Watch any State of the Union address and you will witness the kind of childishness we teach our own children to avoid.  What-ever of the President has to say, everyone on one side of the aisle applauds with enthusiasm while the other side sits stone-faced; even if the idea has merit.  The notion that the other party is capable of reasonable thought or honorable motive is so repugnant that even the most commonly held belief is only ascribed to us, and those guys don't know the meaning of the word patriotic.  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, halfway through the speech, one side of Congress stood up, picked up their baseball gloves and bats, and walked home.  It reminds me of a scene from the movie, Patton.  General Patton and his staff are guests at a celebration hosted by the Russian military.  During the party, Russian delicacies are offered to Patton, who refuses to eat ("Drink not with thine enemy")  When a member of Patton's staff kindly accepts some caviar, the disapproving glare of Patton causes the man to meekly slip the treat under the table without eating it.

Having a largely two party system allows for a wonderful scape-goat system.  Anything that goes wrong can easily be blamed on the other guys.  An initiative didn't work?  If they had let us do it exactly the way we wanted, it would have worked.  Our plan failed?  They delayed it just long enough that there was no way it could have worked.  So effective is this tactic that people will applaud an idea presented by their party, forgetting that they booed the same idea when it was presented by the other (and yes, they have presented quite similar ideas). 

During the 1996 campaign between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole a friend commented, "If Clinton gets re-elected we're all in big trouble."  I asked, "In what way, exactly.  I am not arguing for one candidate or another, but that is a pretty bold statement so I would like to know just how we are all going to be in big trouble."  He paused and responded, "We're just all going to be in a world of hurt."  Whether you supported Clinton or not, you must agree that a world of hurt lacks a bit of the information needed to make an informed decision.  Of course, why dispense actual information when a catchy slogan will do? 

A two party system also neatly divides us into us and them when it comes to blame after the fact.  It always seems that, no matter what the problem, the losing party can magically look into their crystal ball and predict that we never would have been in this fix if their side was in control.  If I really wanted to make big bucks, I would manufacture those bumper stickers sold after each election that read, Don't blame me.  I voted for (insert name of losing candidate).  Honestly, I don't know how the folks in Israel can stand it; they have thirteen parties to choose from.  When you are looking for a scape-goat, how in the world can you point the finger in that many directions?  Want to see me faint dead-away?  Have one politician-from any party-say in public, "Yeah, we really screwed that up that plan.  We should have listened to the other side a bit more."  One can only dream.

As long as we have those guys to blame, we never have to look at our own short-comings.  How fascinating it is that an economic crash that festered for years before exploding, during which both parties controlled Congress and the White House, was solely the fault of the other party; and that-if we were given ultimate power-would not have occurred.  Such is true for those guys in the production department, or those guys in sales, or those guys upstairs.  Having all the political parties at the office affords us the luxury of never having personally made a mistake.  If those guys would have done their jobs better, or not prevented me from doing my job adequately, everything would have turned out fine.

For most of the workshops I conduct I send an e-mail to the participants asking them to list some skills they would like to gain or an issue I can help address.  I am thrilled when the response is, "Can you help me become better at..." or "I've never been really good at..."  These show a personal desire to improve.  Sadly, most responses veer toward How can I handle other people who suck at what they do?  Sure, the production department is occasionally going to fall behind schedule, sales people are going to make a promise to a customer without talking to those who have to fill the order, and the people upstairs aren't always going to have their ear to the ground when it comes to the front-line worker; but we're all still on the same softball team.  Picking up your bats and gloves and going home doesn't teach the other guys a lesson, it stops the game.  I have actually seen awards ceremonies where the only people applauding Jacob from the manufacturing floor getting his 10-Year plaque were the other folks from manufacturing; who then sat silent with Jeannine got her Sales of the Year award.

Lest this turn into a sweeping indictment of all politics, all businesses, and everyone except me, there are fabulous examples of the opposite.  Having known personally a number of politicians, I am heartened by those who are public servants first and political party members second.  One said to me, "When it comes to filling a vacant spot, we look for someone who can get things done, regardless of party affiliation.  We only have a limited time to get something accomplished and we don't want to waste that precious time just angling to get credit for our side."  I have also been to awards ceremonies where people are more excited to applaud others than to receive recognition themselves.  I always wonder if this is due to good hiring practices or an indoctrination into the corporate culture (nature vs. nurture, the debate continues).

We must also expect a certain amount of us vs. them from all people.  Mammals are a social creature, thus protective of their own.  Humans are considered ultra-social in that they exist in very large cooperative groups (larger than any other mammal), the only way to manage our social-ness without losing sanity is to form sub-groups.  Naturally, being part of a group means knowing that you are different from other groups.  That said, working together can be more productive, and happy, if we resist the urge to see other groups as outsiders.  Trust within an organization is only possible when everyone is seen as a person, not simply a member of a group.  This requires the difficult task of slowing down our urge to judge; to think with our cerebral cortex instead of react with our amygdala.  To be a person means to be fallible.  People act out of fear as well as courage, selfishness as well as empathy, and resentment as well as kindness.  That fallibility must be recognized in ourselves as much as it is assigned to others.  Only then can we applaud an idea on its merit, rather than simply the party that proposed it.

Stevie Ray is a nationally recognized corporate speaker and trainer, helping companies improve communication skills, customer service, leadership, and team management.  He can be reached at www.stevierays.org or stevie@stevierays.org.

If someone forwarded this article to you and you would like to have Stevie Ray's column sent to you each month absolutely free, click here.

Help your employees learn firsthand the techniques Stevie Ray has gained from working with corporations around the globe.  Click here right now to go to the web site for Stevie Ray's Improv Company and see what he can do for you.

If your company is planning an event and you need entertainment so this one doesn't feel just like the last one, click here.

Learn to deliver powerful presentations, think on the spot, and other valuable skills by clicking here and ordering one of Stevie Ray's books.