I sure could use a new device, something that crosses a crystal ball, a graphic equalizer and a Richter scale. I’d use this device to make consistently wise decisions about whether or not to confront a conflict.

Having been raised in a “take all comers” kind of family, I’m trying to achieve a bit more balance by asking myself, “When I look back in 30 years, will I care about this dispute?” That’s where the crystal ball would be helpful. A human graphic equalizer of sorts would also be handy to help, as a stereo manual reminds me, “correct for room difficulties, speaker anomalies, and individual performer preferences.” And a Richter scale would round out the picture nicely by helping me analyze the magnitude of my own and the other person’s emotional energy.

Since I’m without the technical prowess necessary to create such a device, I’m left with making decisions to confront based on sound judgment. The good news is that such judgment can be informed by a few criteria to help guide my (and your) thinking:

How important is this, really? If it’s truly a trivial matter, then I’m wise to let it roll off my back. My husband likes to guide himself with the good question, “Will I ever see this person again?” If you were raised in a family on the other end of the continuum from mine, and have a tendency to avoid conflict, this is an equally—and maybe more—important question. Tactfully confronting important conflicts usually strengthens relationships, even if the short-run experience is uncomfortable.

Is it cumulative? Taken individually, some problems and differences seem minor. Taken as a whole, they may suggest a wider pattern that needs addressing. When debating whether or not to confront a certain situation, step back and look at the cumulative effect on you and others.

Am I seeking short- or long-term results? Taking the long view reduces the danger of trading long-term accord for short-term relief, though it may be the short-term relief that’s occasionally more preferable. A former colleague of mine ran the student housing department for a small college. She often reminded staff that writing students up for every minor infraction of residence hall policy usually resulted in a general feeling of ill will between students and staff, and that a better approach was to spend energy building relationships and focusing on truly important violations.

Will confronting make a difference? For those of us comfortable confronting conflict, such realistic assessment helps us pick our battles. For those of us who prefer to avoid conflict, this question could be used as a crutch to continue the avoiding behavior; we conclude prematurely, “Oh, it probably won’t make a difference anyway.” Knowing what kind of difference I’m seeking certainly helps, which brings me to…

What is my intention in confronting? Is my intention to change the person or the situation? Mark Twain once said, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Most people don’t have an interest in changing until they’re first understood, so it’s usually not very effective to enter a conflict conversation with a demand for change. If I confront a conflict to change the person, I may be doomed to failure before I even say a word. If I confront a conflict with the intention of changing the situation, then understanding the other’s perspective becomes critically important and my likelihood of success increases dramatically.

Is the timing right? The most important conversation in the world needs good timing to increase its effectiveness. Confronting my spouse about sharing more of the housekeeping isn’t likely to go well if I do it while he’s in the middle of grading student papers and on a deadline to submit them.