WHY THE GAP?

The gap is striking. But a gap is not automatically an opportunity. Before trying to close it, what evidence would convince you that South Africa’s low flexible-workspace penetration reflects suppressed demand rather than genuinely different demand?

A flexible workspace can create value for several people at once. But the person receiving the value may not be the person controlling the decision. Who has the strongest reason to change the status quo?

Now the harder question: is that also the person with the authority and incentive to change how workspace is bought?

The obvious answer is other workspace providers. But that may not be the decision buyers are actually making.

If the biggest competitor is the status quo, what would have to make staying put more expensive than changing?

Awareness and adoption are not the same thing. A buyer can agree that flexibility is useful and still renew a conventional lease. What would need to become materially more important before behaviour changes?

If the decision is framed as rent per square metre, flexible workspace may be evaluated inside the traditional property model. What happens if the decision is reframed around the economics of work?

Which measure would most change the conversation with a sceptical CFO?

Forget London and New York for a moment. A move from roughly 1% to 3% would itself represent a significant shift. Which few conditions would have to change for that to happen?

Now ask: which of those conditions can WeWork influence directly, and which require the market itself to change?

Choose one belief behind the growth thesis and turn it into a behavioural experiment — not another opinion survey.

Perhaps the category itself keeps the buyer inside the wrong decision. Instead of asking:

“Should we choose flexible workspace?”

what if the more valuable decision were:

“How much fixed workspace risk should this business carry?”

Would changing the decision change the market?