ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Hybrid Copresence: Issues of Re-Spatialization of Remote Work in Coworking Spaces

Camille Pfeffer^1,2*

¹UCLy (Lyon Catholic University), ESDES, Lyon, France
²UCLy (Lyon Catholic University), UR Confluence: Sciences et Humanités (EA1598), Lyon, France

 

 

Abstract

 

A current topic at both the academic and managerial levels is how companies are invited to rethink themselves through more hybrid practices and spatialities in the post-COVID-19 era. Indeed, the health crisis has accelerated organizational transformations. In particular, it has led to organizations adopting large-scale practices that combine face-to-face and remote work. At the same time, it has reinforced changes concerning the work environment, both within their premises and outside their walls (Aroles et al., 2021; Felstead et al., 2005a; Kingma, 2019). Thus, the transformation of the ‘workscape’ (Felstead et al., 2005a, p. 16) has been reinforced by the crisis, supported by the increased use of ever more efficient information and communication technologies (ICT) that ‘enable the possibility of real-time cooperation in work practices without a physical presence in the same place’ (Aroles et al., 2021, p. 2). These hybrid work methods are likely to develop further in the future (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Sewell & Taskin, 2015), promoting a spatial redistribution of work (Felstead et al., 2005b; Halford, 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2009) in a hybrid, multilocalized space (Halford, 2005), where employees oscillate mainly between the traditional company space and their homes.

Nevertheless, teleworking still seems to have a difficult time finding its place. Although more popular and widely used than before the health crisis, difficulties persist and have slowed its development. Teleworking affects employees’ social relations, and a feeling of isolation can result from this remote organization of work (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Kurland & Cooper, 2002; Taskin, 2010; Vega & Brennan, 2000). This situation can have negative consequences at both the individual and collective levels of work (loss of motivation, disengagement, lower performance, and increased turnover). However, a return to the pre-COVID-19 office-based environment seems unlikely despite these difficulties. Indeed, the adoption of more flexible hybrid work practices also meets employees’ expectations of a better quality of personal and professional life. Therefore, companies face a challenging equation when thinking in a more hybrid way while ensuring that their employees are satisfied with their remote social experience.

The rise of new work environments seems to offer a solution for companies by participating in their spatial reconfiguration (Aroles et al., 2021; Hislop & Axtell, 2009; Kingma, 2016; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Salovaara, 2015). Indeed, faced with more virtual work practices, companies are resorting to alternative spaces to give back body and materiality to work outside of traditional physical boundaries (Aroles et al., 2021; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). Re-spatialization of work refers to the process of spatial reconfiguration of work involving the hybridization of multiple work environments to accomplish one’s professional activity (Halford, 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2007, 2009; Kingma, 2016; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). In particular, coworking spaces provide a specific context of re-spatialization for companies (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). For a fee, coworking spaces offer open and furnished workspaces, professional services, and a collaborative, even communitarian, dimension (Garrett et al., 2017; Spinuzzi, 2012). They have become particularly developed and diverse in recent years (Deskmag, 2017; Felstead et al., 2005a; Kojo & Nenonen, 2017) and are increasingly attracting companies and remote workers (Deskmag, 2019; Gandini & Cossu, 2021; Ross & Ressia, 2015). Unlike home, these spaces offer teleworkers a professional work and social environment, which provides a potential solution to their isolation through face-to-face interactions and a collaborative environment (Blagoev et al., 2019; Garrett et al., 2017).

Thus, the re-spatialization of work in alternative environments, particularly in coworking spaces, questions the experience of social interactions of remote employees, especially to justify the interest in these spaces considering the difficulties of social isolation. Here, the concept of copresence is mobilized, that is, the subjective and contextualized experience of the presence of the other and of the reciprocal influence of individuals (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Goffman, 1963, 1983; Grabher et al., 2018). The re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces leads remote employees to experience two forms of copresence associated with distinct organizational contexts: a remote copresence with the company and a physical copresence in the coworking space. While the former can be affected by physical and social distancing, which leads to a feeling of isolation for remote employees, the latter leads them to interact face-to-face with coworkers who are not their corporate colleagues. However, current literature on copresence does not provide an opportunity to make sense of this hybrid, even paradoxical, experience. Thus, the following research question is formulated: How does the re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces affect the copresence of telecommuting employees? This question aims to better identify the capacity of individuals and organizations to function in a fluid and efficient way in a hybrid work context involving multiple socio-organizational contexts.

To answer this research question, data from an interpretive ethnographic approach (Ybema et al., 2009) were mobilized. The research was conducted between February 2017 and December 2019, using a comparative qualitative approach (Bechky & O’Mahony, 2015) within two networks of coworking spaces hosting employees. The analyses highlight four situations of hybrid copresence experienced by remote employees in a coworking space combining physical and remote copresence: isolation, ubiquity, compensation, and refocusing. The possible evolutions between the four situations are discussed. This research contributes to the literature on organizational space (Beyes & Steyaert, 2012; De Vaujany & Mitev, 2013; Stephenson et al., 2020; Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019), clarifying the redefinition of this space in the context of the re-spatialization of work involving alternative organizational spaces to the company. It also contributes to the literature on remote work and distantiated forms of work by better understanding the issues associated with these practices in coworking spaces (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). Notably, it contributes to a better characterization of the interactional, dual, and evolutionary dimensions of teleworking in coworking spaces. Finally, by specifying the experience of employees-coworkers, contributions are made to the literature on coworking spaces through a better understanding of the atmosphere and organizational dimension of these shared workspaces (Blagoev et al., 2019; Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021).

This article is composed of four parts. The first section is dedicated to the literature on copresence, which is then put into perspective with the literature on teleworking and coworking spaces. The second section presents the ethnographic study approach in the two coworking space networks. The third section presents the four situations experienced by remote employees, and their possible evolutions are discussed. Contributions are detailed in the last section as well as the managerial implications for companies practicing this re-spatialization of work and for organizations managing coworking spaces.

Literature

Copresence, a contextualized subjective social experience

The concept of copresence was initially developed by sociological interactionist approaches. For Goffman, copresence is the basis of all sociological analysis (Goffman, 1963). It corresponds to the smallest level of analysis of social interactions (Goffman, 1963) and is the ‘medium through which micro-macro influences are accomplished’ (Grabher et al., 2018, p. 2). Copresence refers to the presence of the other and the reciprocal influence of individuals (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Goffman, 1963, 1983; Grabher et al., 2018). It refers to ‘the idea that the presence of other actors shapes individual behavior’ (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013, p. 168). Goffman circumscribes copresence to immediate social interactions, spatially situated in a shared physical space (Goffman, 1963, 1983). This geographical proximity is a necessary condition for the reciprocal perception of the actors (Goffman, 1963) because it allows ‘to gather in the same space, in physical contiguity, entities and spatialized objects in order to make possible their relations’ (Lussault, 2007, p. 56). However, copresence is not reduced to the physical presence and direct proximity of actors. It reflects a committed interindividual relationship in which each is available, accessible, and attentive to the other (Goffman, 1963).

The development of ICT has led researchers to rethink and refine the initial conception of copresence with respect to mediated and virtual social interactions (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Grabher et al., 2018; Knorr Cetina & Bruegger, 2002; Knorr-Cetina, 2009; Zhao, 2003; Zhao & Elesh, 2008). Indeed, it has introduced a new, virtual space and a form of electronic proximity (Grabher & Ibert, 2014; Grabher et al., 2018; Le Nadant et al., 2018), which ‘promotes the ubiquity of actors by allowing them to be both “here and elsewhere”’ (Le Nadant et al., 2018, p. 124). This electronic proximity can be defined as ‘the extension of normal human sense perceptions through electronic mediations’ (Zhao, 2003, p. 446). It allows for social interactions at a distance and makes copresence between actors possible (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Grabher & Ibert, 2014; Knorr Cetina & Bruegger, 2002; Knorr-Cetina, 2009), provided that each person is available and has a reciprocal commitment to the relationship with the other (Giddens, 1991; Zhao & Elesh, 2008). Therefore, copresence is the experience of a social relationship that can take place in different spatiotemporal contexts: face-to-face or at a distance (Grabher et al., 2018; Zhao & Elesh, 2008).

In light of these developments, Campos-Castillo and Hitlin (2013) proposed a renewed conceptualization of copresence, which they consider a ‘[continuous] endogenous, subjective variable dynamically related to social context’ (p. 168) and define it as:

Definition: Copresence is the degree to which one actor (1) perceives entrainment with a second actor and (2) sees the second actor reciprocating entrainment, where entrainment is a linear function of the synchronization of mutual attention, emotion and behavior. (2013, p. 171)

Through the notion of ‘degree’, this definition of copresence testifies to the possibility for the actors to have different feelings not only between them but also individually according to the contexts in which the interaction situation is lived. To characterize these experiences of copresence, Campos-Castillo and Hitlin (2013) recommend considering three elements: attention, ‘a situation in which two actors are reciprocally focused on one another’ (p. 172); emotion, in this case, empathy for the other; and behavior, or more precisely, imitation.

This understanding of copresence is mobilized to analyze the experience of employees and identify issues associated with the re-spatialization of remote work in coworking spaces. The experience of these teleworkers is characterized by the simultaneity of two spatiotemporal and organizational contexts in connection with different interlocutors: (1) a remote presence in the company and mediated interactions with their colleagues, and (2) a physical presence in the coworking space and face-to-face interactions with coworkers. The characteristics of the copresences that can be lived in these contexts are made explicit in the next two sections.

Telework copresence, between social isolation and perceived proximity

Telework corresponds to ‘the exercise of a professional activity, in whole or in part at a distance […], and by means of ICT’ (Taskin, 2006, p. 3). Born in the 1970s, telework was initially associated with a fixed practice, often at home, before evolving toward more mobile and virtual modalities (Messenger & Gschwind, 2016). It is characterized by three essential elements (Baruch, 2000; Taskin, 2006): a spatial and/or temporal dispersion outside the premises of the employer, subcontractor, or client; the use of ICT (computers, emails, and telephones); and the frequency of arrangement. This organization breaks with traditional units of time and place and affects the structure of work. In particular, it modifies the employment relationship and social interactions of remote employees, which are no longer possible directly face-to-face (Felstead et al., 2003; Hislop & Axtell, 2007; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Taskin, 2006). This results in an altered experience of relating to others, both physically and psychologically (Sewell & Taskin, 2015; Taskin, 2006, 2010; Wilson et al., 2008). This can result in a sense of isolation, which is a major drawback of teleworking (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Cefrio, 2001; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Kurland & Cooper, 2002).

Notions of distantiation (Sewell & Taskin, 2015; Taskin, 2010) and perceived proximity (Wilson et al., 2008) contribute to a better definition of the copresence that can be experienced by remote employees. Distantiation ‘refers to the loss of physical and psychological closeness’ (Taskin, 2010, p. 63). It reflects the subjective experience of distance, that is, the ‘psychological distance, related to the [physical] estrangement of the worker from his or her work environment (colleagues, common spaces, informal and formal exchanges, culture, etc.)’ (Taskin, 2010, p. 63). It can vary in intensity, and the degree of distantiation is a function of the frequency of the arrangement and degree of isolation (Taskin, 2010). Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between two forms of isolation: physical isolation and social isolation. In reference to Taha and Caldwell (1993), Taskin clarifies the distinction as: ‘physical isolation, related to the absence of physical contact with the work environment and colleagues, and social isolation, related to the absence of support, understanding and other social and emotional aspects of interactions’ (Taskin, 2010, pp. 64–65). Distantiation is characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of both forms of isolation. Specifically, social isolation corresponds to dissatisfaction with the experience of social interactions. Individuals’ desired level of interaction is not what they perceive (Taha & Caldwell, 1993). In a situation of distantiation, copresence is not experienced.

Research on isolation and distantiation echoes the literature on perceived proximity (O’Leary et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2008), a notion that was developed in response to the need for a more nuanced approach to the phenomenon of proximity and to complement the findings of research on spatial dispersion (O’Leary & Cummings, 2007; Wilson et al., 2008). In particular, the aim was to better identify paradoxical situations in which individuals feel closer to colleagues who are physically far away and vice versa (Wilson et al., 2008). Perceived proximity¹ refers to the subjective experience of proximity, that is, ‘the individual perception of being more or less close to a person’ (Wilson et al., 2008, p. 983).

Remote copresence in telework can, thus, oscillate between social isolation (i.e., an absence of experienced copresence) and perceived proximity, the latter testifying to an experience of reciprocal presence with the other. Research has identified organizational factors that reduce feelings of isolation (Taskin, 2010; Vega & Brennan, 2000) as well as practices that promote a sense of perceived closeness in remote work (O’Leary et al., 2014; Ruiller et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2008). Notably, research emphasizes shared values, norms, or a common identity as well as the importance of communication and opportunities for collegial interactions (O’Leary et al., 2014; Taskin, 2010; Vega & Brennan, 2000) to limit the risk of isolation in telecommuting practices. However, these levers are mainly related to the organizational perimeter and the actions of employees and managers within the companies involved in teleworking, and few studies have considered the environment in which it is accomplished. Teleworking is mostly analyzed from the perspective of home-based practice, the dominant context for this form of remote work organization (Baruch, 2000; Cefrio, 2001; Hislop & Axtell, 2007). However, teleworking can take a variety of forms (Cefrio, 2001; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016; Taskin, 2010) and can even combine several work environments (Felstead et al., 2005a; Halford, 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2007, 2009). It seems all the more relevant to look at the re-spatialization of remote work (Halford, 2005) in alternative environments beyond home, as the perception of social isolation can vary according to the context. It may be felt more strongly at home than in a satellite office or business center (Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Kurland & Cooper, 2002). Thus, the experience of face-to-face interactions in alternative workspaces would provide nuance for the remote copresence experienced with the company. Despite this nuance, re-spatialization² remains underexplored (Halford, 2005), especially in contexts such as coworking spaces (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). These environments are known to provide opportunities for social and professional interactions, made possible by coworkers’ physical proximity (Garrett et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018; Parrino, 2015; Scaillerez & Tremblay, 2019; Spinuzzi, 2012). This prompts us to better consider these spaces and the experience of social interactions that characterizes them.

The re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces

New, more flexible, and mobile work practices have encouraged the growth of new work environments, leading to the reconfiguration of the work landscape (Felstead et al., 2005a). In particular, coworking spaces have developed significantly since 2005 (Deskmag, 2017, 2019). Initially intended for self-employed workers, these spaces are increasingly of interest to employees and companies, who see them as an alternative to home-based teleworking and the difficulties of social isolation (Fernandez et al., 2014; Ross & Ressia, 2015). Indeed, coworking spaces provide a professional working environment with open and arranged spaces, services, and a friendly social environment (Spinuzzi, 2012), which can lead to collaborative (Capdevila, 2015; Fabbri & Charue-Duboc, 2016; Scaillerez & Tremblay, 2019) and communitarian experiences (Blagoev et al., 2019; Garrett et al., 2017; Spinuzzi et al., 2019). The rise of coworking spaces has been accompanied by a diversification of space forms and associated offerings (Gandini & Cossu, 2021; Kojo & Nenonen, 2017), which makes it more difficult to understand the experiences of these varied environments (Gandini, 2015; Jakonen et al., 2017; Spinuzzi et al., 2019).

Coworking spaces were first thought of as a response to the isolation of independent workers and entrepreneurs (Boboc et al., 2014; Gerdenitsch et al., 2016; Jakonen et al., 2017). By enabling ‘working alone, together’ (Spinuzzi, 2012) or even working together (Capdevila, 2015; Fabbri & Charue-Duboc, 2016; Le Nadant et al., 2018; Scaillerez & Tremblay, 2019; Vidaillet & Bousalham, 2018), these spaces offered an alternative to the lack of a setting, both physical and social, that the traditional corporate work environment can provide (Gerdenitsch et al., 2016; Petriglieri et al., 2019). The first coworking spaces were based on five dimensions identified as the pillars of coworking: collaboration, openness, community, accessibility, and sustainability (Coworking wiki). These values are the basis of the social experience within these spaces and underline the issues of interaction, sharing, and reciprocity between members (Salovaara, 2015), which are essential for understanding the copresence in these environments.

Copresence in a coworking space is characterized by a physical spatiotemporal colocation of coworkers within the same space. This physical proximity is at the origin of interactions and encounters (Le Nadant et al., 2018; Parrino, 2015; Spinuzzi, 2012), often informal or not formalized (Blagoev et al., 2019; Krauss, 2019). The degree of social interaction within coworking spaces can vary: simply sitting side-by-side, working while exchanging a few words, building professional relationships, sharing ideas, and even collaborating (Spinuzzi, 2012). These everyday interactions can create a sense of community (Garrett et al., 2017). This is the result of coworkers’ participation in the space, especially during social times (informal or organized) as well as the sharing of values and routines (Blagoev et al., 2019; Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Garrett et al., 2017).

However, physical proximity within coworking spaces is not always sufficient to create collaborative dynamics in these socio-professional environments (Jakonen et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018; Parrino, 2015). Research also highlights the role of the organized and organizational dimensions of coworking spaces (Blagoev et al., 2019) in the implementation of a social environment conducive to interactions between members (Jakonen et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018; Parrino, 2015). Le Nadant and her coauthors mobilize the notion of ‘organized proximity’ (Rallet & Torre, 2004) ‘of relational essence and [which] corresponds to the capacity that an organization offers to make its members interact’ (2018, p. 123) for the understanding of collaborative dynamics in coworking spaces. Their research highlights the essential role of this organized proximity, and in particular, the role of the facilitator (the space manager for instance) in ‘activating geographic proximity’ between coworkers (Le Nadant et al., 2018, p. 127). Facilitation of the space promotes the mutual attention and reciprocity necessary for the copresence by creating opportunities and favorable conditions for interactions. Nevertheless, the extent to which coworking space teams are involved in facilitating social life varies from one space to another, especially in the context of their diversification (Gandini & Cossu, 2021; Kojo & Nenonen, 2017).

Thus, in a coworking space, copresence can also oscillate between social isolation and perceived proximity depending on the experience of reciprocal presence with others in this space. Here, social isolation can be felt when face-to-face interactions do not live up to the individual’s expectations (absent or insufficient interactions) despite physical and organized proximities. In addition to colocation and organizational factors specific to coworking spaces, copresence in these spaces relies on the coworkers themselves. Indeed, coworkers’ commitment contributes to producing a social environment that is conducive to social interactions and even to the community experience (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Jakonen et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018). Nevertheless, this involvement depends on individual needs and choices (Jakonen et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018). Endrissat and Leclercq-Vandelannoitte (2021) emphasize the issue of the availability of coworkers, who are present in these environments to work but do not always have the capacity or the will to get involved in social times or collaborative dynamics (Le Nadant et al., 2018). This lack of involvement would be explained by ‘a significant social capital (extensive network of extra CWS professional relations³, loyal clients)’ or by the exercise of an ‘activity [. . .] for a company located outside the CWS’ (Le Nadant et al., 2018, p. 133). Thus, their remote interactions would nuance the physical copresence experienced in the coworking space. Nevertheless, although suggested, the specific experience of employees is not made explicit. Moreover, there is little research that identifies the employees’ re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces (Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021), which this research aims to make explicit by focusing on their experiences of copresence.

Methodology

The results are based on an interpretive ethnographic approach (Ybema et al., 2009), conducted with the intention of developing a contextualized understanding of the experience of employees working remotely from their corporate office, in coworking spaces. Data were collected between February 2017 and December 2019 within seven coworking spaces belonging to two different networks, CWS-A and CWS-B. What follows presents the context of the research, the data collected, and, finally, the approach to the analysis.

Research context: Two networks of coworking spaces

I conducted an ethnographic study in two research fields using a comparative qualitative approach. Specifically, a ‘pooled strategy’ (Bechky & O’Mahony, 2015, p. 170) was adopted, and ‘data from multiple organizations [were] pooled to build a theory on a common process’ (Bechky & O’Mahony, 2015, p. 170), namely, here the issues of the re-spatialization of remote work, in coworking spaces. Given the coworking spaces’ diversification of offers and forms (Gandini & Cossu, 2021; Kojo & Nenonen, 2017), the research was conducted drawing on the comparable and distinctive characteristics of the research fields to study practices and processes common to different organizations.

CWS-A and CWS-B are two multi-site organizations, which have coworking spaces in France, several of which are in the same urban area. The empirical research was initiated in February 2017 with an exploratory phase within CWS-A (five sites). CWS-A is one of the pioneering coworking organizations in France. It is aligned with the founding values of coworking spaces mentioned in the literature. Since 2011, CWS-A has opened more than 10 spaces in France between 100 and 200 m² each and defines itself as ‘a working community with coworking spaces’. CWS-A offers 100% nomadic coworking service (without a fixed workstation), and its members can access all the coworking spaces of the network with a subscription. Since its inception, CWS-A has welcomed all worker profiles. Even though the presence of employees in coworking spaces was still an emerging phenomenon in France in 2017, CWS-A already comprised a community of more than 800 members at the beginning of this research, 25% of whom are employees.⁴ CWS-A’s spaces are all organized in a similar way:⁵ a convivial open space with a kitchen; a quiet space separated from the convivial space by transparent partitions to favor accessibility and exchanges; and between two and five meeting rooms, depending on the space. A manager is present in each space and is responsible for facilitating daily life.

The second research field was identified a few months later in early 2018, while continuing the study within CWS-A spaces. Consistent with the comparative pooled strategy (Bechky & O’Mahony, 2015), I sought an organization of coworking spaces with both similarities and differences to CWS-A. I also wanted to ensure a homogeneous population of participants with respect to the use of the spaces for teleworking: regular attendance (membership), no fixed job assignment, and multiple locations. CWS-B met these criteria while presenting some differences, notably in terms of offering, space size, and social dynamics. Founded in 2015, CWS-B offers workers and companies shared workspaces with the goal of better balancing work and personal growth.⁶ CWS-B proposes a mixed offer in its spaces: coworking (lively and quiet), private offices, and meeting rooms.⁷ Between 2015 and the end of 2019, CWS-B opened a dozen sites in France of more than 4,000 m² each and counted between 4,500 and 5,000 members in its community over the study period. On each site, a team of two to three people is responsible for managing the space, particularly to facilitate ‘business interactions between members’ (CWS-B’s website).

Data collection

Data were collected between February 2017 and December 2019 from seven coworking spaces located in the same urban area: five CWS-A spaces and two CWS-B spaces. Three techniques were used: participant observation within the spaces; interviews (semi-structured and open-ended) with employees-coworkers (55 participants) and coworking space managers (17 participants); and internal and external documents. Most of the employees-coworkers participants were interviewed several times during the study period, providing an opportunity to extend understanding of the remote work experience within these spaces. The elements are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Data collected

Name	Number of spaces	Participant observation (hours)	Participants	Interviews
CWS-A	5	343	44 employees-coworkers	76
			12 managers	12
CWS-B	2	121	11 employees-coworkers	13
			5 managers	5
Total	7	464*	55 employees-coworkers	89
			17 managers	17
Note: * it should be noted that the difference in data between the two organizations is mainly due to the number of sites established for each network within the geographic scope of the study (one urban area in France).
Source: own elaboration.

I conducted participant observation as a coworker, but my role as a researcher was known to the organizations and other coworkers, and I indicated that the research project concerned the experience of employees in coworking spaces. In addition to a regular presence in the spaces, observation periods were also planned according to the opportunities provided by social events and interviews while trying to ensure a balance between the different sites. These included ‘Friday breakfast’, ‘co-lunch’, ‘newcomers’ afterwork’, snacks, and creativity workshops. This approach made it possible to identify the various people present and involved in the collective action within these spaces and develop exchanges with them, particularly with employees-coworkers. Participants were recruited by a direct approach or voluntarily offered to participate in the study after a communication was disseminated within the coworking spaces and on their social networks: articles in the newsletter or the magazine; messages on the community platform; or information passed to the site’s managers. All employees who were members of CWS-A and CWS-B’s nomadic coworking spaces were invited to participate in the study. Deliberately, no other selection criteria (frequency of presence, size of the company, sector of activity, seniority in the company, or professional activity) were used to benefit from the wealth of various experiences.

Semi-structured interviews lasting between 45 and 90 min were conducted. To ensure the coherence and homogeneity of the population, the research focused on employees-coworkers in shared workspaces (coworking) and not those in private offices.⁸ Interviews were conducted based on an interview guide with three themes: daily remote work practices in coworking spaces, relationships in the company and in the spaces, and habits and feelings in the company and in the coworking space. Employees-coworkers talked about their daily habits, such as their rhythms and schedules, the spaces in which they settle into work, or take breaks. They shared social interactions, often informal, that they had with space managers and other members. Note that the coworking space was the main work environment for most participants. Three quarters of them teleworked more than three days a week on average (34 out of 44 participants for CWS-A and 8 out of 11 for CWS-B). Interviews were also conducted with the coworking space managers to identify their activities and roles in these environments. All interviews were conducted face-to-face in coworking spaces, allowing participants to share their feelings and show what they characterized as their work environment.

Documents complemented the data collected in this study. Internal documents include newsletters of coworking spaces to members, information leaflets, data from websites, social networks, and community platforms. In addition to these internal documents, press and blog articles were considered which shed light on the overall context of the study and the social life policy desired by managers in each coworking space network. Thus, they contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon analyzed by making it possible to specify the different contexts and their possible impact on employees-coworkers’ experiences.

Data analysis

An inductive process was used for data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967), initiated before the end of data collection and conducted in four main phases. The first phase of the analysis was iterative and based on the emergent coding of the data from participant observation. To develop a detailed understanding of the field contexts, coding by floating attention (Ayache & Dumez, 2011) of the observation notes was used, without predefined categories, and elements characterizing individual and collective practices within coworking spaces (convivial times, use of spaces, spontaneity of interactions, communication with members, etc.) were identified. This approach highlighted similarities and differences in practices between the two networks, CWS-A and CWS-B, as well as between the spaces of the same network, and enabled to better understand the differences in the facilitation of spaces and communities. The analyses of the observation data about employees-coworkers led to distinguish between the work practices (as employees) and social practices (as coworkers) in these environments.

In the second phase, understanding of employees-coworkers’ practices was extended by analyzing the data from the interviews. Through an iterative process, modalities (reasons for the presence, rhythms and time management, access and inter-space mobility, and installation and use) and feelings (productivity, well-being, integration, and community) were specified. In particular, the literature on coworking spaces was used to make sense of these practices. Technical and practical ways of organizing remote work (rhythm, formalization and control, ICT use, and shared applications) and feelings toward them were further identified as the analysis progressed. Some participants mentioned their use of ICT to ‘stay in touch’ with their colleagues, despite their physical distance. Others emphasized the difficulties of being in contact with their colleagues in the company, and even the resulting feeling of isolation. The literature on telecommuting has helped to understand some of these results, particularly through research on distantiation (Taskin, 2010) and perceived proximity (Wilson et al., 2008).

Nevertheless, at the end of these analyses, similarities and disparities between coworkers’ experiences remained unexplained. Indeed, despite similar experiences in the coworking space (e.g., social dynamics in the space, participation in convivial times, and use of the workspaces in particular), the accounts differed in final feelings in the coworking space, in particular with regard to the feeling of isolation associated with remote work. Moreover, participants from CWS-A and CWS-B mentioned similar experiences despite differences between coworking spaces’ characteristics. A third phase of data analysis then began, which focused on the experiences of physical and remote interactions of employees-coworkers, and the concept of copresence emerged during the analysis (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Goffman, 1963, 1983; Grabher et al., 2018). This provided an opportunity to interpret employees-coworkers’ feelings beyond the geographical modalities of interactions (face-to-face or remote via ICT) and to construct a typology of four hybrid copresence experiences. Hybrid copresence is defined here as the synthesis of social interactions that are simultaneously experienced and associated with two distinct organizational and spatiotemporal contexts. This typology was developed by pooling the data at the individual level of employees-coworkers and then identifying families through an inductive approach based on an in-depth examination of individual cases and their comparisons (Bayart, 2007; Curchod, 2007). In keeping with the definition proposed by Campos-Castillo and Hitlin (2013), copresence is represented as a continuum of the experience of social interactions. Two experiences of copresence for the participants are distinguished: a remote one with the company and a physical one in a coworking space. Each corresponds to a particular spatiotemporal and organizational context. The degrees of copresence were assessed in an iterative way, regarding employees-coworkers’ experiences and the literature on telework and coworking spaces. The notions of isolation (social and physical), proximity (physical and perceived), and mutual attention allowed for qualification of the copresence, which is lived or not by the participants. Four distinct families of hybrid copresence were identified, depending on whether the experiences of physical and remote copresence are lived or not. These different types of hybrid copresence were named to capture the overall perception of employees-coworkers’ interactions: (reinforced) isolation, ubiquity, (guilty) compensation, and (frustrated) refocusing.

Finally, it became apparent that employees-coworkers’ situations were not fixed, and their physical, remote, and hybrid copresences can vary over time. The final phase of the analysis to trace and characterize these changes was then conducted. A narrative analysis of the interviews with coworkers was implemented to specify the evolution of their feelings about remote and physical social interactions in a coworking space and to identify the possible individual factors of these changes. Data on coworking spaces (observations and additional documents) were also used to clarify the contextual dimension of the changes.

Thus, a typology is proposed that allows for a better identification of how the re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces affects employees’ copresence through an understanding of the dynamics of interactions engaged during a remote work experience in these environments.

Results

First, the four identified hybrid copresences are presented. Then, the evolutions observed between these four situations and the conditions of these changes are described.

Four experiences of hybrid copresence

The four hybrid copresences with a representation of the typology are shown in Figure 1. The four families are defined from two axes, illustrating the varying degrees of copresence experienced with people in the company and in the coworking space. Isolation and ubiquity are described first, and physical and remote copresences are similar: either both absent or both fully experienced by employees-coworkers. Then, the situations of (guilty) compensation and (frustrated) refocusing are presented. These two experiences of hybrid copresence are characterized by divergent physical and remote copresences. This discrepancy generates a hybrid copresence that privileges one environment of interactions over another and can be responsible for discomfort for the employee-coworker. The number of participants who have experienced some form of hybrid copresence at least once is also indicated.⁹

Figure 1. Situations of hybrid copresence in coworking spaces.
Source: own elaboration.

(Reinforced) isolation

This hybrid copresence is characterized by employees-coworkers’ dissatisfaction with their experiences of remote and physical copresence. (Reinforced) isolation was encountered the least by the participants, or it is not a situation that lasts over time, with only seven of the participants experiencing this hybrid copresence at least once.

In this situation, remote copresence with the company is not experienced by employees-coworkers or in an insufficient way that does not correspond to their expectations. This dissatisfaction often exists prior to their presence in the coworking space. Participants mentioned the difficulties and limits of remote interactions with colleagues, such as Anna (CWS-B), who is a full-time remote employee. She is in Lyon, her colleagues are in Paris, and she regrets not being able to spontaneously share her difficulties but also her successes with them: ‘Here, I don’t have a team … I’m all alone from my company … so when I have [good news] I can’t really say it, share with other colleagues’. She also points out the lack of information transmitted and even the fact that she is sometimes forgotten:

When you are not at the HQ, you are not aware of anything … everything happens in Paris and they forget us quite easily … for example yesterday I had a training session and they forgot me … they went in a room altogether, they did their training, but without launching the Skype session.

This feeling of isolation can even be felt despite the daily use of synchronous (e.g., chat) and asynchronous (e.g., email) communication tools. The lack of regularity in exchanges was also mentioned, as experienced by Florent (CWS-A), a ‘full-remote’ employee in an international company: ‘We exchange by email, chat … we have more or less regular meetings … it should be every week but it’s more like every month, every two months … it’s a bit of a shame […] I really miss it …’

Social isolation in the company can be reinforced by a lack of interaction in remote employees’ daily lives. This can also affect well-being, as Florent expresses: ‘It happened to me to pass several days without speaking to anybody, or almost […] I frightened myself to say to me that I was going to become again, as before, hyper wild’.

Therefore, remote employees look for a work environment that provides them with social interactions on a daily basis to be less isolated in their work. For them, it is at least a matter of ‘seeing people’ (Florent—CWS-A) or ‘saying hello to someone other than the janitor’ (Estelle—CWS-B). However, the need for interactions may have been underestimated by the future employee-coworkers who also hoped to share convivial moments with coworkers. Their absence questions presence in the space, as illustrated by Florent, who tested another space before joining CWS-A. ‘I went there two or three times … I talked to some people, but it was hard … just at lunch, nothing happened or organized … to take a break together’. Florent did not stay in the coworking space because he did not feel better than at home. Participants also talked about difficulties with social interactions in the space that they did not expect, as illustrated by Anna’s experience on her first day at CWS-B:

When I arrived, there was a breakfast in the kitchen [. . .] they were all laughing and then I come in and say ‘Hello!’ [jovial tone] … and NOBODY¹⁰ answers . . . everyone looks at me, but NOBODY answers me! It was … [big sigh] […]

I went to sit down to work, and I could hear everything that was going on in the kitchen … ‘come and have an orange juice’ or ‘come and have a croissant’ … and [to me], nothing, they didn’t even answer my ‘Hello’ so it was very complicated, I had a very bad experience.

This experience exemplifies the three elements that influence the experience of copresence, according to Campos-Castillo and Hitlin (2013), and in this case, the absence of attention, empathy, and imitation. Anna also explained to us that she ate there ‘all alone’ for a while and wondered why ‘people […] aren’t super nice’.

Thus, whether face-to-face or remote interactions, employees-coworkers do not perceive the reciprocity of their intentions in social relations or not according to their expectations. They faced an absence of attention. (Reinforced) isolation is a hybrid copresence particularly experienced by the participants when they arrive at CWS-A or CWS-B, or beforehand, in coworking spaces tested during their search for a space. It is also a situation evoked by full-time remote employees with an irregular presence (no rhythm of presence) or a weak presence (one or two days a week, in addition to teleworking at home) in the coworking space. This lack of consistent rhythm does not allow an easy social integration within the coworking space. (Reinforced) isolation can also be experienced in coworking spaces where social interactions are not facilitated by space managers or promoted by organized social times (e.g., collective lunches). This absence or lack of social interaction within the coworking space with people who are physically present in the same environment highlights the already existing isolation, a consequence of the physical and psychological distance between them and their colleagues in the company. In this situation, the lack of physical copresence experienced in the coworking space echoes the perceived inadequacy of the remote copresence and may reinforce the feeling of social isolation.

Ubiquity

Ubiquity is the hybrid copresence situation characterized by physical and remote copresence experiences that meet employees-coworkers’ expectations. This situation reflected the experience of 43 participants.

In this situation, participants interact easily with their colleagues, thanks to the ICT deployed and used by all employees. Notably, this is the case for Benjamin (CWS-A), a full-time remote worker since his hiring. The team has set up remote collaboration routines with regular exchange times and online collaborative tools (a shared drive and Slack in particular).

We have tools to work collaboratively. We use Slack. We use the paid version to have the visio app. We can communicate with several people, we can work together with channels. […] Then, we have a drive that we use quite often, and we use Onepassword to manage passwords. The tools were gradually put in place.… We have meetings every morning at 9:45 to tell each other what we are doing. The idea is that it must be short, that is, 15 to 30 min. It’s the morning coffee with what we call the stand-up meeting. … At the end of the week, at 4:30 pm, we hold a meeting on what we have done during the week. We have a document where we say what we did, where we had difficulties, and it already allows us to see that we made progress on what we had to do and then to update each other and see if we had difficulties in doing things.

Claire (CWS-B) is also satisfied with her remote interactions with her colleagues. She can easily reach and collaborate with them, despite the distance. She combines this remote copresence with regular trips to her office (once or twice a month).

We work a lot with emails in my company. This is the default method of communication. After I use the phone for delicate subjects or when I need to clarify something. And then we have Slack and WhatsApp. Our company uses Slack a lot to decongest our mailboxes … every day, for example, we get a message telling us about the tenders we’ve won or lost, all the HR news such as the arrival of a new employee and a new intern … we get newsletters every month … and as a team we use WhatsApp a lot, it’s more practical.

This remote copresence is combined with a physical copresence in the coworking space that satisfies the employee. Involvement in this space can vary from one individual to another. Some participate in numerous events offered by the coworking space, in and out of work hours, and even organize their day according to the activities scheduled or the presence of other coworkers, such as Benjamin: ‘I look on [the community platform] and when there’s something going on in a space, I go there during the day and stay at night [. . .] I do a lot of activities with the CWS-A people . . . badminton, a little bit of rock climbing . . . and then drinks too [laughs]’.

For others, this is less the case, as illustrated by Claire’s comments about her (non-)participation in the proposed activities: ‘I look at the schedule, but I don’t go [. . .] I think that when I came here, I had a lot of work to do, so I didn’t at all engage in participating in the events or activities of the coworking space’. However, this situation suits her, and she does not express any dissatisfaction with her experience of interactions within CWS-B. Thus, the degree of physical copresence varies from one individual to another according to the involvement that each individual wishes to or is able to invest according to his situation. Nevertheless, let us remember here that the experience of physical copresence meets employees-coworkers’ expectations and satisfies them.

Ubiquity is a hybrid copresence in which participants express harmony between the two experiences of their interactions while they are in a coworking space. They move easily from one form of copresence to another, from one collective to another. The following excerpt from my observation notes illustrates the ease, even fluidity, for some participants to alternate between the two experiences of copresence. The scene occurs in one of the CWS-A spaces:

I’m at the large table in the convivial area. We are about ten people around the table. The coworkers are chatting. . . They sometimes laugh. G. has his big headset on, an earphone on one ear and the other pushed back. N. has removed one of her earphones. G. interrupts and says: ‘My boss is calling me, I’ve to take the call’. G. puts his earphone back on his ear. He stays at the table, does not move, and starts talking in developer language. The discussion continues between other coworkers, but without him . . . and sometimes laughter … […] ‘OK, see you later’ … G. raises his head and pushes his headset back to free an ear. He recounts his exchange and the technical problem they dealt with . . . the others listen to him. . . S. even gives him some advice.

This situation illustrates the hybridization of social interaction experiences in which employees take part, mixing reciprocal attention, shared emotions, and behaviors. They experience a balanced hybrid copresence in which they manage to distinguish between what belongs to the coworking space and to their company. Here, copresences are synergic, and the coworking space provides employees-coworkers with the physical social framework that they lack, but which they recognize is different from that of their company. Ubiquity is more particularly experienced by employees whose company has adopted a flexible work organization for all its employees, both at the office and remotely, and this approach is based on the integration of remote work practices and tools into the core of its operation. This hybrid copresence also requires a reflexive approach from employees-coworkers to identify their needs for interaction in each social environment. This will allow them to identify, even early in their search, the coworking space that will meet their expectations among the diversity of coworking space offers. When these conditions are not met, employees-coworkers experience a hybrid copresence characterized by an imbalance between their physical and remote copresences: either a compensation that can be accompanied by a feeling of guilt toward the company or a refocusing on their remote copresence that can be accompanied by a frustration toward the coworking space experience. These two situations are explained further in the following sections.

(Guilty) compensation

Compensation is a hybrid copresence characterized by a remote copresence that does not satisfy employees-coworkers, contrary to their experience of physical copresence in a coworking space. Fourteen participants were included in this situation.

Here, employees do not experience remote copresence. Remote interactions with colleagues were insufficient or of poor quality. This may be due to technical difficulties and the unsuitability of mediated communication tools. Mathilde (CWS-A) experienced this situation during team meetings with her colleagues at headquarters. She expressed her difficulties in a message posted¹¹ on the CWS-A community platform and asked for advice to improve her situation (Figure 2). Notably, we note that meetings are technically ‘very difficult to follow’ and she felt excluded from the company.

Figure 2. Post on about the challenges of video conferencing with the enterprise.
Source: CWS-A’s community platform; own elaboration.

Interactions can also suffer due to distance. Some participants reported difficulties interacting with their colleagues, even if only to obtain answers by email or phone. Béatrice’s experience (CWS-A) testifies to this point. She was teleworking in a coworking space three days a week. Sometimes, she has to wait until her return to headquarters to obtain requested information:

If I send a request by email, I think they’re purposely not getting back to me. I’m a bit paranoid. …’She can wait…’ … and when I’m there, I’ll get the information I was waiting for during the two days I wasn’t there [. . .] when you’re there, physically in front of the other person’s office, ‘well you were supposed to send me this information’ … at least people are obliged to answer you. When you are at a distance…

These examples illustrate the behavior of employees in companies who pay less attention to their remote colleagues. Interactions do exist, but they are mainly initiated by the teleworker, who must take the initiative to go toward his colleagues, physically or via ICT. The experience of remote copresence is affected, and this experience does not meet remote employees’ expectations. They feel there is physical and social distance between themselves and their colleagues, alongside a lack of reciprocity in exchanges and behavior.

This remote copresence is associated with a physical copresence experience that meets or exceeds employees-coworkers’ expectations. Some participants found a similar experience in the coworking space to what they could have from being physically present in a company. Even if it is not always easy to define coworkers (friends, colleagues, etc.), employees live face-to-face social experiences in a work context, as Mathilde testifies to: ‘Here I immediately sought to be part of the group. I needed to feel included, and it was easy. It’s a community of friends, of buddies, of … we don’t really know what … but in any case, it is a community of people I see every day when I go to work’.

The employees-coworkers also appreciate moments of conviviality without any tensions associated with their mission or company, as Béatrice explains:

Lunch at noon or breaks in the morning … even though I take very few breaks … the few I do take, it does me a lot of good … to talk with people who have nothing to do with my work, to have different topics of the conversation […] to be with people with no corporate history that sometimes pollutes the relationships.

The combination of copresences is a source of a hybrid copresence characterized by tensions emanating from the divergent feelings of face-to-face and remote interactions. More precisely, physical copresence in the coworking space compensates for remote copresence that is lacking (due to its poor quality or absence), while, at the same time, leading employees-coworkers to develop alternative forms of attachment in the coworking space. Mathilde spoke during her interviews of her attachment to CWS-A and its coworkers. She regrets the isolation due to remote working but fears losing her coworking experience if she leaves her company. Béatrice’s experience also reveals this hybrid copresence, which manifests itself in the compensation of the remote copresence by the physical copresence in the coworking space. She even found comfort there when faced with professional difficulties:

By coming here for three days a week, I BETTER SUPPORT bad aspects of my work. […] Here there is no one toxic so it really promotes an immersion and a well-being that I don’t have in a company … it develops special bonds […] I really made a friendship [with some] […] and it allows me to disconnect.

Nevertheless, employees are part of a relationship influenced by professional obligations toward the company. Some feel guilty about their participation in the life of the coworking space, whether it is a matter of simple breaks or specific convivial times (thematic lunch, board games, coworkers’ breakfasts, etc.).

The more you integrate, the more people you know. . . I’ll admit there are days when . . . lunch gets longer and longer. . . I’ve kind of gotten back into smoking with the CWS-A people when I wasn’t smoking anymore . . . to take breaks with them . . . so I go downstairs, and we talk for half an hour. So, I’ll admit that it can be a BIG scattering of the professional goal . . . it makes me feel bad about my job, my company. I don’t live it very well . . . yet I tell myself that it’s normal to take breaks. . . But well . . . as a result, I stay longer and longer in the evening.

Even if this physical copresence makes remote employees feel better at work, it is associated with the need to compensate for the time that is not devoted to work for the company. This hybrid copresence does not seem to be without risk for employees-coworkers since it puts them in difficulty in their relationship with the company. It seems to be favored by the conjunction of two elements: a (self-)constrained relationship between the employee and the company, and the friendly environment of the coworking space.

(Frustrated) refocusing

A final form of hybrid copresence is identified: refocusing. Contrary to compensation, it is characterized by a remote copresence that satisfies employees-coworkers, unlike their physical copresence in the coworking space. Ten participants related their experience to this hybrid copresence.

On the one hand, employees-coworkers are satisfied with their interactions with their colleagues. Despite their physical distance, they still experience presence with each other and there is some reciprocal influence. They can easily reach their colleagues and interact with them through different channels (emails, phone calls, and videoconferences, in particular). Their level of information meets their expectations, and they consider having good work conditions with regard to their company. This is shown in the comments of Antoine and Alice (Table 2).

Table 2. Satisfactory experiences of remote copresence in a refocusing situation

Antoine (CWS-A)	Alice (CWS-B)
He has been a full-time remote employee for several years. He was already an employee of his company before he moved to Lyon and negotiated telecommuting.	Alice has been recruited as a full-time remote worker. She teleworks from one of CWS-B’s spaces or when she travels to clients’ locations.
‘I have a lot of interaction with my colleagues … and even since I have a team. We call each other, we make calls. […] I have seniority and I manage to stay corporate’.	‘I have a weekly follow-up with my director and [another colleague], by Skype. I was very afraid of feeling isolated but it’s fine . . . and I go to headquarters once a month’.
Source: own elaboration.

On the other hand, physical copresence in the coworking space does not meet employees-coworkers’ expectations. Two reasons for this situation were identified: either the promised experience does not conform to their lived one or they are not able to live it fully. In the first case, employees-coworkers realize that interactions in the coworking space do not correspond to what they had imagined from joining this type of place. Creating a link with other coworkers is not easy or spontaneous, especially when the social life is insufficiently facilitated by a space manager. It is sometimes necessary to register for organized events. Employees-coworkers express dissatisfaction with their experience in the coworking space and even regret their choice of space, as illustrated by Alice’s comments. She does not find in her current experience the promises made during her initial visit:

They wanted to set up a lot of interesting things … and today it’s just classic offices […] it’s a well-decorated coworking space and basta […] but I expected more events, that they really try to create a community, to organize conferences on subjects that I’m interested in…

In the second case, employees-coworkers have found an environment that suits them but are not able to participate in the potential advantages of the coworking space and social interactions. The numerous possibilities of social interactions in coworking spaces are not always compatible with their professional activities or the organization of their work, as Antoine’s experience illustrates. After months of working from home, he joined a CWS-A’s space with face-to-face social time, especially at lunch. He found what he was looking for to feel better at work. However, his daily professional life is not always compatible with the life and social rhythms of the coworking space. He is sometimes disturbed by noise in the space while he is on the phone with clients. Moreover, he does not always manage to live his experience of physical copresence as he would like and sometimes regrets missing out on certain convivial moments:

Here they have a snack at 4 pm … I can’t manage to … it doesn’t suit me at all! I can’t stop, especially in the middle of the afternoon, to have a snack … it. . . I have trouble…

[…]

It’s nice when I have the time … However, if I am doing something … I like to finish. I have a job that is quite demanding.

Antoine is unable to share behaviors associated with social experiences within the coworking space, which detracts from his experience of physical copresence.

The combination of copresences generates a hybrid copresence characterized by a refocusing of employees-coworkers on their remote copresence with the company. Their priority is professional activities and interactions with the company. In the first case, illustrated by the example of Alice, employees-coworkers regret their missed experience of copresence in a coworking space. Nevertheless, they recognize that this space allows them to be in a dedicated professional environment, rather than home, to accomplish the tasks they have to do for the company. In the second case, illustrated by the example of Antoine, employees-coworkers mention all the social interests present in the coworking space but regret not having time to devote to it given their professional activity. They may feel frustrated because of their refocusing on remote copresence through the realization of their missions. ‘I have to work in the quiet coworking area because I need to be 100% focused. When I have calls, I have to go to the meeting room to not be disturbed. But then I’m not really connected with the other coworkers’.

This hybrid copresence situation was observed among employees-coworkers present in CWS-A and CWS-B. Beyond the type of coworking space or the profile of the remote employee, this situation is mainly caused by a gap between the expected experience of physical copresence in a coworking space and the actual one. The reasons for this discrepancy can be attributed to both the coworking space and the employee-coworker. I specify this by detailing evolutions from one hybrid copresence to another.

Evolutions from one hybrid copresence to another

Hybrid copresence experiences are not fixed. Participants evolving from one situation to another over time were observed, which is consistent with copresence being a ‘[continuous] endogenous, subjective variable dynamically related to social context’ (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013, p. 168). Here, the different observed evolutions are presented. The evolutions are often positive. Employees-coworkers leave the coworking space when this is not the case, as Florent did after having tried a coworking space before CWS-A. Degradations were also observed. Three types of factors of these evolutions were identified through our comparative approach: individual factors corresponding to changes in remote employees’ expectations; organizational factors associated with the company; organizational factors associated with the coworking space. The results are summarized in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Summary of hybrid copresence and evolutionary factors.
Source: own elaboration.

From isolation to (guilty) compensation through integration in the coworking space

The first observed evolution of the hybrid copresence leads employees-coworkers to leave isolation and evolve toward a situation of compensation. This evolution indicates changes in the physical copresence lived in the coworking space. As employees-coworkers socially integrate into the coworking space, they find a response that conforms to their expectations in terms of interactions and reciprocity in this environment. The type of coworking space is an important factor in this evolution. It is based on the community dimension and the facilitation of interactions within the coworking space (shared routines, values, social times, etc.), an element that was particularly present within CWS-A spaces. For instance, depending on the role of the person in charge of the space (space manager or community manager), the integration of remote employees among coworkers can be easier. Florent emphasized this in comparison to his previous experience: ‘I like it when there is someone who creates an atmosphere that allows people to talk to each other […] if it wasn’t for that, I’m one of those who wouldn’t go and talk to others’.

However, the experience of remote copresence remains unchanged and unsatisfactory in relation to employees-coworkers’ expectations. The compensation situation results from this new hybridization of physical and remote copresence. A feeling of guilt toward the company may be present, depending on the remote employee’s profile and the (self-)regulatory dimension in the work relationship with the company.

From compensation to ubiquity through improved remote working practices

A second evolution leads employees-coworkers to shift from compensation to ubiquity. This evolution of hybrid copresence indicates an improvement in remote copresence resulting from organizational factors related to the company. Indeed, employees-coworkers mentioned changes in remote working practices in the company, and companies are realizing that they need to take better account of the physical distance of their remote employees. Gustave’s experience (CWS-A) illustrates this evolution of hybrid copresence. He was the only teleworker in his company, and he participated remotely in weekly team meetings. The conditions were not optimal, but this gradually changed to take a better account of his situation.

We’ve already improved [the situation] from before. Now, we are on Skype, before we were on the phone! So now, I SEE what they’re reading … they bought an octopus. THEY call me … EVERY Monday … They used to forget me at times. I yelled a couple of times and after a while … it was frustrating … I felt isolated. You are quickly forgotten when you are remote. This happened again on Friday for a distance learning course. Now they call me every time on Mondays. It’s written in the meeting agenda ‘call Gustave’ in the first line so they can’t forget…

This awareness from Gustave’s colleagues and their action to ‘not forget him anymore’ have introduced more reciprocity and helped Gustave to change his feelings about his remote interactions with them. He can be part of the same action as his colleagues, who are together at headquarters, especially by sharing information better. Emotion, attention, and behaviors have been modified, which have improved the degree of reciprocal perception, that is, his remote copresence. The physical copresence remains unchanged with coworkers and is still satisfactory. From then on, employees-coworkers can live a more balanced, harmonious, and ubiquitous hybrid copresence.

From ubiquity to compensation by neglecting the long-distance relationship

A third evolution leads employees-coworkers to shift from ubiquity to compensation. This evolution of hybrid copresence is the result of deterioration in the experience of remote copresence, with individual and organizational factors related to the company being identified. The company-employee relationship is gradually abandoned, and responsibilities fall on all stakeholders in this relationship. Employees and their colleagues in the company interact less, a routine may be established for remote work, and physical visits to headquarters become fewer. Remote interactions are favored to limit the fatigue of going back and forth, as Ariane (CWS-A) testified: ‘I made the decision, as I had no appointment in Paris, nothing at all. . . I said to myself “no, I don’t have the strength to go to Paris”’.

These changes in the regularity of interactions with colleagues affect the experience of hybrid copresence. Informal exchanges are lost, and interactions are refocused on the management of problematic situations. This is what Noémie (CWS-A) experienced: ‘The last year was particularly hard for everyone […] there were tensions between colleagues, and this climate heavily weighs on me […] so daily life was very difficult’.

She explained that she particularly relied on the social environment within CWS-A to get through this difficult period and find comfort. However, the compensation provided by the experience of physical copresence in a coworking space also highlighted the difficulties she faced within her company which inspired feelings of guilt:

And even though I was here and there was a very friendly and relaxing part, which allowed me to take a break from work, I find that … you could say that as soon as you go back to your computer . . . [she blows out her breath and crashes into her chair] […] [it was] really in contrast with my way of working or what work gave me […].

This evolution reflects a disturbed equilibrium owing to the emergence of tensions in the overall experience of hybrid copresence.

From (frustrated) focus to ubiquity through individual adjustments

A fourth evolution leads employees-coworkers to shift from refocusing to ubiquity in their hybrid copresence. An individual factor is responsible for this evolution, as employees-coworkers manage to adjust their expectations and experience of the coworking space over time. Three possible adjustments have been identified: revising their expectations of physical copresence in the coworking space; adjusting their remote work equipment to limit tensions in the experience of hybrid copresence; adjusting their work organization to be in phase with certain convivial times deemed essential. These elements are described and illustrated in Table 3.

Table 3. Individual adjustment factors of physical copresence in the coworking space

Adjustment procedures	Description	Illustration
Reviewing expectations of physical copresence	Employees-coworkers overcome disappointment linked to the non-lived experience in the coworking space. They define another experience of copresence in connection with the existing conditions of interactions in the space to find a ubiquitous balance.	‘My expectations have changed with the CWS-B offer. [. . .] I actually have a very busy schedule and I have to admit that I clearly don’t take the time [either]. [. . .] I need to concentrate and, in the end, it’s very quiet here’. (Alice)
Adjusting the remote work equipment	Employees-coworkers equip themselves to limit tensions in their hybrid copresence experience. The objective is to better experience the physical copresence while remaining able to interact properly with remote colleagues to accomplish the assigned missions.	‘I bought myself a headset that takes out the outside noise. So, when I really need to concentrate, I put on my headphones and I don’t hear anything. [. . .] I also put myself back in the friendly space because I told myself that I had to be consistent with my approach of reconnecting with the outside world, not to disconnect with people when I’m here. And I still have to be efficient in my job, it has to be a good balance’. (Antoine)
Adjusting the work organization	Employees-coworkers reorganize their working time by considering social time that they consider important for them in the coworking space. These times allow them to experience degrees of physical copresence that meet their expectations.	‘I don’t take part in the snack but between at noon I find it really beneficial, it makes me feel good! So, what I like to do is to spend two or three hours in isolation, with the headphone on. . . And on the other hand, I don’t hesitate to take an hour and a half to eat, for the most part, or even two hours, until 2 pm when I can relax completely’. (Antoine)
Source: own elaboration.

Thus, thanks to these individual adjustments, employees-coworkers evolve their experience of physical copresence. They experience a harmonious hybrid copresence that meets their expectations in terms of physical and remote copresences.

From ubiquity to (frustrated) disenchantment in the coworking space

The final evolution observed leads employees-coworkers to move from ubiquity to refocusing on their remote copresence. This evolution of hybrid copresence shows the degradation of the experience of physical copresence. This is the result of organizational factors related to the coworking space that are responsible for disenchantment in this environment. Management of the coworking space is an essential element, as shown in the case of CWS-A. After major organizational changes within this network, managers reduced their presence in the spaces and involvement in daily social life. Many employees-coworkers said they ‘regretted’ these changes and their impact on interactions in space, which were less numerous and less facilitated, as Antoine pointed out:

They changed a few months ago, they said ‘we’re rotating the managers’ … but in fact the guy doesn’t feel too invested and it’s not his space … and there’s a bit more of a sloppiness to it overall […] [before] there was really a responsibility of the manager … that people eat together […] There’s no longer that you see […] and it’s kind of going downhill. It’s a bit of a shame because that’s what makes his life.

These changes disrupted the balance and, therefore, ubiquity. They led employees-coworkers back to a hybrid copresence characterized by a refocusing on their remote copresence. We can also note the frustration felt by Antoine in this situation, since he had implemented adjustments allowing him to live a ubiquitous copresence. If ubiquity represents a goal, Antoine’s example shows that it is never completely acquired.

Discussion

This study mobilized the notion of copresence revisited by Campos-Castillo and Hitlin (2013) and applied to understand the phenomenon of re-spatialization of work in coworking spaces. Thus, it has shown the hybridity of the social experience of employees in a re-spatialized organization of work involving a combination of different socio-organizational spheres and technical modalities. The notion of ‘hybrid copresence’, defined as the synthesis of experiences of social interactions lived simultaneously and associated with distinct organizational and spatiotemporal contexts, was introduced to account for this experience. Four types of hybrid copresence that are experienced in varying degrees by employees-coworkers were introduced: isolation, ubiquity, compensation, and refocusing. Finally, the changes observed from one hybrid copresence to another were described, and individual and organizational factors responsible for these changes were highlighted. A sociological definition of copresence was used, essentially perceptual (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013; Grabher et al., 2018), based on the subjectivity of employee-coworker’s interactions. Nevertheless, the results also highlight the role of contextual factors associated with the company and the coworking space, and the permeability of copresence experiences between them. Notably, this study shows that ubiquity, the ideal situation of hybrid copresence, requires a symbiosis of all stakeholders: the employee-coworker, the company, through colleagues and managers, and the coworking space via the coworkers and the coworking space manager.

This research shows that the coworking space becomes a container of a hybrid copresence involving distinct organizational spaces: the company, albeit distant, and an alternative physical workspace (in this case, the coworking space). In Figure 4, a territorialized representation of hybrid copresence following a re-spatialization of work in alternative workspaces is proposed. The factors that contribute to the evolution of hybrid copresences are also indicated.

Figure 4. Hybrid copresences in a context of re-spatialization of work.
Source: own elaboration.

It should be noted that certain evolutions from one copresence to another were not observed during the study, but previously identified factors could be involved or combined to explain them. In particular, the dotted lines on the figure indicate the factors at play in a shift from isolation to refocusing. Here, organizational factors relating to the company are concerned, such as the improvement of remote working conditions and better use of ICT by all employees. Direct ‘isolation—ubiquity’ or ‘refocusing—compensation’ evolutions, and vice versa, seem unlikely. They would imply radical and simultaneous changes in physical and remote copresences. Nevertheless, these trajectories are possible through progressive evolution (e.g., isolation to compensation to ubiquity). Return to isolation was not observed. It seems possible from a degradation of the physical or remote copresence, depending on the initial situation of the employee-coworker (refocusing or compensation). Nevertheless, a departure from the company, the coworking space, or both would be one of the main outcomes of this evolution. Teleworkers will then look ‘elsewhere’ for other experiences of copresence in the face of the challenge of social isolation. These cases, although rare, call for more attention in future research to better explain them and to explain the conditions for their absence.

The first part of the discussion concludes by placing the results from the perspective of the evolution of work into a post-COVID-19 context, which seems to favor an increased practice of telework, both at home and in alternative spaces such as coworking spaces. Indeed, simply going back to the pre-COVID-19 way of working, with 100% of face-to-face work in the office, is no longer favored when flexibility is possible. Employees are looking for a better balance between their private and professional lives, which is a benefit enabled by teleworking. Professional studies on the future of the office and workspaces in companies underline, and even encourage, this reflection on the hybridization of environments and practices.¹² However, these developments pose managerial challenges, particularly in relation to teams. Thus, they invite reflections on the possible evolution of remote and hybrid copresences. The re-spatialization of work is a process initiated by companies before the COVID-19 health crisis. Nevertheless, this crisis forced many companies and their employees to adopt teleworking without being prepared for it. Despite difficulties, this period allowed for large-scale experimentation with teleworking and encouraged the appropriation of digital tools to keep organizational activity as fluid as possible. Remote work practices have been made visible and concrete to a larger number of employees. As a result, it may have improved the mutual attention of employees toward each other (Taskin, 2021) and the use of remote collaboration tools. These elements are in favor of improvement in remote copresence. Hybrid copresence in a coworking space also depends on the physical copresence experienced by employees-coworkers. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to the choice of space so that this post-COVID-19 context supports a ubiquitous copresence rather than an experience of refocusing on the remote copresence in the company.

The theoretical contributions and managerial implications of the study are discussed below.

Theoretical contributions

The contributions of this study are threefold. First, it contributes to the literature on organizational space (Beyes & Steyaert, 2012; De Vaujany & Mitev, 2013; Stephenson et al., 2020; Weinfurtner & Seidl, 2019). Specifically, through the lens of copresence, there is a contribution to the understanding of the re-spatialized organizational space of the company. New work practices involve an increase in the atomization and hybridization of workspaces (Aroles et al., 2019, 2021; Felstead et al., 2005b; Halford, 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2009). This hybridization of practices and spaces has been reinforced by the COVID-19 health crisis, which seems to have set telecommuting on a more permanent footing. Organizations are called upon to think about their work methods and spatiality in a hybrid way, combining on-site and remote work to function fluidly and efficiently (Chênevert et al., 2023). Nevertheless, few studies consider third places of work (Kingma, 2016; Messenger & Gschwind, 2016) beyond the physical boundaries of the company (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). By following employees in the coworking space, this research captures an alternative organizational dimension that has not been made explicit in the understanding of the re-spatialization of work until now. The coworking space is also an organizational space, that is, a socio-material construction co-produced by the practices within it and in constant evolution (De Vaujany & Mitev, 2013, 2016). Through the identification and exploration of hybrid copresence experiences, this research shows that organizational factors associated with the coworking space, and thus, an alternative socio-material dimension, participate in the construction of the organizational space of the company. It is interesting to see how the overall feeling of telework and interactions with the company will be different for each employee, depending on the experience of physical copresence in the coworking space. This result is not insignificant for understanding the macro-level implications of the copresence experience (Campos-Castillo & Hitlin, 2013), particularly within the company. The context in which work is re-spatialized, in this case the coworking space, is, therefore, not neutral for the construction and evolution of the organizational space of the company. This research, thus, provides an invitation to think of the re-spatialized organizational space as a network of different interdependent workspaces, connected by the experience of employees’ interactions, whether they are on site or at a distance. Potentially informative research perspectives on this subject have arisen from this research, in particular through considering the construction of the organizational space of the company through the uses and experiences of employees in different spaces of the re-spatialization of work.

The second contribution concerns literature on teleworking and distantiated forms of work, with a complementary perspective to the existing works (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Hislop & Axtell, 2007; Kurland & Bailey, 1999; Taskin, 2010) provided by considering the role of the social space in which telework is performed. This research adds to the understanding of employees’ telecommuting experiences by characterizing the interactional, dual, and evolving dimensions of telecommuting in coworking spaces, thus identifying the extent to which coworking spaces may or may not offer an alternative to the risk of social isolation of teleworkers, especially at home (Kurland & Cooper, 2002; Taha & Caldwell, 1993; Vega & Brennan, 2000). To my knowledge, this has yet to be clarified. By explaining the hybrid copresence experienced by the employee-coworker, three types of experiences have been identified that are complementary to the experience of social isolation already present in the literature. The hybrid copresence of ubiquity seems to be the most likely to offer an alternative to the risk of teleworkers’ isolation. The situations of refocusing and compensation present specific issues that result from a combination of physical and remote copresences, which is a source of discomfort for the employee. However, it should be noted that the study did not allow for clarification of the long-term effects of these three hybrid copresence situations, particularly on the remote workers’ lived experience in their companies and coworking spaces, with further studies needed.

This research also enriches the understanding of the experience of remote workers’ isolation, which can be reinforced, by showing that an experience of physical presence in a social environment may not be sufficient to overcome the difficulty associated with teleworking. The results echo the fact that the combination of workspaces resulting from a re-spatialization process is ‘more than the sum of each space’ (Halford, 2005, p. 30). This combination creates new practices and relationships that are distinct from those of each space involved (Halford, 2005). The results show that the spaces are not substitutable for each other, but they combine, notably in the experience of hybrid copresence. Thus, it would be detrimental to neglect remote interactions with teleworkers in the pretext that they would be less exposed to the risk of social isolation by being in a coworking space. The situation of (guilty) compensation is a particular example of this, as well as certain developments resulting from the abandonment of remote relationships (see ubiquity to compensation).

The third contribution concerns the literature on coworking spaces. The role of these spaces in the transformation and development of new forms of work has already been discussed (Vidaillet & Bousalham, 2018). By focusing on employees present in these spaces, this study shows that coworking spaces can allow the maintenance of traditional forms of employment, such as wage employment, under certain conditions. The specific issues of this user population were examined in doing this, particularly regarding their expectations related to social experience. This research has provided an opportunity to qualify and clarify the elements concerning the sometimes limited involvement of employees-coworkers in the collaborative dynamics within the spaces (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021; Jakonen et al., 2017; Le Nadant et al., 2018). For some, low involvement in a space is not a difficulty (ubiquity); for others, it has more to do with a lack of availability than an absence of desire (refocusing). This situation can be a source of uneasiness in their experience in the coworking space and at work. The results of this study also show that employee-coworkers can be involved in collaborative dynamics, a way for them to compensate for what they cannot experience with their company collective (compensation). Thus, as for self-employed workers (Blagoev et al., 2019; Petriglieri et al., 2019), these spaces can act as a substitute for the company for some employees-coworkers, especially regarding their experience of social interactions at work (particularly compensation). This work helps to show that for these coworkers’ profiles, a good understanding of their experience in coworking spaces cannot be achieved without particular attention to their experience of copresence with the company. This research, thus, contributes to a better understanding of the formation of the atmosphere in a coworking space (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). This is particularly true when the presence and participation in the collective life of certain members can be conditioned by a remote copresence. Indeed, the atmosphere is fluid, continuously produced and reproduced through the participation of members in the socio-material practices of the space (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). It depends on the more or less active role of the coworkers, and in particular on their participation in community time, which can be in conflict with their productivity objectives (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021). This is particularly the case for employees-coworkers who experience compensation and refocusing situations. Besides, employees-coworkers in a situation of ubiquity show a ‘spatial self-management’ (Endrissat & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021, p. 10) and show their capacity to identify the socio-material framework adapted for the realization of their professional activities between physical presence and distance. This research, thus, contributes to the reflections on the organizational dimension of coworking spaces (Blagoev et al., 2019; Vidaillet & Bousalham, 2018), based more on the interactions between members than the transactional relationship between coworkers and the coworking organization (Blagoev et al., 2019). Therefore, it requires an environment conducive to interaction. The coworking space also builds its organizational dimension on its ability to shape the professional activities of its coworkers (Blagoev et al., 2019), which requires an understanding of the extent to which their members are able to participate in collective dynamics, depending on their history, the characteristics of the space, and the encounters they have there (Vidaillet & Bousalham, 2018). By becoming a territory of the re-spatialization of work, the coworking space must also consider the remote copresence of the employees-coworkers in its space. The more a ubiquitous experience is favored, the more likely it is that there will be the capacity to build or reinforce its own organizational dimension by integrating the diversity of the profiles it contains. The results invite further research in this direction, given the evolution of coworking spaces, their uses, and coworkers’ profiles (Gandini & Cossu, 2021; Kojo & Nenonen, 2017).

Managerial implications

This research offers interesting managerial implications regarding the management of teleworking in coworking spaces, both for teleworkers’ companies and coworking space managers.

The research first identifies certain conditions that must be met to achieve the hybridization of workspaces and practices. Engaging in this type of approach has a cost, at least that of the coworking space (between 120 and 300 euros per month, excluding VAT, per employee, depending on usage). It must, therefore, be worth it, especially by making it possible to limit the risks of social isolation, but also of guilty compensation and frustrated refocusing following experiences of hybrid copresence at work. This research provides an opportunity to better specify the relationship between employees and their colleagues in the practice of teleworking in coworking spaces, particularly the rhythm of teleworking, and to ensure that qualitative face-to-face interaction time is planned and maintained in the company. This research also points to a better adoption of ICT in daily telework practices, both by remote employees and their colleagues in the company. Indeed, discrepancies have been noticed between the experiences of employees whose companies have integrated ICT into their practices and those for whom management and working methods are more based on face-to-face practices (use of paper documents, direct oral communication, low use of telephone, and email for example). The improvement of these practices, encouraged by the post-COVID-19 context, seems to be a relevant way to limit the difficulties linked to these work practices and to promote the experience of reciprocity between employees. They must be skillfully combined with interpersonal skills, whose role is fundamental, beyond the social and technological conditions of interaction (Hafermalz & Riemer, 2020). In addition, this research highlights challenges in distinguishing between two dimensions of telework in coworking spaces: the practical and technical modalities of telework in these spaces on the one hand, and the experience of interactions (i.e., copresence) on the other hand. The effective combination of these two dimensions will allow a better understanding of the employee’s experience and help to avoid inappropriate or inefficient managerial practices in the management of telework and its risks. In particular, this research has shown that the same remote copresence with the company can give rise to two distinct hybrid copresences, with different stakes (e.g., ubiquity or refocusing for a satisfactory remote copresence for the employee). The potential solutions to the difficulties of teleworkers are not without other risks if the social and organized dimension of these spaces is underestimated. In this perspective, attention needs to be paid to the remote employees’ experiences in this space, and to the differences between their expectations and their experiences, regardless of whether the choice of the space is the responsibility of the teleworkers or the company in a context of flexibilization of work practices.

This research also presents possible avenues of reflection for managers of coworking spaces faced with new employees-coworkers, who are becoming increasing in number. Space managers must integrate into their community clients who also experience a remote copresence with a company group. This remote experience also influences experience in the coworking space and needs to be understood by space managers to ensure the satisfaction and loyalty of employees-coworkers over time (ubiquity). It is also a challenge for cohesion, even community spirit, within the coworking space as a whole.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Stéphan Pezé for his support and constructive editorial follow-up. I also thank the three anonymous reviewers for their challenging comments and ideas. I acknowledge Caroline Hussler and the members of the Strategy research group (Magellan Research Center, Jean Moulin Lyon III University) for their feedbacks on a previous version of this paper. I particularly thank Isabelle Royer for her support and insightful comments. Finally, I acknowledge the AIMS Association for allowing very helpful exchanges during the annual (online) conference in 2020.

References

Aroles, J., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Dale, K., Kingma, S. F., & Mitev, N. (2021). New ways of working (NWW): Workplace transformation in the digital age. Information and Organization, 31(4), 100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100378

Aroles, J., Mitev, N., & De Vaujany, F.-X. (2019). Mapping themes in the study of new work practices. New Technology, Work and Employment, 34(3), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12146

Ayache, M., & Dumez, H. (2011). Le codage dans la recherche qualitative une nouvelle perspective ? Le Libellio d’Aegis, 7(2), 33–46. Retrieved from http://lelibellio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Libellio-Dossier-Codage-2011.pdf

Bailey, D., & Kurland, N. (2002). A review of telework research: Findings, new directions and lessons for the study of modern work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.144

Baruch, Y. (2000). Teleworking: Benefits and pitfalls as perceived by professionals and managers. New Technology, Work and Employment, 15(1), 34–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-005X.00063

Bayart, D. (2007). De l’étude de cas à l’analyse comparative fondée sur une typologie : le « typological theorizing ». Le Libellio d’Aegis, 3(3), 10–13. Retrieved from http://lelibellio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/libellio7.pdf

Bechky, B. A., & O’Mahony, S. (2015). Leveraging comparative field data for theory generation. In K. D. Elsbach & R. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative organizational research: Innovative pathways and methods (pp. 168–176). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849072

Beyes, T., & Steyaert, C. (2012). Spacing organization: Non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508411401946

Blagoev, B., Costas, J., & Kärreman, D. (2019). “We are all herd animals”: Community and organizationality in coworking spaces. Organization, 26(6), 894–916. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418821008

Boboc, A., Bouchareb, K., Deruelle, V., & Metzger, J.-L. (2014). Le coworking : un dispositif pour sortir de l’isolement ? SociologieS. https://doi.org/10.4000/sociologies.4873

Campos-Castillo, C., & Hitlin, S. (2013). Copresence: Revisiting a building block for social interaction theories. Sociological Theory, 31(2), 168–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275113489811

Capdevila, I. (2015). Co-working spaces and the localized dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2502813

Cefrio. (2001). Télétravail. Concilier performance et qualité de vie (Ed. L. D’Amours). Isabelle Quentin.

Chênevert, D., Giauque, D., Abord de Chatillon, E., Delobbe, N., & Vayre, É (2023). Du télétravail à l’hybridité : une nouvelle manière de penser la gestion de nos organisations ? Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des comportements organisationnels, 24(77), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.54695/rips2.077.0005

Curchod, C. (2007). De l’analyse critique des typologies bricolées. Le Libellio d’Aegis, 3(3), 14–18. Retrieved from http://lelibellio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/libellio7.pdf

Deskmag. (2017). The 2017 global coworking survey. Deskmag.

Deskmag. (2019). The 2019 global coworking survey. Deskmag.

De Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2013). Introduction: Space in organizations and sociomateriality. In F.-X. De Vaujany & N. Mitev (Eds.), Materiality and space: Organizations, artefacts and practices (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137304094_1

De Vaujany, F.-X., & Mitev, N. (2016). Introduction au tournant matériel. In F.-X. De Vaujany, A. Hussenot, & J.-F. Chanlat (Eds.), Théories des organisations, Nouveaux tournants (pp. 137–155). Economica.

Endrissat, N., & Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2021). From sites to vibes: Technology and the spatial production of coworking spaces. Information and Organization, 31(4), 100353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2021.100353

Fabbri, J., & Charue-Duboc, F. (2016). Les espaces de coworking : nouveaux intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte ? Revue française de gestion, 254(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2016.00007

Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Walters, S. (2003). Managerial control of employees working at home. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 241–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8543.00271

Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Walters, S. (2005a). Changing places of work. Palgrave Macmillan.

Felstead, A., Jewson, N., & Walters, S. (2005b). The shifting locations of work. Work, Employment and Society, 19(2), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017005053186

Fernandez, V., Guillot, C., & Marrauld, L. (2014). Télétravail et « travail à distance équipé ». Quelles compétences, tactiques et pratiques professionnelles ? Revue française de gestion, 238(1), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.3166/RFG.238.101-118

Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organizations, 15(1), 193–205. Retrieved from https://ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contribution/15-1gandini.pdf

Gandini, A., & Cossu, A. (2021). The third wave of coworking: “Neo-corporate” model versus “resilient” practice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 24(2), 430–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419886060

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 Studies, 38(6), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685354

Gerdenitsch, C., Scheel, T. E., Andorfer, J., & Korunka, C. (2016). Coworking spaces: A source of social support for independent professionals. Frontiers in Psychology, 7(581), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00581

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Free Press.

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141

Grabher, G., & Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as asset? Knowledge collaboration in hybrid virtual communities. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(1), 97–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbt014

Grabher, G., Melchior, A., Schiemer, B., Schüßler, E., & Sydow, J. (2018). From being there to being aware: Confronting geographical and sociological imaginations of copresence. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 50(1), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17743507

Hafermalz, E., & Riemer, K. (2020). Interpersonal connectivity work: Being there with and for geographically distant others. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1627–1648. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620973664

Halford, S. (2005). Hybrid workspace: Re-spatialisations of work, organisation and management. New Technology, Work and Employment, 20(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2005.00141.x

Hislop, D., & Axtell, C. (2007). The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary studies of work: The case of telework. New Technology, Work and Employment, 22(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2007.00182.x

Hislop, D., & Axtell, C. (2009). To infinity and beyond? Workspace and the multi-location worker. New Technology, Work and Employment, 24(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2008.00218.x

Jakonen, M., Kivinen, N., Salovaara, P., & Hirkman, P. (2017). Towards an economy of encounters? A critical study of affectual assemblages in coworking. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 33(4), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.10.003

Kingma, S. F. (2016). The constitution of third workspaces in between the home and the corporate office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12068

Kingma, S. F. (2019). New ways of working (NWW): Work space and cultural change in virtualizing organizations. Culture and Organization, 25(5), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2018.1427747

Knorr-Cetina, K. (2009). The synthetic situation: Interactionism for a global world. Symbolic Interaction, 32(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2009.32.1.61

Knorr Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002). Global microstructures: The virtual societies of financial markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 905–950. https://doi.org/10.1086/341045

Kojo, I., & Nenonen, S. (2017). Evolution of co-working places: Drivers and possibilities. Intelligent Buildings International, 9(3), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.987640

Krauss, G. (2019). Les espaces de coworking et les trajectoires sociales de leurs fondateurs et utilisateurs : études de cas dans le sud-ouest de l’Allemagne dans une ville moyenne et dans une petite commune périphérique. In G. Krauss & D.-G. Tremblay (Eds.), Tiers-lieux. Travailler et entreprendre sur les territoires : espaces de coworking, fablabs, hacklabs… (pp. 19–40). Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Kurland, N. B., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics, 28(2), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-2616(00)80016-9

Kurland, N. B., & Cooper, C. D. (2002). Manager control and employee isolation in telecommuting environments. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(1), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(01)00051-7

Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, A. (2021). Do coworking spaces promise a revolution or spark revenge? A Foucauldian spatio-material approach to the re-spatialization of remote work in coworking spaces. In N. Mitev, J. Aroles, K. A. Stephenson, & J. Malaurent (Eds.), New ways of working: Organizations and organizing in the digital age (pp. 151–174). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61687-8_7

Le Nadant, A. L., Marinos, C., & Krauss, G. (2018). Les espaces de coworking : Le rôle des proximités dans les dynamiques collaboratives. Revue française de gestion, 272(3), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.3166/rfg.2018.00233

Lussault, M. (2007). L’homme spatial. La construction sociale de l’espace humain. Le Seuil.

Messenger, J. C., & Gschwind, L. (2016). Three generations of telework: New ICTs and the (r)evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12073

O’Leary, M. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2007). The spatial, temporal, and configurational characteristics of geographic dispersion in teams. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 31(3), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148802

O’Leary, M. B., Wilson, J. M., & Metiu, A. (2014). Beyond being there: The symbolic role of communication and identification in perceptions of proximity to geographically disperses colleagues. MIS Quarterly, 38(4), 1219–1244.

Parrino, L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 13(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47

Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019). Agony and ecstasy in the gig economy: Cultivating holding environments for precarious and personalized work identities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 124–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218759646

Rallet, A., & Torre, A. (2004). Proximité et localisation. Économie rurale, 280(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.3406/ecoru.2004.5470

Ross, P., & Ressia, S. (2015). Neither office nor home: Coworking as an emerging workplace choice. Employment Relations Record, 15(1), 42–57. Retrieved from https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.237909907440429

Ruiller, C., Dumas, M., & Chédotel, F. (2017). Comment maintenir le sentiment de proximité à distance ? Le cas des équipes dispersées par le télétravail. RIMHE: Revue interdisciplinaire management, homme & entreprise, 27(3), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.3917/rimhe.027.0003

Salovaara, P. (2015). What can the coworking movement tell us about the future of workplaces? In A. Ropo, P. Salovaara, E. Sauer, & D. de Paoli (Eds.), Leadership in spaces and places (pp. 27–48). Edward Elgar.

Scaillerez, A., & Tremblay, D.-G. (2019). Travailler et collaborer autrement : les espaces de coworking, une approche apparentée aux communautés de pratique. In G. Krauss & D.-G. Tremblay (Eds.), Tiers-lieux. Travailler et entreprendre sur les territoires : espaces de coworking, fablabs, hacklabs… (pp. 143–156). Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Sewell, G., & Taskin, L. (2015). Out of sight, out of mind in a new world of work? Autonomy, control, and spatiotemporal scaling in telework. Organization Studies, 36(11), 1507–1529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615593587

Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(4), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070

Spinuzzi, C., Bodrožić, Z., Scaratti, G., & Ivaldi, S. (2019). “Coworking is about community”: But what is “community” in coworking? Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 33(2), 112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651918816357

Stephenson, K. A., Kuismin, A., Putman, L. L., & Sivunen, A. (2020). Process studies of organizational space. Academy of Management Annals, 14(2), 797–827. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0146

Taha, L. H., & Caldwell, B. S. (1993). Social isolation and integration in electronic environments. Behaviour and Information Technology, 12(5), 276–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449299308924391

Taskin, L. (2006). Télétravail: Les enjeux de la déspatialisation pour le management humain. Interventions économiques, 34, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.4000/interventionseconomiques.680

Taskin, L. (2010). La déspatialisation. Enjeu de gestion. Revue française de gestion, 202(3), 61–76. Retrieved from https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-gestion-2010-3-page-61.htm

Taskin, L. (2021). Télétravail, organisation et management : enjeux et perspectives post-COVID. Regards économiques, 164, 13–19. Retrieved from https://www.regards-economiques.be/images/reco-pdf/reco_214.pdf

Vega, G., & Brennan, L. (2000). Isolation and technology: The human disconnect. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(5), 468–481. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010377435

Vidaillet, B., & Bousalham, Y. (2018). Coworking spaces as places where economic diversity can be articulated: Towards a theory of syntopia. Organization, 27(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418794003

Weinfurtner, T., & Seidl, D. (2019). Towards a spatial perspective: An integrative review of research on organisational space. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 35(2), 101009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.02.003

Wilson, J. M., O’Leary, M. B., Metiu, A., & Jett, Q. R. (2008). Perceived proximity in virtual work: Explaining the paradox of far-but-close. Organization Studies, 29(7), 979–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607083105

Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. (Eds.). (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446278925

Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence, 12(5), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761261

Zhao, S., & Elesh, D. (2008). Copresence as “being with”: Social contact in online public domains. Information Communication and Society, 11(4), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801998995

Footnotes

^1. Wilson et al. (2008) discuss the distinction between perceived proximity and copresence (p. 995). Nevertheless, the authors mobilize a ‘geographical’ conception of copresence, that is to say a copresence understood as the spatiotemporal context of interactions. Here, the approach is complementary, since it proposes to discuss the concept of perceived proximity with a different understanding of copresence, understood here as the subjective experience of social interactions.

^2. Note that the notion of re-spatialization is not opposed to that of distantiation (Taskin, 2010). The former refers to the process of spatial reconfiguration of work with hybridization of multiple work environments (Halford, 2005; Hislop & Axtell, 2007, 2009; Kingma, 2016; Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, 2021), while the second refers to the subjective experience of distance in telework practice (Taskin, 2010). Distantiation is a consequence of the development of telework and the re-spatialization of work in alternative environments to the company.

^3. CWS stands for ‘coworking space’.

^4. This proportion will increase over the study period, since employees will represent approximately 35% of the members at the end of the study and 50% of the time spent in the spaces (source CWS-A).

^5. Thirty to fifty workstations available for coworking.

^6. Source: CWS-B’s website and communication on professional networks.

^7. Approximately 70 coworking spaces in all areas; 400 to 500 office spaces; 15 to 20 meeting rooms. These numbers vary by CWS-B site.

^8. It was observed early on that there were significant differences in behaviors between nomadic employees and those in closed offices during the observations in CWS-B spaces. Therefore, the decision was made to focus only on nomadic employees-coworkers in order to privilege the differences emanating from the context of coworking spaces for the understanding of common processes associated with the re-spatialization of work in these spaces.

^9. Because some of the participants experienced multiple forms of hybrid copresence during their coworking space experience, the sum of participants is greater than 55, the number of participants in the study.

^10. The capital letters represent a raising of the tone or volume of participants’ speech.

^11. Some elements of the post have been hidden to respect the anonymity of the participants.

^12. For example, the JLL studies in June 2020 and November 2020 or Neo-nomade (e-book). Calvayrac, R. (2020, June 8). COVID-19 et après ? (Re)imaginer les bureaux de demain. JLL. Retrieved from https://www.jll.fr/fr/etudes-recherche/recherche/covid-19-re-imaginer-les-bureaux-de-demain ; Pradère, F. (2020, November). Reimagining Human Experience: How to embrace the new work-life priorities and expectations of a liquid workforce. JLL. https://www.jll.co.uk/content/dam/jll-com/documents/pdf/research/jll-reimagining-human-experience-11-2020.pdf; Néo-nomade. (2021, February). Télétravail : 5 scénarios. https://go.neo-nomade.com/télétravail-5-scénarios.