According to Wikipedia, coworking is the social gathering of a group of people, who are still working independently, but who share values and who are interested in the synergy that can happen from working with talented people in the same space.

People who work outside traditional office jobs enjoy a certain amount of freedom. They don’t have to bump into their boss in the corridor, they can go out for a coffee whenever they feel like it and they can work in their pyjamas. However, they do complain about the lack of community. To counteract this, coworking is emerging as a trend. By sharing work space, people not only avoid isolation, but enjoy collaboration with others. 

Coworking spaces are popping up in cities all over the world and according to CoWorking News there are nearly 30 hubs in Germany.

One of these is the betahaus in Kreuzberg, Berlin, described on its website as ‘a platform which meets the requirements of independent creative professionals and knowledge workers, and expands their opportunities. In a mixture of relaxed coffee house atmosphere and concentrated working environment we create room between work and privacy in which innovation and creativity is fostered.’

Betahaus offers WLAN, fixed and flexible workstations, meeting rooms, a telephone room and the betahaus café. Since their opening in April 2009, they have had more than 120 freelance professionals working there. These range from graphic designers, programmers, photographers, architects, designers and startups, to a concert artists’ agency, accountants, academics, lawyers, non-governmental organisations, translators, video artists, journalists and bloggers. Its owners see it as an ‘incubation platform for network, innovation and production’.

Coworking at work?

According to Mike Bracken, technical director of development at The Guardian in the UK, companies that are courageous enough can build a social network like the ones emerging at coworking hubs in their own buildings. ‘You have rip out the offices,’ he says, ‘and let people sit where they want.’ The Guardian did this and in doing so, integrated people into natural groups that fell outside the departmental functions.

By lowering physical and hierarchical barriers in this way, Mike says companies attract talent. ‘Talent begets talent. Let your talent drive your product and then let them tell the story.’

I have a hub of two, sharing an office with my husband, who telecommutes for an American company. Sometimes I write at the library and I have spent large chunks of the last three years writing in Heidelberg’s coffee shops. However, it would be great to work in a place where I could network. Heidelberg has one coworking space, open on Fridays only. It is based on the Jelly concept that first took off in New York, where people cowork and network in each other’s homes or coffee shops. I may have to give it a try.

Do you telecommute or freelance? Have you tried a coworking hub and if so, how did it work out?

I’m not here as an advocate of Denglish or otherwise. I think that languages grow and change organically and I’m probably going to use downloaden as a German verb one day in the not-too-distant future.

However, I do care about very ugly English. There is a difference between natural evolution and just plain wrong.

German companies are using the web to sell products and services into an English-speaking global market. Where they go wrong is to assume that in every case they can translate German directly into English. However, the German language contains a number of false friends that, no  matter how logical they may appear, just don’t survive translation.

Here is one: sogenannte. Meaning thus named or so named, it seems like an innocent that one can happily sprinkle into English. It isn’t.

A board member of a leading German software company was once heard to say at a press conference, ‘We are the so-called market leaders.’ Believe me, dear German speakers, the English-speaking members of his audience were holding back their tears.  Of laughter. English-speakers only ever use so-called when they are applying irony. In other words, to his English audience, he appeared to be saying, ‘Some say we are the market leaders, but we don’t really believe this.’

Here is another example, lifted off a different software company’s website: ‘On this dashboard, you can collect so-called widgets about topics that interest you.’ This is confusing to an English reader. Are these real widgets? Fake ones? Ironic widgets that might break into hysterical peals of laughter as soon as you turn your back?

The bottom line is don’t use it. If you’re trying to sell a product, the use of so-called in your marketing materials makes you look as if you don’t believe in your product.

And if you don’t believe in it, who’s going to?

Contact me if you’d like ugly English eradicated from your website!

The writers I’m talking about here are creative writers who have much more leeway than business writers. Creative writers have the freedom to make language their tool, to forge and form it according to the needs of their narrative. However in business writing, my simple rule applies. Avoid the passive.

In business writing it is essential to know who does what. Business is all about tasks — who decides what the tasks are, who performs the tasks, who reports on the tasks, who collates the results of the tasks and who decides what further tasks should take place on the basis of those results. Business writing should be black and white, not interesting shades of grey. The passive introduces grey. As one commenter on the thread said, ‘Passive lacks clarity and precision.’

I find it odd that German, which is spoken by people who are world-renowned for their precision, is a language that embraces the passive. This is fine for the German language, but horrible for English translations. Two years ago, I edited a technical book written by Germans in English. It was filled with long-winded passive constructions that hurt my English soul. I had to address each sentence, ask myself what or who the agent was and rewrite. When a sentence lasts for a paragraph, this is not necessarily easy or fun.

Let’s not talk about my pain any longer. Let’s talk about the passive. Via the writer’s forum, I found this handy worksheet, which you can peruse at your leisure. It has an excellent section on common myths about the passive.

The standard English language sentence is Subject – Verb – Object. Passive voice is where the subject which begins the sentence is actually the object of the verb, so the sentence is Object – Verb – Subject. Here are some examples:

First, the new software package is installed. This is passive and begging the question ‘who should install the software package?’ In business, and in business writing, we always need to know who must do what. The software package is the object and not the subject of the sentence.

First, install the new software package. This is active voice with an implied ‘you’ who is the object of the sentence and must do the installing.

A report was set up to capture payroll data. This is passive.

The Finance Department set up a report to capture payroll data. This  is active, with the FD as the subject of the sentence.

Training is conducted in fifteen locations globally. This is passive.

The company conducts training in fifteen locations globally. This is active.

The sentences using the active voice are clear and precise, while those using the passive are confusing and open to interpretation. So here’s my manifesto: English-language business writers embrace the active voice. You have nothing to lose but your opaqueness.

However, today’s fresh phrase is tomorrow’s staid and meaningless one. Phrases quickly become limp from overuse: ‘at the end of the day’, ‘dead wood’, ‘deliver the goods’. If I read or hear these now, my brain switches off instead of engaging and concentrating on the message. They are crutches for lazy thinking.

We resort to jargon to make ourselves feel part of something. I live in a small provincial German town and I use dialect occasionally in order to make myself understood. A child starting a new school will quickly pick up the school slang in order to fit in. A non-native English speaker will use jargon in a business presentation in order to appear knowledgeable. We all do it.

Jargon, slang and dialect are all acceptable forms of verbal communication, of easing social barriers. However, we need to think about how far we take them. Too much jargon in a written document can bring communication to an abrupt halt. Instead of easing the flow of an idea, jargon can set up barriers to understanding.

This is compounded by the fact that we now operate globally. Using phrases that are specific to a culture or geography limit our ability to reach a wider audience. Just imagine how alien these any of these phrases might be to a second-language speaker of English: ‘ballpark figures’, ‘batting average’, ‘bat a thousand’, ‘hardball’. If you are serious about doing business globally, remove them from your vocabulary.

Another way to make your language obscure is to make your verbs into nouns. I have nothing against the innocent gerund, but listen to this poor murdered verb screaming:

‘What are the learnings we can take away from this?’

There is also the reverse effect, of making nouns into verbs:

‘I don’t have time to read that. Can you bottom line it for me?’

A second language speaker of English will not hurt on behalf of the language as I do, but I guarantee they will be confused.

Whether you are writing or talking to a global audience, you need to remove jargon. It is an impediment to good, clear communication and it shows you up as a lazy thinker, not a clever one.  Anyone who tells you the opposite is a deceptionist. Or was that a meanderthal?