Dear Bob ...Are there any traditionally negative traits that a staffer should cultivate in order to make it in a typical corporate/IT climate with its usual collection of finger-pointers, knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers, users who are sure you possess the "easy" button, and over-caffeinated management that would rather talk than listen? I'm talking about traits that our well-meaning pastors, teachers an Dear Bob …Are there any traditionally negative traits that a staffer should cultivate in order to make it in a typical corporate/IT climate with its usual collection of finger-pointers, knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers, users who are sure you possess the “easy” button, and over-caffeinated management that would rather talk than listen?I’m talking about traits that our well-meaning pastors, teachers and parents might have discouraged us from developing, but which we need to dust off from time to time in order to navigate the shoals. And I’m really asking from the point of view of a staff person, not someone who can always pull rank as a last resort.Regards,IT-eating grin Dear Chewie …I think the starting point is a character trait that pastors, teachers and parents would traditionally approve of: empathy.No, I’m not suggesting you get all touchy-feely. What I am suggesting is that the first step in navigating the shoals of business is getting inside the heads of those with whom you have to work. Attaching labels like “knowledge-hoarders, gung-ho get-a-lifers” and so on achieves the exact opposite. It creates an emotional distance between you and them that makes understanding what drives them more difficult. If you don’t understand what drives someone, you’ve minimized your ability to influence them.So far as traditionally negative traits are concerned (or ditching traditionally positive ones, which I’ll assume fits your question as well): I’d have to say getting rid of your sense of empathy would be high on the list.No, I’m not introducing paradox or anything literary like that. Being able to understand what makes someone tick is one thing. Being unable to do what is necessary because you “feel their pain” is something else entirely. In business, as in military situations, you sometimes have to make choices that cause harm to other individuals. This is more true in leadership capacities than in staff roles, but even where staffers sit there are times when you have to make difficult choices. Here’s what I’d put at the top of the list, though: In business, you’re supposed to put your own interests first.That doesn’t mean you should become a jerk who tramples everyone else. There are plenty of reasons to avoid doing this, like (1) you still have to like the person who looks back at you from the mirror each morning; and (2) unless you’re really good at it, others who are better at the game will catch on and gang up on you, trampling you so thoroughly you’ll look like a cartoon character run over by a steamroller.What it does mean is that you have every right to ask your employer and co-workers, “Why would I want to do that?” in response to requests that you undertake some action that’s good for them but not for you. Pastors, parents and teachers often extol the virtues of self-sacrifice. In many settings, self-sacrifice is the mark of a hero. Your cubicle isn’t one of those settings.So if your employer asks for self-sacrifice, your employer is trying to take advantage of you. Likewise your co-workers. That’s okay – they have their best interests to look out for. Just don’t fall for it. Treat interactions as negotiations, not as moral equations and you’ll be fine.– Bob Powered by ScribeFire. Technology Industry