Coworking has emerged in many cities around the world as a new type of collaboration-oriented workplace setup (You et al., 2019). Coworking spaces are shared office environments for independent professionals (Garrett et al., 2017), and are becoming increasingly popular. In particular, in entrepreneurship-driven economies, the popularity of coworking spaces is becoming increasingly apparent (Bianchi et al., 2018; Cheah & Ho, 2019).

According to Lefebvre (1991), space can be viewed as a physical environment that is perceived and negotiated through daily activities; as a social space that guides the lives, experiences, and interactions of individuals with others; and as a conceived space that individuals create via a conceptual model, providing sometimes complex symbolic and imaginative direction to their activities. A coworking space, thus, consists of three different levels: the organizational design level, where production occurs within the physical attributes of the space; the social level, in which interaction among space participants and the establishment of networks are encouraged; and the individual level, in which psychological activities are chosen and the tenants can trust each other.

To ensure their businesses will survive, individuals who are establishing their startups in a coworking space need to be innovative, adaptable, and able to recombine available resources to create business solutions (Janssen et al., 2018). The ability to identify and find creative solutions and achieve goals by using existing resources is known as entrepreneurial bricolage (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Hooi et al., 2016). For people in startups, the three-level coworking space provides an intriguing context for the emergence of entrepreneurial bricolage in their work environment. First, the open office environment of coworking spaces is designed to foster communities as the tenant enterprises create a social network. Second, compared to the design of traditional offices, coworking spaces are more conducive to communication and socialization in the workplace. Third, the coworking space has a canonical structure: In the open and shared space, members are free to talk to the people they want, which helps them to find potential partners in business more easily, and, moreover, increases trust in each other (Garrett et al., 2017).

Although the number of coworking spaces has increased, there have been few empirical studies in which coworking spaces and their impact on entrepreneurial bricolage, specifically, have been examined (Gerdenitsch et al., 2016). In my empirical exploration I suggested that physical design, social networks, and individual trust (i.e., the spatial configuration of coworking spaces) will affect entrepreneurial bricolage in the context of a Chinese coworking space.

Theory and Hypotheses

Coworking Space

Many scholars have emphasized the need to conduct research on the spatial configurations of coworking spaces to provide helpful information to individuals who are establishing startups (see, e.g., Gerdenitsch et al., 2016). Most coworking spaces feature open areas accessible to all tenants that have modern furniture and decor in bright colors; efficient lighting; coffee and tea vending machines; and recreation areas with games, video playback equipment, and bicycle racks. In addition, the spatial configurations reflect the preferences of the workforce, such as physical and psychological amenities that contribute to optimal cognitive and social functioning. That is, a coworking space can be defined not only as a physical space, but also as a social context, and as an individual space within which production occurs, thereby contributing to the creation of new ventures (Assenza, 2015). This tripartite view of space provides a theoretical framework and a viable model for the current study.

Physical Design of a Space

The modern coworking space draws inspiration from open resources, encouraging interpersonal interactions and professional training. Even if the work itself requires concentration, the office space must provide opportunities for people to gather and share information. Thus, the physical design of the space is often emphasized by the coworking space operator as the most important factor (Cheah & Ho, 2019). Tenants also seek to use the resources in the space to establish contact with others, build connections, promote collaboration, and share knowledge (Garrett et al., 2014).

Social Space in a Network Context

Lefebvre (1991) stated that people should not pay attention to the way the space is planned, but, rather, to how it is used. A coworking space can be seen as a working community that can help enrich members’ networks. Members of this community can work more flexibly and can look for a workplace used by other creative, self-employed people who understand the value of networking and the power of collaboration (Rus & Orel, 2015).

Individual Space and Sense of Trust

Coworking spaces can be seen as trust-based, community-oriented environments that stimulate encounters and collaborations (Fuzi, 2015). When there is trust among partners, this encourages information sharing and coordination (Cheah & Ho, 2019). Trust relationships may affect the perceptions of acceptable risks held by those in the relationship, especially in situations involving intellectual property (Assenza, 2015). Having psychological security enables coworkers to safely take risks, express opinions, share information, and try new ideas (Abu El-Ella et al., 2015). When knowledge spillovers and opportunities overlap, a sense of trust enhances the ability of coworkers to adopt others’ views and ideas, and to gain more resources (Cheah & Ho, 2019).

Bricolage

Lévi-Strauss (1966) introduced the concept of bricolage, which, as outlined earlier, can be defined as “making do with whatever is at hand” (p. 17). Since Lévi-Strauss’s initial definition, the concept of bricolage has evolved and attracted growing interest, especially in the past two decades, and the concept of bricolage was introduced into the entrepreneurship literature by Baker et al. (2003). Resources at hand can be physical, such as products and machines, or intangible, such as the social network in which the entrepreneurs are embedded (Janssen et al., 2018). Therefore, in the context of startups, the scarcity of available resources means that entrepreneurial bricolage involves the entrepreneur’s active engagement with problems using a combination of available resources (Baker & Nelson, 2005).

Bricolage and Physical Design

As already described, typical design elements for encouraging collaboration currently include open spaces, contemporary furniture and lighting, beverage offerings, and entertainment. The environment and facilities available in the workplace may affect bricolage (Bueno et al., 2018). In attempting to understand how to encourage bricolage, one way to perceive the physical and structural space is to observe how people interact with it, that is, how design affects the people in the space regarding their behavior and interaction patterns, which are important for entrepreneurship (Assenza, 2015). Fassoulis and Alexopoulos (2015) argued that contemporary workplaces can generate synergies and productivity through environmentally relevant aspects, such as aesthetics and workplace design. For example, convenient communication between coworkers and the generation of creative ideas are affected by whether the office has a satisfactory design to be comfortable to work in, whether cubicles are well-placed in terms of size and ability to communicate with other tenants, and whether the needs for privacy, concentration, and silent work (Auburn & Barnes, 2006; Oksanen & Ståhle, 2013). Furthermore, an effective physical design of the office space is commonly assumed to facilitate communication and interaction between coworkers, promoting workplace satisfaction and teamwork effectiveness (Kim & de Dear, 2013). Hence, in this study I proposed that the physical design of the coworking space would be the main factor that determines entrepreneurial bricolage. This led me to formulate the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: An effective physical design of the coworking space will positively influence entrepreneurial bricolage.

Mediating Role of the Social Network

The relationships that develop among individuals involved in a coworking space form a social network in which members cooperate, create, and share new ideas (Bueno et al., 2018). Most of the early research on network tie strength was based on Granovetter’s (1973) conceptualization of ties, in which the focus is on the flow of information between individuals. Stronger ties are more conducive to information flow, and they promote knowledge integration and innovation in coworking spaces. By contrast, the concept of bridging ties is based on the theory of structural holes (Burt, 1992), according to which the connections of people separated by structural holes are regarded as providing access to novel information. When faced with resource constraints, staff members of enterprises use not only their internal resources but also their networks to expand social values. Thus, I anticipated that both strong ties and bridge ties would play a mediating role in the relationship of physical design and entrepreneurial bricolage. This led me to formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Strong ties will mediate the relationship between physical design of the coworking space and entrepreneurial bricolage.
Hypothesis 2b: Bridging ties will mediate the relationship between physical design of the coworking space and entrepreneurial bricolage.

Moderating Role of Individual Trust

Community activities in a coworking space, such as shared lunches and themed social clubs, can be an enabling platform to support trust development and the exchange of information that this trust affords (Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017). Spencer et al. (2005) stated that existing relationships between companies in business associations or social networks also encourage innovators to build relationships based on trust with other enterprises in the industry. This suggests that trust is critical in an entrepreneurial environment, where ideas are openly discussed and cooperation is achieved without formal detailed contractual arrangements, and it also suggests that such trust contributes to the bricolage among individuals who are establishing startups in the coworking space (Waters-Lynch & Potts, 2017).
Hypothesis 3: Individual trust will moderate the positive relationship between physical design of the coworking space and entrepreneurial bricolage, such that a higher level of individual trust will strengthen the relationship.

Method

Participants

The participants comprised 310 senior managers of enterprises operating in coworking spaces. The survey was administered in 23 provinces in China. Because the cities in China that are more advanced economically have more coworking spaces, the participants were mainly from Guangdong (n = 42), Jiangsu (n = 35), Beijing (n = 30), Shanghai (n = 28), Zhejiang (n = 26), and Fujian (n = 19). Among the participants, 33.23% worked for enterprises with fewer than 10 staff members, 59.03% for enterprises with 10 to 50 staff members, and the remaining 7.74% for enterprises with 51 to 100 staff members. Of the enterprises, 13.23% had an annual revenue below CNY 500,000 (USD 76,326.56), 51.94% had an annual revenue between CNY 500,000 and 1,000,000 (USD 152,681.10), 30.65% had annual revenue between CNY 1,000,000 and 5,000,000 (USD 763,405.50), and 4.19% had a revenue between CNY 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 (USD 1,526,228.20). The industries of the enterprises were mainly information transmission, software, and information technology services (40.0%); scientific research and technology services (16.13%); and culture, sports, and entertainment services (10.32%).

Procedure

Before conducting the survey I obtained ethical approval from the relevant committee at Fujian Normal University. I then interviewed the manager of each coworking space, indicated the research purpose and content, and made a commitment to share the research results with the people in the coworking space. The interview purpose was to obtain the support of the coworking space manager and to modify the design of the survey items.

A preliminary draft of the survey was developed through an extensive literature review. To ensure that it had a reasonable structure, all items were adopted from prior research. For translation I used Behling and Law’s (2000) technique. To ensure the instrument’s reliability, I asked scholars who had completed a degree majoring in English to do the translation, then I invited professors in the innovation management and entrepreneurship management fields and the managers of the coworking spaces to verify the items in the survey.

The formal survey was distributed on-site, in paper form, online, and via email. Therefore, in addition to the local coworking space, those working for enterprises that were not local mostly used the online version of the survey, giving the participants a more flexible period of time during which they could fill it in. The inclusion of people in both local and distant locations ensured that the sample quantity met the requirements for statistical analysis. After collecting the survey forms, if I noticed unclear marks or blanks, the correct responses were confirmed with the respondents by phone or email to protect the integrity and validity of the survey to the greatest extent possible. The participants each received CNY 30 (USD 4.58) on average as compensation for taking part in this study.

Measures

In this study the dependent variable was entrepreneurial bricolage, the independent variable was physical design, the mediating variables were strong ties and bridging ties in the social network of the coworking space, and the moderating variable was individual trust. The measured variables are shown in Table 1. All variables were rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

Physical Design
Physical design was measured using a four-item scale adopted from Kim and de Dear (2011), with questions about the temperature, amount of light, noise level, and standard of maintenance of the workspace.

Individual Trust
As a mediator, individual trust was measured using three multi-item sets adopted from Wang et al. (2011).

Social Network
The measures for strong and bridging ties were adopted from Mu and Di Benedetto (2012).

Entrepreneurial Bricolage
To measure entrepreneurial bricolage we used eight items from Senyard et al. (2014).

Control Variables
I used industry, firm size, and firm age as control variables.

Results

Before testing the hypotheses I assessed the reliability and validity of the measures, and the results are shown in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for physical design, individual trust, strong ties, bridging ties, and entrepreneurial bricolage ranged from .75 to .89, factor loadings were all above .60, and all composite reliability values were higher than the threshold of .70. These results suggest that the measures had good convergent validity.

Table 3 shows the variables’ descriptive statistics and the square roots of average variance extracted. The data suggest that bricolage was significantly correlated with physical design, individual trust, and social networks (p < .01).

The goodness-of-fit tests used to justify the model design are shown in Table 4 (Model 4). Results of a confirmatory factor analysis of physical design, individual trust, strong ties, bridging ties, and bricolage suggest that the model was suitable. Model 1 is a null model in which all the indicators were independent; in Model 2 physical design, individual trust, and social networks were combined into one factor; and in Model 3 strong ties and bridging ties were combined into one factor.

To estimate the mediating effect of the various values of spatial configurations on entrepreneurial bricolage, I used the PROCESS computational tool (Model 5) for SPSS (Hayes, 2013). It can be seen in Table 5 that the estimated coefficient of physical space was positive and significant (Model 2), which suggests that the relationship between physical space and entrepreneurial bricolage was moderately significant. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Further, the interaction between physical space and individual trust was positively significant (Model 4); thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.

To test Hypotheses 2a and 2b I performed another mediation analysis. Table 6 shows that the 95% confidence interval of strong ties did not contain zero, which means that the mediating effect of strong ties was significant; thus, H2a was supported. Hypothesis 2b was also supported, as the confidence interval for bridging ties did not contain zero. In addition, the confidence interval for the mediating effect of strong ties minus bridging ties did not contain zero, showing that the mediating effects of strong ties and bridging ties were significantly different. Specifically, coworking space design had a greater influence on entrepreneurial bricolage through strong (vs. bridging) ties.

Figure 2 shows a graphical interpretation of the significant interaction effects. This figure indicates that when individual trust was high (vs. low), the positive effect of physical space on entrepreneurial bricolage was stronger. In addition, the simple slope test results shown in Table 7 demonstrate that in a coworking space with high levels of individual trust, space design was associated with entrepreneurial bricolage. However, in a coworking space with low levels of individual trust, space design was not significantly associated with entrepreneurial bricolage.

The test results for the hypotheses are summarized in Table 8.

Discussion

Theoretical Implications

In this study I theoretically divided spatial configuration into physical, social, and individual aspects, which is consistent with previous studies (see, e.g., Assenza, 2015; Lefebvre, 1991). However, the specific dimensions of each of these aspects were investigated and identified through quantitative research in my study. This allowed me to examine coworking space configurations from a more holistic perspective than that applied in previous studies, which extends understanding of the functionality of coworking spaces.

In the existing literature it has been posited that both coworking space and bricolage are helpful for entrepreneurs (Gerdenitsch et al., 2016; Tasavori et al., 2018; Witell et al., 2017). However, the question of how coworking spaces facilitate bricolage for entrepreneurs in startups, especially when they are using existing resources already at hand, has remained largely unanswered. Therefore, in this study I investigated the relationships of coworking physical design, social networks, and individual trust with bricolage. I found that physical space factors indirectly affected enterpreneurs’ bricolage through their social networks, with individual trust playing a moderating role.

Finally, in many previous studies the network ties in organizations have been examined (Chen et al., 2019; Mu & Di Benedetto, 2012; Tiwana, 2008). However, few researchers have paid attention to the differences in the effects of strong ties and bridge ties in the coworking context. In my study I theoretically explored the effect of network ties on physical design and entrepreneurial bricolage. After observing significant mediating effects of both tie types, I compared the mediation strength and found that strong ties played a more significant mediating role in a coworking space. This is probably because strong ties are more helpful for the entrepreneurs to receive potential resources from coworking networks, such as interactive contact, the latest information, and value-added credibility. When these resources are available, those working in the space are better able to use a well-designed space to facilitate their entrepreneurial bricolage.

Practical Implications

First, the study findings indicate that coworking spaces should be designed to fulfill the workers’ needs, including concentrating on their work, and should have a dedicated space to perform individual work activities. Satisfying important aspects of physical design, such as providing a comfortable temperature, moderate brightness, low noise level, and a well-maintained environment, will foster the bricolage behavior of tenants.

Second, my results underpin the importance of the relationships between tenants in coworking spaces, because the social network can provide rich resources and strengthen individual trust, thereby facilitating bricolage. For example, in coworking spaces with a design that is more open compared to the traditional office, starting conversations may be easier than in the traditional workplace.

Study Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations. First, when exploring the relationship between bricolage and coworking spaces, I studied the effects of only physical design, social networking, and personal trust. Many other relevant variables were not included in the research model, such as organizational learning, entrepreneurial atmosphere, and industry environment. Second, other relationships between variables need to be explored further. For example, individual trust may also moderate the relationship between social networks and entrepreneurial bricolage. The effects of these different relationships need to be clarified in future work. Third, the theoretical models were tested using a cross-sectional research design. Because time-lag effects were not included, the study design may not reflect actual causality. Therefore, panel data should be considered for use in future longitudinal research.

Abu El-Ella, N., Bessant, J., & Pinkwart, A. (2015). Revisiting the honorable merchant: The reshaped role of trust in open innovation. Thunderbird International Business Review, 58(3), 216–275.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tie.21774

Assenza, P. (2015). If you build it will they come? The influence of spatial configuration on social and cognitive functioning and knowledge spillover in entrepreneurial co-working and hacker spaces. Journal of Management Policy and Practice, 16(3), 35–48.

Auburn, T., & Barnes, R. (2006). Producing place: A neo-Schutzian perspective on the ‘psychology of place.’ Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(1), 38–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.002

Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32(2), 255–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00099-9

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366.
https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research instruments: Problems and solutions. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986373

Bianchi, F., Casnici, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2018). Solidarity as a byproduct of professional collaboration: Social support and trust in a coworking space. Social Networks, 54, 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.12.002

Bueno, S., Rodríguez-Baltanás, G., & Gallego, M. D. (2018). Coworking spaces: A new way of achieving productivity. Journal of Facilities Management, 16(4), 452–466.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-01-2018-0006

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

Cheah, S., & Ho, Y.-P. (2019). Coworking and sustainable business model innovation in young firms. Sustainability, 11(10), Article 2959.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102959

Chen, X., Wei, S., Davison, R. M., & Rice, R. E. (2019). How do enterprise social media affordances affect social network ties and job performance? Information Technology & People, 33(1), 361–388.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-11-2017-0408

Fassoulis, K., & Alexopoulos, N. (2015). The workplace as a factor of job satisfaction and productivity: A case study of administrative personnel at the University of Athens. Journal of Facilities Management, 13(4), 332–349.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-06-2014-0018

Fuzi, A. (2015). Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: The case of South Wales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 462–469.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053

Garrett, L. E., Spreitzer, G. M., & Bacevice, P. (2014). Co-constructing a sense of community at work: The emergence of community in coworking spaces. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2014(1), Article 14004.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2014.139

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, Article 581.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00581

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

Hooi, H. C., Ahmad, N. H., Amran, A., & Rahman, S. A. (2016). The functional role of entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial bricolage in ensuring sustainable entrepreneurship. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1616–1638.
https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-06-2015-0144

Janssen, F., Fayolle, A., & Wuilaume, A. (2018). Researching bricolage in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3–4), 450–470.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413769

Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2011). Nonlinear relationships between individual IEQ factors and overall workspace satisfaction. Building & Environment, 49(1), 33–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.09.022

Kim, J., & de Dear, R. (2013). Workspace satisfaction: The privacy-communication trade-off in open-plan offices. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trans.). Blackwell Publishers. (Original work published 1974)

Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press.

Mu, J., & Di Benedetto, A. (2012). Networking capability and new product development. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(1), 4–19.
https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2011.2146256

Oksanen, K., & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation: Investigating the attributes of innovative space. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 815–828.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0136

Rus, A., & Orel, M. (2015). Coworking: A community of work. Teorija in Praksa, 52(6), 1017–1038. https://bit.ly/37l3eYE

Senyard, J. M., Baker, T., Steffens, P., & Davidsson, P. (2014). Bricolage as a path to innovativeness for resource-constrained new firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(2), 211–230.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12091

Spencer, J. W., Murtha, T. P., & Lenway, S. A. (2005). How governments matter to new industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 321–337.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387889

Tasavori, M., Kwong, C., & Pruthi, S. (2018). Resource bricolage and growth of product and market scope in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(3–4), 336–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1413775

Tiwana, A. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.666

Wang, L., Yeung, J. H. Y., & Zhang, M. (2011). The impact of trust and contract on innovation performance: The moderating role of environmental uncertainty. International Journal of Production Economics, 134(1), 114–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.06.006

Waters-Lynch, J., & Potts, J. (2017). The social economy of coworking spaces: A focal point model of coordination. Review of Social Economy, 75(4), 417–433.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00346764.2016.1269938

Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. (2017). A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79, 290–298.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.021

You, K., Dal Bianco, S., Lin, Z., & Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2019). Bridging technology divide to improve business environment: Insights from African nations. Journal of Business Research, 97, 268–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.015

This work was supported by the Major Project of the Social Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (FJ2019JDZ014) and the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province of China (2020J01183).
The author thanks the informants who spent time answering the questions.

Ying Han, School of Economics, Fujian Normal University, Qishan Campus, No. 1 Keji Road, Shangjie, Minhou, Fuzhou, Fujian 350117, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]