TRANSFORMATIONS IN WORK 263
ture was further romanticized by the aura of the hippie milieu of Silicon
Valley, as well as the casual hipster vibe that surrounded many software
companies.
However, the self-image that many start-up companies within the New
Economy projected of themselves as the antithesis of more traditional
production regimes veils the fact that key elements of this supposedly
“new” corporate culture are not really all that new. A casual climate
among colleagues and the need to work extra hours when the situation
demands, for instance, have been quite commonplace on farms or in
small shops for a long time. Likewise, craftsmen were quite familiar with
the idea of fl exible hours depending on the current contracted project, as
well as room and board in the home of master craftsmen (which eff ec-
tively blurred the boundaries between work and private life) well into the
twentieth century.
Alongside the rise of software manufacturers with their special dy-
namics, high profi t margins, and often egalitarian claims (at least in the
beginning), the fl exibility that had always been associated with working
as a doctor or in small artisan or farm businesses became more attractive.
Ultimately, the fascination that accompanied the global success of com-
panies such as Microsoft or SAP in Germany has at least partially broken
the hold of classic forms of Fordist organization, even in older indus-
tries. Likewise, well-established major industries have also abandoned
the traditional idea of an autarkic corporate model since the beginning of
the 1990s. Instead, they have opted for less vertical integration—coupled
with outsourcing—in addition to decentralized, elastic corporate net-
works that tend to operate at a global level, as well as the often extensive
reliance on fi nancial service providers demanding high profi tability over
the short term. Furthermore, large portions of the New Economy became
“no worker participation zones.” New communications structures, such
as electronic forums and informal types of participation, seemed to make
institutionalized representation for employees obsolete.
At the same time, the illusions of “alternative” corporate cultures
waned to the same extent that young IT companies grew into large in-
dustrial corporations and “normalized.” However, a kind of convergence
did occur because the new possibilities generated through the digital
revolution reshaped hierarchies and power relations within established
industries as well. Thanks to digitalization, company executives—and to
a certain extent middle management levels—had access to an enormous
amount of information that could be structured as needed, forming the
basis for the reporting and controlling systems that have been introduced
and successively expanded since the 1990s. This wealth of information
not only makes it easier for corporate leaders to make strategic decisions,