This paper presents a field study of decision-making processes in management teams in two organizations. It reviews existing literature on managerial knowledge structures and decision-making, and identifies methodological and conceptual limitations with these approaches. The authors then develop interpretive case studies of two management teams, which focus on the articulated and social methods used to make decisions. They found that both organizations used rules of thumb or heuristic reasoning in their decision-making, that these rules of thumb functioned as headlines of deeper organizational narratives, and that these narratives were grounded in emotional as well as purely rational considerations. We suggest that the term “guiding principle ” usefully integrates our three findings into a descriptive concept that may be further explored in future research of both a descriptive and prescriptive nature.

This paper uses historical studies as a means to explore the relation of organizations to subjectivity. The first part of the paper illustrates this relation through exploring the work of Elias, Kieser and Brewer. It focuses on the interrelation between 18thcentury freemasonry, the emergence of complex financial credit networks and figurational shifts in power relation. The second part of the paper uses the prior analysis in order to engage with recent debate concerning history, organizations and subjectivity. First, the issue of whether we can ascribe continuity, closure and unity to subjectivity is examined. Second, the ‘default ’ assumption of historical continuity is debated, drawing on studies by Baert, Jacques, Halttunen and Morgan. In contrasting between ‘traditional ’ history and the alternative assumptions contained in post-structural and Foucauldian work, the paper argues for openness rather than rebuttal of particular positions. It suggests that subjectivity, such as that of employees, should be thought of as mobile, yet selectively continuous. It also argues that it is unnecessary to choose between historical positions, such as that which prioritizes historical discontinuity over continuity (or vice versa).

This study is about social and institutional practices of accountability. Firstly, the study develops a framework of accounts. Based on this framework it is argued that accountability arises from practices of using accounts in sequential format in order to influence other’s evaluation. Processes of accountability involves in two sequences – sequence of account initiation and sequence of account resolution. By sequence of initiation the emphasis is given to the symbolic power of accounts in calling another to respond on the basis of accusations, criticisms, failure and questions. By sequence of resolution, individuals outline the responses in order to accounts justification, excuses, refusals, or defence. This concern for sequential practices entails a move beyond the ordinary contexts of action and organization to include institution as a constitutive element. Accounts are categorized in terms of their workings characteristics. Categories of vertical, horizontal,