Silent pods over virtual events – the untapped potential of virtual communities in co-working spaces Open Access

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on workspaces – and the longevity of the effect – is a constant topic in public and academic debate. During the pandemic, most knowledge workers globally were restricted from corporate offices, and even public places such as libraries were unavailable. Existing technology already enabled remote working, while new software and tools were developed continuously. Even though perceived employee productivity was high during the pandemic induced remote working period (e.g. Toivonen et al., 2025; Bouncken et al., 2022), remote work is suggested to entail some adverse impacts, such as the loss of social connectedness. Organizations further fear that remote work hampers innovation and organizational productivity. Consequently, many organizations globally are attracting remote workers back to the corporate office, some even issuing return-to-office mandates.

Meanwhile, remote workers wish to retain their attained freedom to work from anywhere, along with their perceived productivity (Bouncken et al., 2022; Orel et al., 2024b; Kinsman et al., 2024). Many have relocated well out of commuting distance from the corporate office (Orel et al., 2024a; Brouwer and Mariotti, 2023; Vaddadi et al., 2020). Thus, from the corporate perspective, a key benefit of remote working is the access to a wider talent pool geographically. In the war for talent, conscious employers complement the corporate office with alternative workspaces, like co-working spaces (CWS).

CWS have been portrayed as an alternative to working from home (Orel et al., 2024a), the corporate office (Bacevice and Spreitzer, 2023; Orel et al., 2024b) or both (Ananian et al., 2024; Brouwer and Mariotti, 2023; Kinsman et al., 2024; Pan et al., 2023; Vaddadi et al., 2020). Particularly the rise of corporate users in CWS has been noted in recent years (Bouncken et al., 2022; Girija et al., 2024; Johns et al., 2024; Orel et al., 2024a; Micek et al., 2023; Gracheva and Groen, 2024). Corporations are actively seeking shared office space to complement their office portfolios first and foremost to reduce operational costs (Girija et al., 2024; Gracheva and Groen, 2024) but also to support their remote workers (Johns et al., 2024). Providing access to CWS could alleviate some of the known challenges of remote working, mainly social isolation (Johri and Teo, 2018; Ananian et al., 2024; Bouncken et al., 2022; Blake and Roy, 2023; Ganguly et al., 2022; Hysa and Themeli, 2022; Johns et al., 2024; Orel et al., 2024a; Micek et al., 2023; Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020; Vaddadi et al., 2020). As early adopters of co-working, programmers have worked remotely and independent of place for years. CWS allow programmers to benefit from physical copresence, while working virtually with their corporate colleagues and remote teams (Johri and Teo, 2018).

Conceptually, CWS are depicted as windows to the future of work (Johns et al., 2024; Krause, 2019). Since the early 2000s, CWS have acted as pioneers in providing interesting content and building a community at the workplace. Consequently, the value of the physical CWS community has been extensively studied (Bacevice and Spreitzer, 2023; Di Marino et al., 2023; Hajo, 2022; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Hysa and Themeli, 2022; Kinsman et al., 2024; Orel et al., 2024a; Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020). How CWS support virtual, and hybrid work has received much less attention, even though e.g. Krause (2019) called co-working the cultural foundation of virtual work. How and if this foundation has been formed remains underexplored.

The aim of this paper is to identify how virtual elements of CWS are portrayed in existing literature, and how their portrayal changed after the COVID-19 pandemic. We engage in a systematic literature review, identifying different types of virtual services, tools and applications. The literature review answers Research question 1 (RQ1): How are virtual and hybrid solutions portrayed in co-working literature? We complement the literature review with a practice review, using 20 cases of CWS in Australia, Finland, France, Scotland and the USA. The practice review is conducted to explore whether virtual elements carry with them spatial implications. The practice review aims to answer Research question 2 (RQ2): How is virtual and hybrid work shaping CWS?

The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the research design. Section 3 details findings of the literature review, including the meta-analysis. Section 4 presents findings from the practice review, using the knowledge gained from the literature review. Section 5 discusses the findings further, and Section 6 concludes the paper with recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research.

This research uses a deductive approach to theory (Saunders et al., 2019). The first step in this multimethod qualitative study is to identify relevant themes through a systematic literature review (Saunders et al., 2019). The literature review is followed by a review of current practice, in the form of a multiple case study (Yin, 2009). The combination of a literature and practice review allows for more robust findings through cross-analysis. Similar approaches have been used before by e.g. Bocken et al. (2014) and Kyrö (2020). The two research processes are presented in the following.

The study first engages in a systematic literature review to establish how virtual and hybrid elements are portrayed in existing co-working literature, and whether their portrayal changed after the COVID-19 pandemic. The systematic review used the Scopus search engine, with the combinations “co-working + virtual”; coworking + virtual co-working + hybrid; coworking + hybrid from Abstract, Title and Keywords. The searches returned 140 documents. After removal of duplicates and non-English publications, the count was 131 articles. Based on screening of title, source title and keywords, 42 documents were disregarded as irrelevant, leaving 65 articles. Typically, the excluded articles used the word coworking in the meaning “human robot interaction,” rather than a type of workspace. After abstract screening, 40 articles were deemed relevant for the review. Excluded articles typically referred to hybridization as a general shift in the ways of working rather than hybrid or virtual work. Figure 1 details the literature review process.

To explore a phenomenon in its real-life context, the practice review uses a qualitative multiple case study (Yin, 2009). Heterogeneous purposive sampling was used for case selection, as the aim was to illuminate key themes from the cases (Saunders et al., 2019). All selected cases represent CWS, but differ in several aspects, such as the geographical location, size, governance model and end-user group. The geographical spread is especially heterogeneous with the selected 20 cases represent co-working spaces in five countries on three continents. The empirical data collection for the practice review uses several data types from two independent sources. Primary data was collected during the site visits and guided tours, in the form or observations, field notes and photographs. Secondary data was collected through webpages and in some cases provided by the sites as marketing material. Thus, the full data set comprises 300 photos taken during the site visits, field notes, websites and social media accounts. The data triangulation ensures that the data is revealing what it seems to be revealing (Saunders et al., 2019).

The site visits took place between November 2023 and December 2024, each attended by one to three researchers. At least one of the authors of this paper was present on each site visit (see  Appendix for details). The authors work with the same research project but have different expertise and backgrounds. The involvement of several researchers with different backgrounds ensures researcher triangulation and reduces bias. For the site visits, the task was to observe and document elements such as social spaces and events, and services and spaces enabling virtual and hybrid work. No personal data was collected for the purpose of this study. We have followed the suggestions given by the Ethics Review Board of Aalto University, which follows the Finnish national guidelines in its research ethical review process. The full data list is included in the  Appendix.

The data analysis followed a deductive approach building on previous knowledge about the service offering of workplaces. From the Web pages, 216 services and amenities were identified and thematically first grouped into 25 categories. Seven categories were taken into closer examination based on a potential linkage to virtual elements. Data from site visits was analyzed against the data collected from the respective websites. As an example, the presence of teleconferencing amenities was checked from the field notes and photographs. Finally, after thematically categorizing all empirical data, the findings were analyzed against the categories identified in the literature review. One new category emerged from the practice review.

This section details the results of the systematic literature review. First, the meta-analysis compares the publication year, outlet, research method and country, and discusses the difference in pre- and post-pandemic literature. Next, the findings are categorized for their depiction of virtual environments, virtual services, hardware and spatial solutions, as well as software and applications.

Several of the reviewed articles note the first CWS established in San Francisco in 2005. Interestingly though, the oldest article in the review dates all the way back to 2000. Mantovani and Spagnolli (2000) discussed the disruptiveness of virtual collaborative environments, which they coin the “cyberspace.” The number of articles has increased throughout the 2010s and 2020s, with as many as 34 (85%) of the 40 articles from 2019 to 2024. The publication outlets are from the fields of information studies, built environment, organization, employment and sustainability. Several outlets have two articles: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Geoforum, Journal of Corporate Real Estate, Organization Studies, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology and Sustainability. Still, most journals have published only one article on the topic. A significant share, 10 (31%) of the articles are published in conference proceedings, while 4 (13%) are book chapters. The most common research method is case study, which is used in over half of the reviewed articles. The case studies mainly focus on only one or two countries, including Great Britain (Hajo, 2022), Czech Republic (Orel et al., 2024b), Hungary (Yousef, 2024), Estonia (Sinitsyna et al., 2022), Norway (Di Marino et al., 2023; Sinitsyna et al., 2022), Sweden, Finland and The Netherlands (Lundgren et al., 2022), the USA and New Zealand (Johri and Teo, 2018), China (Cheah et al., 2019; Kubátová, 2016); Australia (Bilandzic and Foth, 2013), Canada (Ananian et al., 2024), Philippines (Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020) and India (Ganguly et al., 2022).

The first paper from 2000 focuses on the disruptiveness of new technologies, and the experience of presence in virtual environments (Mantovani and Spagnolli, 2000). They note how virtual environments should not even attempt to mimic the physical environment, but rather designers of virtual offices should focus on finding what in a physical environment makes us want to share and collaborate (Mantovani and Spagnolli, 2000). Overall, the articles published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic discuss virtual environments and copresence (Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Johri and Teo, 2018). Another focus is the emergence of digital and sharing economies (Arvidsson, 2018; Krause, 2019). Yang et al. (2019) discussed how novel technologies enable place dependent work and coworking. Crucial to enabling such work are teleconferencing amenities, discussed by several pre-pandemic articles. Cheah et al. (2019) argued that co-working operators should provide a virtual social space. A clear shift in the reviewed literature occurs in 2020. A wider selection of virtual and hybrid services emerged as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, which is reflected in the literature (Ananian et al., 2024; Di Marino et al., 2023; Orel et al., 2024a; Orel et al., 2024b; Lundgren et al., 2022). A majority, 58% (or 18 out of 31) of the articles published 2020–2024 mention the pandemic as an accelerator for hybrid and virtual workspaces. A distinctive novelty is the emergence of virtual recreational events (Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Orel et al., 2024a; Orel et al., 2024b). The post-pandemic literature is characterized by enthusiasm and excitement for a new era. For the first time, even the existence of and need for physical office environments is questioned (Hajo, 2022).

Several studies discuss different platforms for virtual work (Blake and Roy, 2023; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Lahti et al., 2022; Latulipe et al., 2023; Zhong et al, 2022). Lahti et al. (2022) presented a virtual replica of an existing office allowing remote workers to experience the physical setting in 3D. Hofeditz et al. (2020) laid out design principles for a virtual coworking platform, noting that this virtual environment may complement a physical co-working space (Hofeditz et al., 2020). The focus of the studies is on the design of the virtual environment (Latulipe et al., 2023; Lahti et al., 2022), and the environments are mimicking corporate office design using methods from physical space design. This contradicts Mantovani and Spagnolli’s (2000) notion that virtual spaces should not even attempt to mimic physical environments. Virtual environments are free from the physical constraints of physical environments (Latulipe et al., 2023) and mimicking them is thus unnecessary. Interestingly, visual features seem to have developed along with technological possibilities rather than to specifically support social connection (Zhong et al., 2022). Customizable avatars have become more common in virtual work environments (Blake and Roy, 2023; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Lahti et al., 2022), and may support collaboration and social connection.

Virtual events have undergone a major shift in recent years. Multiplayer online games were the only virtual recreational event mentioned in pre-pandemic CWS literature (Bilandzic and Foth, 2013). During the pandemic, webinars became an important means to maintain contact and to engage a community (Lundgren et al., 2022; Orel et al., 2024a). Lundgren et al. (2022) noted that webinars were mainly used to engage and attract people outside the physical CWS community, to widen the geographical reach. Webinars may also be categorized as a hybrid service as the production of webinars might require physical access into the CWS (Di Marino et al., 2023). Coffee is well-known to be a CWS essential. During the pandemic, virtual coffee calls became a standard new feature at CWS (Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Orel et al., 2024a; Orel et al., 2024b). Beyond coffee, other ways of socializing and having fun were introduced at CWS, including virtual after works, yoga sessions and other recreational activities (Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Orel et al., 2024a). These virtual recreational activities tend to mimic onsite activities, and people are known to experience fatigue over them (Orel et al., 2024a).

CWS users share both the physical space and hardware (Arvidsson, 2018), and the rise of hybrid and virtual works should shape both. An effective way to support virtual or hybrid work at CWS is providing teleconferencing amenities in terms of audio (Andrade et al., 2013; Zhong et al, 2022) and video (Andrade et al., 2013; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Hajo, 2022; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Kinsman et al., 2024; Lahti et al., 2022; Vaddadi et al., 2020). Compared to physical environments, virtual environments typically lack multisensorial experiences (Schiemer et al., 2023). One attempt to solve this is the introduction of wearable devices, such as virtual reality (VR) or augmented reality (AR), which increase the immersive experience of a virtual environment (Lahti et al., 2022; Bouncken et al. (2019). Other post-pandemic hardware and spatial solutions are intended for content production, namely, podcast studios (Di Marino et al., 2023), live streaming rooms (Orel et al., 2024a) and green rooms for video production (Lindgren et al., 2022). For encounters and an inclusive user experience within the CWS, Arias-Flores et al. (2024) advocated AR signage, 2D animations, virtual tours and assistive technologies. Vassilakaki and Moniarou-Papaconstantinou (2021), suggested that multimedia screens and ambient media could foster collaboration in the physical space.

As if to demonstrate how far we have come, the pre-pandemic articles mention email (Yang et al., 2019; Johri and Teo, 2018; Cheah et al., 2019) and basic messaging tools as virtual communication tools (Johri and Teo, 2018; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013). The development of communication tools tailored for coworking is observable in the post-pandemic articles (Hofeditz et al., 2020; Latulipe et al., 2023). Yet, even post-pandemic, task-solving is prioritized, usually without any intent to create an online community (Sinitsyna et al., 2022). Besides task-management, the focus is on teams and collaboration. Slack in particular gains attention as a software designed to support remote teams (Bouncken et al., 2019; Blake and Roy, 2023; Di Marino et al., 2023; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Latulipe et al., 2023; Sinitsyna et al., 2022). Andrade et al. (2013) discussed time-work organizer software and document sharing tools as enablers of virtual work. Artificial intelligence (AI) and its role in coworking has gained foothold post-pandemic (Girija et al., 2024; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Orel et al., 2024a). AI could act as a community host (Hofeditz et al., 2020) or assist in collaboration (Orel et al., 2024a). Social media use in and for CWS is widely discussed (Schiemer et al., 2023; Di Marino et al., 2023; Dobrovolska et al., 2024; Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Lundgren et al., 2022; Kubátová, 2016). However, social media is typically used for marketing or external engagement, rather than community building at the CWS (Lundgren et al., 2022).

Several of the main categories of virtual elements identified in the literature were also identified in the case studies. However, virtual environments and virtual events as identified and described in the literature review were not found in any of our cases. Hardware and spatial solutions as well as software and applications were identified in practice as in the literature review. Subcategories in the hardware and spatial solutions include teleconferencing amenities, pods and phone booths, and studios. Subcategories in the software and applications include apps and channels, and social media. In addition, basic offering emerged as a new category beyond the systematic literature review. The subcategories in the newly introduced basic category include internet connection (Wi-Fi) and virtual office. Table 1 summarizes the service offering enabling virtual and hybrid work, as identified in the studied CWS.

Based on the practice review, the most common service to support virtual and hybrid work is free and quick internet access, available at all 20 sites. Seven sites offered the “virtual office,” which sounds exciting, but is simply a business address which the members can use. Paradoxically perhaps, these basic services form the cornerstone of the virtual solutions offered at CWS.

The elements in the category hardware and spatial solutions are most visibly shaping the physical CWS. The most common features in this category are teleconferencing amenities in meeting rooms, observed at 13 out of the 20 cases (Plate 1a-c). The co-working operator at Case ID06 noted that teleconferencing amenities are a necessity in the contemporary co-working market. Yet, the opposite observation was made at Case ID17, where the conference room was free from any technology, and even the space design was inspired by home environments. Case ID18 with both hospitality and co-working operations boasts meeting rooms with teleconferencing amenities, which may be transformed into hotel rooms for an overnight stay (Plate 1c).

Another common and striking spatial feature enabling virtual and hybrid work are silent pods and phone booths to accommodate phone and video calls. Pods or phone booths were present at 11 out of the 20 cases, while Case ID16 offers users a pod by an external service provider in the vicinity. Several different designs were observed, ranging from fully sound-proof pods to pods with very limited auditory privacy (see Plate 2a-c). Spaces for content creation, including podcast and recording studios were encountered in some of the cases, however, these seem to still be a specialty.

Software and applications were not as easily observable onsite and were thus mainly be identified through secondary data. Social media, podcasts and webinars hosted by CWS are typically one-way communication aiming to attract new users. Several sites used social media, such as Facebook or Instagram, for communication and external engagement. Serving the community, five of the sites offered a dedicated mobile application for members, while one site had a joint Slack channel.

It is worth noting that several sites offered a range of social and recreational activities, such as coffee hours, after work and yoga sessions. However, these activities were live events within the CWS, instead of virtual events. Only two sites offered the possibility to organize virtual events, and the focus was on virtual seminars rather than on recreation. Solutions related to virtual immersive environments, such as VR or AR devices, were not identified at all in the practice review.

This study set out to establish how virtual elements are portrayed in pre- and post-pandemic co-working literature. A consequent goal was to explore how and if the pandemic accelerated virtual and hybrid work has shaped CWS in practice. Cyberspace, as a potential threat to social connection, was first discussed on a conceptual level in 2000 (Mantovani and Spagnolli, 2000). Virtual copresence and virtual work environments in general were widely discussed already pre-pandemic (Andrade et al., 2013; Arvidsson, 2018; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Vaddadi et al., 2020). The pandemic period accelerated the use of virtual services in CWS (Sinitsyna et al., 2022), and tools and applications supporting virtual and hybrid work have vastly developed in previous years. In line with this, solutions enabling virtual and hybrid work in CWS has gained popularity as a research topic (Di Marino et al., 2023; Hajo, 2022; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Hysa and Themeli, 2022; Lahti and Nenonen, 2021; Lahti et al., 2022; Sinitsyna et al., 2022). As a novelty, virtual recreation, including virtual coffee or after work events gained foothold in both coworking literature and practice during the pandemic (Orel et al., 2024b).

Traditional, basic office services were not initially given attention in our systematic literature review. Interestingly, however, these became highlighted in the practice review and were consequently confirmed by the literature as well. Tintiangko and Soriano (2020) noted that basic office services, such as a Wi-Fi connection, have become an integral part of the service offering in CWS. Providing a business address through the CWS, the so-called virtual office service, was identified at several of the studied cases. The post-pandemic literature notes a rise in the demand and price of this service (Micek et al., 2023; Orel et al., 2024a; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020). Tintiangko and Soriano (2020) linked the offering of basic office services to the journey of the CWS from a grassroots movement to a for-profit venture.

Beyond the basic services, the focus of the virtual solutions in CWS seems to be on task management. The literature and practice review both confirm that when it comes to supporting virtual work, task management is prioritized over creating a community (Sinitsyna et al., 2022). The most common and necessary feature enabling virtual work are teleconferencing amenities and silent pods or phone booths, in both practice and literature (Andrade et al., 2013; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Hajo, 2022; Hofeditz et al., 2020; Kinsman et al., 2024; Lahti et al., 2022; Vaddadi et al., 2020). Still, while teleconferencing tools are well-developed and widely used, they fail to offer the much-needed chance encounters and informal interaction (Orel et al., 2024b). Task management seems to be the main underlying motivation for the service offering at CWS. This could be problematic, as Kubátová (2016) argued that when virtual communication is only related to work tasks, virtual work may create clashes of cultures.

Regardless of recent development and for-profit business models, CWS are still typically community focused with prosocial motivations (Lundgren et al., 2022). With most work conducted in a virtual or hybrid mode, solutions supporting the community would be much needed. However, our practice review reveals that novel virtual solutions are not well-established in CWS. Based on the practice review, social and recreational events are abundant in the physical CWS, but nonexistent online. It seems that CWS experience difficulties in replicating physical events virtually (Orel et al., 2024b). With the increase in the number of online work meetings, some users may experience fatigue and do not wish to join virtual community events (Orel et al., 2024b; Sinitsyna et al., 2022). Moreover, no solutions for immersive environments, such as, wearable devices or headsets, were identified in any of the studied CWS. Encouraging users to enter virtual work environments has been found challenging before (Ganguly et al., 2022; Latulipe et al., 2023; Schiemer et al., 2023; Sinitsyna et al., 2022). Orel et al. (2024b) noted a diminishing interest in virtual solutions only a few years post-pandemic. Contrary to some predictions (Hajo, 2022), it seems virtual environments cannot replace physical ones, making a hybrid setting necessary (Ganguly et al., 2022). Moreover, the integration between communities in physical and virtual spaces may be challenging or not even the goal (Di Marino et al., 2023; Orel et al., 2024a; Lundgren et al., 2022; Sinitsyna et al., 2022; Tintiangko and Soriano, 2020). Figure 2 synthesizes the findings or the study. The figure depicts the virtual service offering in CWS, categorized based on the main motivation of use (task management vs prosocial) and novelty.

We conclude that while CWS are commonly portrayed as portals to the future in literature, this is not reflected in practice. Instead, contemporary CWS appear focused on providing members a functioning workplace with very basic or task-oriented service offering. Community building through different social activities is also common, however, this prosocial dimension has not reached the virtual sphere since post-pandemic. With roots in the early 2000s, CWS have become the beacons of alternative workplaces with focus on community building and content provision for members. Currently, CWS are competing with the corporate office, home office and third places alike. As pioneers in community building at the physical workplace, the journey of CWS could continue into building virtual work communities as well. CWS could offer virtual environments and events to replace the famous talks around the coffee machine. CWS operators should find the results useful in developing their service offering to support virtual and hybrid work. Virtual community building with virtual recreational events could make CWS conducive to employee wellbeing and consequently increase the satisfaction and productivity of co-workers.

This study is the first to systematically review virtual elements in co-working literature post-pandemic, while the practice review has a unique global reach. While the systematic literature review, global reach and triangulation are the strengths of study, our research design does entail some limitations. During the site visits, only the co-working operator view was gained, and in-depth interviews were not possible during the visits. Future research could focus on a few selected case studies and engage in in-depth interviews, not only with the co-working operators, but also corporate clients and members. Ethnographic studies, including longer-term observation at the case CWS could provide further insights into how and if the virtual service offering is developing to benefit the future of work.

The authors wish to thank doctoral candidate Sirpa Nieminen (MSc, MEng) for assisting in the data collection, and all visited co-working spaces for their hospitality and the guided tours.

This work has received funding from the European Union – NextGenerationEU instrument and is funded by the Research Council of Finland under grant 353168.

Table A1