593 Global Co-Operation in the New Millennium The 9th European Conference on Information Systems Bled, Slovenia, June 27-29, 2001 JUSTIFICATION OF GROUP DECISIONS: A CASE STUDY OF USER TRAINING IN GROUP SUPPORT SYSTEMS APPLICATIONS Jackie Phahlamohlaka, Dewald Roode Department of Informatics and School of Information Technology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa jphahla@hakuna.up.ac.za and jdroode@postino.up.ac.za Jackie Phahlamohlaka, Dewald Roode ABSTRACT Decision making, whether by an individual or a group, can be substantially enhanced by a “systems thinking” approach. Because groups are often challenged to justify their decisions, it is necessary that they prepare themselves in advance for a possible challenge. We argue in this paper that this can to some extent be achieved through training the group in a “systems thinking” approach to decision making and using Toulmin’s schema of reasoning. The basis of our argument stems from observations made during the presentation of a new Masters module on Systems and Decision Making, conducted as a pilot study to form the basis for future field experiments. 1. INTRODUCTION According to Giddens’ (1984) model of stratification of the agent, and in particular his notion of rationalization of action, actors routinely - and for most part without fuss - maintain a continuing ‘theoretical understanding’ of the grounds of their activity. He is quick, however, to caution that such an understanding should not be equated with the discursive giving of reasons for particular items of conduct, nor even with the capability of specifying such reasons discursively. However, other competent agents expect - and it is the main criterion of competence applied in day-to-day conduct - that actors will usually be able to explain most of what they do, if asked. It is this notion of an assumed competence of actors that is of interest to our argument. As we will soon show through the work of other researchers, this notion of assumed ‘competence’ of actors is not always sufficient. It is common knowledge that individuals and even groups would not be unnecessarily asked to give reasons for their conduct. There are, however, many instances, especially where the actions of such actors are decisions which have some social implications, when the giving of discursive reasons becomes necessary. In other words, there are many instances where there is a need for an individual or a group to justify their decision to others. Bacharach et al. (1995), quoting Festinger, Janis & Mann, and Wallster & Wallster note that decades of social psychological research suggest that one of the primary factors shaping human decision making is the anticipation of post-decision anxiety and the decision maker’s consequent need to reduce it. They indicate that in organizations, a primary source of this anticipatory anxiety is accountability. Underlying every managerial hierarchy in complex organizations is some norm of accountability. Again quoting Tetlock (1985, p.307), Bacharach et al. (1995) go on to say: