
But I’m sure that for those who a playing the “shared workspace industry” game, WWCO could have an important role, demanding “100% gender parity in leadership and funding accessibility.” I personally am not interested in that game, but I want to make sure that “girls get to play, too”.
How will “femme-identified coworking entrepreneurs and community managers” do things different? I don’t know. Let’s see what happens.
In the runup to this year’s Global Coworking UnConference (GCUC) USA (#gcuc, #coworking), Sensei Cat Johnson (@catjohnson) reposted her comments from last year’s GCUC  (reposted to her Coworking Out Loud newsletter this month).
Like me, Sensei Cat finds the former “not coworky”. “[I]t feels like community as a commodity, and it’s not my jam. It might not be your jam either.”
She wants to reassure people that it’s OK to not be interested in billion-dollar projects, and that you shouldn’t be afraid that they’ll crush you. She uses the analogy of the “coffee industry”, which has giant corporations and chains, but also multitudes of local, friendly, craft roasteries. There is little danger than Starbucks will put all other coffee shops out of business (though the chances of a small indie getting a contract at an airport or mall are slim).
I have used a similar analogy to restaurants. There is always room for a good, local eatery—so long as you find your niche and do it superbly. It is good to see that Sensei Cat is saying the same thing!
But what should a little guy, interested in doing something authentically coworky, do? Just do the right thing.
“You do you. Take care of your business, take care of your people, make your space better every day, and make sure your members and community are your priority.”
It was also good to read Johnson’s sage comment that
“The best coworking communities could thrive in any space because, in the end, coworking—real coworking—has very little to do with the spaces and everything to do with the human connections formed within them.”
I’ve been saying this for years: think of coworking as participatory theater. The space is the stage, which is necessary but not sufficient. A great play can be acted out anywhere. For more on this viewpoint, see my earlier comments here, expanded in Chapter 7 of my book , and also my Pecha Kucha talk .
What should we do about GCUC? Sensei Cat is rather more sanguine about this weird schizoid conference than I am. Some people view it as a “barbell shaped industry”, but I view it as two different industries with the big one parsitizing (is that a word?) the little one. For me, GCUC was just broken, and I have no interest in it. But then again, I am not, and will never be, a coworking space operator.
It seems clear to me that there is room in the world and reason enough to split GCUC into two conferences. One focused on infrastructure and one focused on people. I don’t expect this will happen, but I would bet that GCUC may well evolve to have parallel tracks that run along these lines.
As I commented after attending the 2016 GCUC, this conference has mutated into mainly a trade meeting for operators of “social office” spaces, which is certainly not the whole, or even the most important aspect of coworking. (For a fuller picture, see the book, What is Coworking?)
This focus is on clear display in the pre-conference (or pre-un-conference) release of a study of “the future of the flexible workspace industry” . (This report was prepared by The Instant Group )
The study reports “33,072 centers” world wide, and project 14% growth. (I’m not sure what a “center” is.) Much of the growth is expected to be in “secondary and tertiary” cities, AKA, fly-over country. (I have advocated for this move for quite a while.)
There is also projection of strong growth outside Europe an North America. Basically, it’s last year’s trend, so it’s going to be big in the hinterland, no? (Not that China, Africa, or Latin America are secondary except in the minds of US and European analysts.) Also, this reflects not only saturation, but also real estate prices. There ain’t any such thing as affordable real estate in major cities, so even “tertiary” cities look interesting.
The most telling part of this report is what they consider to be the topic of the survey: “Flexible workspace industry”. This actually refers to a business model for real estate operations, not how workers work or anything else. From this point of view, the growth is driven by “awareness among clients of all sizes of alternative ways to occupy office space”: the “client” is someone who “occupies office space”.
If you wonder where the “community” or even “work” went, so do I.
The report discusses the growing interest in “hybrid” spaces, which “cater to a mix of SME businesses that want privacy, alongside start-up, freelancers”. Conventional companies rent a block of space, but share common areas with un-affiliated workersand other companies. “The key for operators of these spaces will be to provide services that cater to both groups while creating a sense of community that encourages all occupiers to mix and feel part of something bigger than just themselves.” (It’s telling that the workers are characterized as “occupiers”, no?)
I’ve heard that this arrangement is popular with workers, though I have yet to see any evidence of its effects for either the conventional employees or the independent workers. I can see the benefits of getting outsiders to motivate, help, and “share” with your company’s employees—for free. But I have difficulty imagining how employees of a company can “share” with outsiders.
I think it will be interesting to see how this hybrid model actually works out.
In every survey of coworkers, the workers rate “a community of like-minded workers” high on the list of benefits. Are these hybrid groups “like-minded”? I doubt it. This hybrid model does not seem very “peer-to-peer” to me—some of the workers are part of a hierarchy, and others are not. And some are “inside” and others “outside” the companies. And what independent worker would donate intellectual property or anything to a company that doesn’t pay her?
The report also contains the same bad news as last year: “we can expect to see increased investment into the industry, potentially leading to increased consolidation from larger scale providers, while smaller independents continue to look towards niche sectors to carve out sustainable business communities.” Classic, community-based coworking suffers from competition from the massive build up of “flexible office space”.
As the report says, “smaller independents” will continue to exist, but not by competing on price or scale. “Carving out a niche” simply means “crating a real, local community”, which is kind of the whole point of coworking.
The good news is that this kind of community has been the essence of coworking from the start, and is the very stuff that the giant corporate spaces are selling to their cold soulless face sucking corporate clients. So I say, pay more attention to the community and the workers, and less to the “clients” who “occupy office space”. You may not conquer the world or make millions, but you’re community will be happy and successful.
Just in time for Spring, Geoff Gohlke writes in the Freelancers Union Blog about “7 plants that will brighten your workspace and boost your productivity” /
OK, first of all, I love plants, indoors and out. And it’s a great idea to have some plants around your workspace. It’s a good idea for Freelancers and, I believer, for everyone. There is nothing specifically freelancy about this suggestion.
His list of plants is scarcely new. These old favorites have been on desks and windowsills for a generation or more. It’s a good selection, though anyone who knows botany knows that these are nothing compared to a real plantscape, let alone a natural ecosystem. But anything is better than nothing. (And go outside where there are plants as much as you can, anyway.
So, yeah. Plants are good. Personally, I don’t think you need a lot of explanation or justification for wanting to be surrounded by plants.
But Gohlke wants to make a case.
So he tells us that “botanicals” (which seems like a rather insulting taxon-ist word–are we “zoologicals”?) aren’t just pretty, “they can also freshen up the air and boost your productivity”. That sounds great. And, sure, plants do filter the air, though a couple of potted plants on a desk don’t process all that much air.
“Boost your productivity”? What does that even mean? Compared to what? He gives no evidence for this claim. But, as I said, plants are good regardless of alleged productivity boosts.
Gohlke’s discussion suggests a couple of other points that I’d like to pull out.
First, he discusses the rudiments of caring for these plants, which means light and water. These standard desk plants are popular because they can stand and/or prefer low light, and do not require a lot of water, and generally can survive periods of neglect. Fussy, they are not.
Unstated in this discussion is the fact that you still must take care of these plants, however forgiving they may be. My own view is that part of the benefit of having living “botanicals” in your space is the psychological benefit from taking responsibility and tending them over the long, slow life of a plant. Pay attention to them, and they will thrive. That feels good.
Second, Gohlke makes some unstated assumptions about working conditions that are worth examining. He imagines that “you have a well-lit corner in your apartment or a windowless room,” but he definitely assumes that you have “your workspace”. While he mentions “digital nomads”, it seems clear that plants are for a place that you “own”, even if you wander a lot.
You don’t carry around your plants, nor do you set them around your open plan work table that you rent by the hour.
Which suggests that, while a coworking space might have plants (and really nice ones also have gardens), coworkers generally don’t have a permanent space to put plants in.
So this article is for Freelancers, but not particularly applicable to Freelancers who Cowork. You really have to have at least a permanent desk before you can have plants. It isn’t easy to have plants when you cowork.
And this is certainly a downside of coworking for me.
This month Sensei Cat Johnson reports that “Coworking is Making Us Smarter”. 
OK, I’ll bite. Explain that to me.
First, she refers to an old survey of coworkers to presented at GCUC in 2015. As in following years, this self-report survey finds that coworkers say they are “happier” and “less lonely” (than working alone, I assume), and that coworking “keeps them sane” (whatever that means). I have discussed these findings in the past, and there are several chapters in my 2018 book about this topic  . (And see my Pecha Kucha talk.)
So how does this make us “smarter”? This once-was-a-Psych-major wants to know.
Johnson testifies, as many other coworkers have reported, that coworking improves professional skills and opportunities.
She also refers to a 2009 study reported by Ron Friedman, and colleagues  which shows that, as Johnson puts it, “emotions, such as motivation, are contagious.” The study itself has a limited scope, but many studies find that emotions and lots of other behavior are strongly influenced by being part of a group, especially a group with which you identify.
I would say that a coworking community is certainly likely to generate this kind of “contagion”. Workers are free to choose to join a community of “like minded peers”—people both friendly and attractive, and also recognized as a peer group, and hence socially relevant and worth emulating. (Note to coworkers: this means you should be careful about your “attitude”. A bad attitude will spread as much as a good one.)
So, I can see that coworking makes workers happy, less isolated, and with the right community, might make you more successful and better motivated. These are all potential benefits of coworking.
And I think that Sensei Cat means to say that (a) it is “smart” to get yourself some of that good stuff, and( b) these good things make you “smarter” by some definition of “smart”.
“By joining a coworking community, you do far more than simply expand your professional network.
“You expand your mind, intelligence and career.” (From )
I’m OK with this general idea, though I can’t say that the research supports the claim or not. With my psychologists hat on, I really don’t know what “smart” (or “intelligent”) means in this context, so I have to leave it as Johnson’s hypothesis.
But, look: workers like coworking, and participating in a coworking community probably has many social and psychological benefits. (At least some workers, some of the time.) It really isn’t important whether it makes workers “smarter” or not, it’s probably good for workers, and certainly better than working alone all the time.