The New copy of this book will include any supplemental materials advertised. Please check the title of the book to determine if it should include any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

The Used, Rental and eBook copies of this book are not guaranteed to include any supplemental materials. Typically, only the book itself is included. This is true even if the title states it includes any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

Chapter One

Attitude and Intention

Staying in the Green Zone

Where do you spend most of your life, in the Red Zone or the Green Zone? It's a choice. Most people don't recognize that this is a choice between two fundamental attitudes as they enter into relationships and conflicted situations with others. It's a choice that will fundamentally affect everything else you do and how you approach collaboration. Early in relationships, your attitude will either support collaboration or undermine it. Your attitude will determine how you perceive the world, whether situations are safe or threatening, and influence how you respond to those situations. The terms Red Zone and Green Zone summarize two alternative mind-sets and intentions. We must first understand our attitudes and then, if necessary, change them.

The Green Zone reflects an authentic, nondefensive presence. In the Green Zone, people's actions in a relationship are not driven by fearful motives, nor are they determined by an unconscious competitive spirit. Individuals in the Green Zone seek connection from a centered place according to deeply held values and character, rather than tactical or strategic thinking. Their outer self and their inner self are congruent, meaning their conscious actions are in harmony with any unconscious motivations. When conflict arises, they seek to understand and to grow, for they desire mutual gains rather than victory. They seek to get their interests met rather than simply trying to defeat the other side. From the Green Zone, people do not perceive potential conflict as threatening, for they have tools and coping methods that allow them to deal with difficult situations in a less reactive way. Green Zone attitudes foster collaborative actions and are more receptive to overtures for collaboration from others. Green Zone attitudes also give people additional skills for responding effectively to those who don't want to be collaborative or don't know how to be collaborative. Individuals in the Green Zone are more effective when called upon to deal with others in the Red Zone.

In his book Good to Great1, Jim Collins writes that his research team evaluated more than fourteen hundred companies to identify those that had progressed from good companies to sustained greatness and to determine the factors necessary for the transformation. Collins deliberately avoided the hypothesis that a company's greatness is a reflection of the CEO. The results of the study, however, proved otherwise. The leaders of each "great" organization have two things in common. First, they are fiercely ambitious for the long-term success of the company. Second, their personalities fit the Green Zone mold, namely, each CEO exhibits a compelling modesty and humility. They aren't boastful or egocentric. They demonstrate understanding rather than bravado, and they reveal a nondefensive authenticity.

In contrast to the authentic confidence of the Green Zone, individuals in the Red Zone exhibit defensiveness and fear. They often appear to be aggressive, so others usually fail to perceive that their attitudes and behavior are driven by underlying fears. Their motivation, however, is often to defeat the other side in order to defend themselves, to win regardless of the cost, and to make the other side feel wrong so that they can feel right.2

These Red Zone protective mechanisms lack a generosity of spirit and heart. More often than not, they arise from fears that produce short-term thinking rather than long-term planning. Conflicts feel warlike rather than like problems to be resolved creatively. Forgiveness is foreign, and apologies are begrudging rather than heartfelt. Individuals in the Red Zone focus only on the best outcome for themselves with little or no regard for the interests of others. Positions are often stated in very strong terms, and the other side's views may be only a secondary consideration, if a consideration at all. Individuals in the Red Zone continually argue the validity of their own position and the fallacies of the other side's position, and they will often take disagreement more personally than warranted.

We're not suggesting that the difference between the Green Zone and the Red Zone is all-or-nothing; a saintly collaborator vs. the devil. There are many hues between Red and Green. There are occasions in life when we really are threatened or in danger and some Red Zone attitudes may then be appropriate and useful. We find, however, that these emergency responses are not appropriate for most work relationships, collegial decision making, family circumstances, creative problem solving, or other collaborative situations.

Individuals who are successful at collaborative relationships remain in the Green Zone and may occasionally move to the Red Zone in dangerous situations. People who remain in the Red Zone and only occasionally move into the Green Zone are not generally successful at building long-term relationships.

Biological Factors

Red Zone responses are complex because they are biologically based and may be encouraged by our competitive and argumentative culture. Daniel Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence,3 explains that becoming emotionally charged and unbalanced in response to triggering events can be likened to an emotional hijacking.

Recall a recent time that you "lost it," blew up, or ran away from a conflicted situation. As you think about that situation, see if you can acknowledge the magnified or unjustified overresponse. Such moments are classic examples of being in the Red Zone. It is this "stressed" response we want you to understand, so that in difficult situations your own physiological reactions do not undermine or hijack your conscious intentions and long-range collaborative interests.

A simplified version of what can happen is that physiological reactions can dominate the brain and the resulting behavior. Research suggests that threatening and nonthreatening events activate different circuits in the brain. Evolutionary psychologists contend this makes excellent sense, because a more direct neural pathway ensures that we respond more rapidly to present and remembered threats. Emotional memories can, however, be faulty, for they may be reactivated by imagination and by faulty perceptions. In addition, emotional memories are often dated and irrelevant, especially in the fluid social world we inhabit. The brain scans experience . . .

---

Excerpted from Radical Collaboration: Five Essential Skills to Overcome Defensiveness and Build Successful Relationships by James W. Tamm, Ronald J. Luyet
All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.