coworking study eawop 2015 oslo
TRANSCRIPT
Social Support in Coworking Spaces
Cornelia Gerdenitsch!Julia Andorfer Tabea Scheel
Christian Korunka
• Unaffiliated flexible professionals: freelancers, remote/nomadic workers, digital nomads (Pohler, 2012)
• New ways of working workforce (Demerouti et al., 2014) • Central obstacle: isolation (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Taha &
Caldwell, 1993)
3
• Unaffiliated flexible professionals: freelancers, remote/nomadic workers, digital nomads (Pohler, 2012)
• New ways of working workforce (Demerouti et al., 2014) • Central obstacle: isolation (Bailey & Kurland, 2002; Taha &
Caldwell, 1993)
➡ Coworking Spaces: collaborative space, activities for community building, a social structure, social interactions (Garrett, Spreitzer & Bacevice, 2014)
4
5
„Gree%ng a coworker or talk about
the weekend“ „A coworker asked me to help in a short brain-‐
storming“„A coworker and I
worked together on a website.“
Social Interactions
• Casual conversations… • …obtaining feedback, share ideas, or collaborate (Spinuzzi,
2012) !!!!!!!!!!!
➡ Social interactions in a Coworking Space can take the form of social support
6
„Gree%ng a coworker or talk about
the weekend“ „A coworker asked me to help in a short brain-‐
storming“„A coworker and I
worked together on a website.“
Social Interactions
!!!
• Social support emerges from the social environment (Hobfoll, 2002) with a sender who provides support aiming to help the person receiving support (House, 1981) !
• source of social support in the working context: colleagues, supervisors, coworkers?
7
How does receiving social support influence coworkers?
Social Interactions
Social Support
Hypothesis 1: Social support will be positively related to satisfaction with performance.
• Main effect model of social support found support (e.g., Viswerean, 1999) —> social support from colleagues relates positively to performance (Osca, 2005; Brauch-Feldman, 2002)
• Professional isolation diminishing performance (Golden, Veiga, & Dino, 2008) !
• heterogenous business backgrounds
8
Satisfaction with Performance
• Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll 1989, 2002)
- Ressource gain process (COR theory, Hobfoll, 2002)
—> existence of resources facilitates the development of other resources
9
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Self-efficacy
Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy will partly mediate the relation between social support and satisfaction with performance.
• Conservation of Resources Theory - Ressource gain process (COR theory, Hobfoll, 2002):
existence of resources facilitates the development of other resources
- Under threatening conditions - potential resource lost - investing resources (Hobfoll, 2011)
10
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Self-efficacy
Hypothesis 3: Time pressure will moderate the effect of social support on self-efficacy such that the effect will be stronger when time pressure is high. Hypothesis 4: Time pressure will moderate the mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relation between social support and satisfaction.
Time Pressure
Cross-sectional online study with 154 Coworkers
consistent with Foertsch, 2012; N=1532
software/web development and design
52 spaces, 37 cities!102 male, 52 female
Mean age = 39 (SD = 8.45) 79% university degree
main reason - engaging in social interaction (83%)
11
• Work-related social support scale (alpha = .80; Frese, 1989) • Stress-related job analysis (alpha = .81; ISTA; Semmer, Zapf,
Dunckel, 1989) • Generalized self-efficacy scale (alpha = .79; Schwarzer &
Jerusalem, 1995) • Satisfaction with performance (2 self-developed items)
Focus Group Discussion to check
adequacy
12
SurveySektor Five
β = .21*
ΔR2 = .04, ΔF = 6.80, p = .010 Controlled for Age, Gender, Tenure
13
Hypothesis 1
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Results
14
Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 2
β = .21*
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Self-efficacy
path a: p = .197 path b: p = .062 path c’: p = .017
bootstrapping: 95% [-.003, .082] !Controlled for Age, Gender, Tenure
Results
β = .17*
Simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) high: b = .28***; medium: b = .11***; low: b = -.07*
Controlled for Age, Gender, Tenure15
Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 3
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Self-efficacyTime
Pressure
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0,5
1
1,5
Low Social Support High Social Support
low time pressure
medium time pressure high time pressure
Results
high levels of time pressure [.007, .130] low levels of time pressure [-.058, .003]
90% confidence interval Controlled for Age, Gender, Tenure16
Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 3Hypothesis 4
β = .21*
Social Support Satisfaction with Performance
Self-efficacyTime
Pressure
β = .17*
Results
Coworkers represent a source of social support for independent professionals —> social support has to be activated !Beneficial effect when time pressure is high but NOT when time pressure is low… - focus on problems - low time pressure - slow business
17
Discussion
Strengths: one of the first study about an emerging working environment/concept; as we controlled for gender, age, and tenure generalize results !!Limitation: Cross-sectional design; social support is present - theoretical assumption !!Future research: Different forms of social interaction, motives to engage in social interactions; comparing with traditional source of social support
18
Discussion
Practical Implications: Coworking spaces should provide circumstances that facilitate/activate social support
19
Discussion
- specialization of spaces - displays with currently present
coworkers (Bilandzic, Schroeter & Forth, 2013)
Swarm
!!
Practical Implications: Coworking spaces should provide circumstances that facilitate/activate social support
20
Discussion
- specialization of spaces - displays with currently present
coworkers (Bilandzic, Schroeter & Forth, 2013)
Swarm
Coworking Spaces = a resourceful environment for a specific target group with coworkers as possible source
of social support
questions - questions - questions
!
@cgerden
21
cornelia.gerdenitsch@ univie.ac.at