Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models

Bouncken, Ricarda B.; Kraus, Sascha; Pérez, Juan Francisco Martínez

doi:10.1007/s11365-020-00689-4

Cited by 55 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For companies, social interaction in this context is a linchpin, especially for intrapreneurial behavior (Gerards et al 2020 ). CWS (social) interaction adds value simply by being present and opening talking-restraints of involved parties, eventually increasing entrepreneurial outcomes (Bouncken et al 2020a , b ; Jeske and Ruwe 2019 ). Overall, Jeske and Ruwe ( 2019 : 174) emphasize that CWS “provide important sources of support, learning and networking opportunities”.…”

Section: Literature Review and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Social networks in coworking spaces and individual coworker’s creativity

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coworking spaces (CWS) are open creative labs that provide a community-like environment and the necessary surroundings for their users to build and maintain networks with different actors inside and outside the CWS. With a wide variety of knowledge and skills available in trusted surroundings as well as similar value orientations, coworkers enjoy favorable conditions to establish their network-style. However, research has not investigated the benefit of coworkers’ social networks as far as their individual creativity is concerned so far. This paper takes several network characteristics into account: structure in terms of network size and centrality in the CWS, but also trusted and reciprocal relationships, supportiveness, diversity of knowledge exchanged, and the individual openness to core coworking values. Based on the literature on social networks and small group research, we developed a research model. We tested it to get deeper insights into the phenomenon by relying on 113 coworkers in 33 private German coworking spaces. The results show that a central position in the CWS allowing for direct exchange and high individual openness to core coworking values positively affects social involvement and the diversity of knowledge exchanged, and finally, a coworker’s individual creativity. Managerial implications include the vital role of a central position in the CWS for creativity and a somewhat balanced composition of coworkers working alone or in a team.

show abstract

Section: Literature Review and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, Jeske and Ruwe ( 2019 : 174) emphasize that CWS “provide important sources of support, learning and networking opportunities”. Bouncken et al ( 2020a : 1465) highlight the closeness to the entrepreneurship field and describe a CWS as “a real space for entrepreneurship”.…”

Section: Literature Review and Research Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social networks in coworking spaces and individual coworker’s creativity

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although many hybrids between coworking spaces and other business centre concepts are increasingly present, Waters-Lynch et al ( 2016 ) point out differences from other shared office concepts in the aesthetic design of coworking spaces. Weijs-Perrée et al ( 2016 ) also showed a clear difference with serviced offices, which are all located in modern office spaces, while coworking spaces can also be located in former industrial era warehouses or factories (Deskmag 2016 ) and are thus more diverse in outside and inside appearance (Bouncken et al 2020b ).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coworking spaces have become a central component of new work environments, with large international chains. The purpose of this study is to investigate whether user preferences for the physical workspace design are consistent across countries, which the uniformity of such chains seems to suggest. A comparison between the user preferences of coworking spaces between the Netherlands (n = 219), Germany (n = 98) and the Czech Republic (n = 79) is performed using a mixed multinomial logic model for each country. Besides statistical utility of attributes, also motivations for working in coworking spaces are analysed. The findings show that there are some consistencies in preferences across countries. Typical real estate characteristics like accessibility and contract options came forward to be the most important attributes in choosing which coworking space to work at in all three countries. However, significant differences in the desired quality levels of specifically these attributes were found between the countries as well, and only the less important attributes showed similar preferences internationally. This suggests that identical world-wide implementations of the same concept, might serve multi-nationals but possibly will not attract local users. The identified differences in preferences can help to position more specific, dedicated coworking spaces within local markets.

show abstract

“…Apart from the literature that explicitly addresses institutional entrepreneurship, another body of literature can be identified that deals with both institutions and entrepreneurship but does not explicitly refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. Especially, this research stream not directly related to institutional entrepreneurship examines the favoring or inhibiting effects of existing institutions on entrepreneurial behavior (Bouncken et al 2020;Pacut 2020;Sobel 2008;Wang et al 2019;Welter and Smallbone 2011) and, more generally, on the emergence, flourishing, and success of entrepreneurship (Acs et al 2018;Aidis et al 2008;Ali et al 2020;Bouncken et al, 2020;Bowen and Clercq 2008;Dai and Si 2018;Eijdenberg et al 2019;Estrada-Robles et al 2018;Estrin et al 2013;Lv et al 2020;Galindo-Martín et al 2019;Manolova et al 2008;Queirós et al 2019;Urbano et al 2020), especially where institutional voids exist (Puffer et al 2010). Rather than institutional entrepreneurship's focus on institutional change, this body of research sees entrepreneurs as embedded in existing institutions.…”

Section: Performance Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Analysis and Science Mapping of Institutional Entrepreneurship Research

Tiberius

Rietz

Bouncken

2020

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional entrepreneurship comprises the activities of agents who disrupt existing social institutions or create new ones, often to enable diffusion, especially of radical innovations, in a market. The increased interest in institutional entrepreneurship has produced a large number of scholarly publications, especially in the last five years. As a consequence, the literature landscape is somewhat complex and scattered. We aim to compile a quantitative overview of the field within business and management research by conducting bibliometric performance analyses and science mappings. We identified the most productive and influential journals, authors, and articles with the highest impact. We found that institutional entrepreneurship has stronger ties to organization studies than to entrepreneurship research. Additionally, a large body of literature at the intersection of institutions and entrepreneurship does not refer to institutional entrepreneurship theory. The science mappings revealed a distinction between theoretical and conceptual research on one hand and applied and empirical research on the other hand. Research clusters reflect the structure–agency problem by focusing on the change agent’s goals and interests, strategies, and specific implementation mechanisms, as well as the relevance of public agents for existing institutions, and a more abstract process rather than agency view.

show abstract

Entrepreneurship of an institutional field: the emergence of coworking spaces for digital business models

Cited by 55 publications

References 79 publications

Social networks in coworking spaces and individual coworker’s creativity

Social networks in coworking spaces and individual coworker’s creativity

User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic

Performance Analysis and Science Mapping of Institutional Entrepreneurship Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About