From the author: Continuing the series of publications by professionals characterizing the interaction between client and psychologist in psychological work, I propose an article by A.A. Badchen. (Mastery of psychological counseling. / Edited by A. A. Badkhen, A. M. Rodina. - St. Petersburg: Rech, 2007. - 240 pp. pp. 72-76) I am sure that every client, understanding the predominant style of the consultant, can choose the appropriate one and thereby optimize your psychological work and interaction with a consultant. By definition, there are as many individual styles as there are consultants, and therefore there is no point in trying to describe them all. However, there are some trends in styles that can influence the dynamics of change in the counseling process and, consequently, the effectiveness of the consultant. What is required of me as a consultant to be most effective? What should I rely on in choosing my tactics at any given moment? What do I expect from my actions? How will I evaluate my effectiveness? Each consultant asks himself these or similar questions , and everyone knows how difficult it is to find the answer to them. On the one hand, these questions once again emphasize that in our work we ourselves are our own instruments. On the other hand, they point to the relationship between our professional actions and introspection. Finally, on the third hand, they demonstrate the relationship between how we observe ourselves (“from what place” we observe ourselves) and how we see the goal of counseling. Let’s dwell on the last one—the consultant’s idea of ​​the goal of counseling. In principle, two types can be distinguished resolving the issue of the purpose of counseling: in one case, the goal is to resolve a specific problem or situation in which the client finds himself; in another case, “solving the problem” recedes into the background before the need for the client to understand the complexity of the life situation and the variety of available choices and alternatives. Relatively speaking, to simplify, the first approach can be called goal-oriented, and the second - client-oriented. Based on existing research, E. Nevis (1990) noted that depending on how the consultant approaches the choice of the goal of his work, two main ones can be distinguished: style: provoking and awakening. The provocative style is based on the consultant's beliefs that changes in the client occur as a result of external influences and that working with the client can only be effective if the consultant forces or forces something to happen. The consultant’s actions here are likened to pushes or even blows, the task of which is to break into the client’s consciousness and push him to respond, entailing restructuring and adaptation. The awakening style is aimed at awakening the client’s interest in what is happening to him. To awaken means to bring about a change in attitude towards what is happening. The goal in this case is to awaken the client's consciousness to master new skills in order to be more effective in a specific situation and in life in general. The consultant here has a receptive position. The provocative style can be described as forcing the client to change. In contrast, the awakening style allows the client to express himself. Further ideas about these styles can be gleaned from the table describing the characteristics of the consultant's behavior depending on the style chosen by him: Table cited by: Nevis E. Evocative and Provocative Modes of Influence in the Implementation of Change //The Gestalt Journal, Vol. VI. No. 2. 1983. P. 7. Before drawing any conclusions, it is important to emphasize that there is no parallel between these styles and the effectiveness of assistance provided. It must be remembered that in counseling, as in therapy, intention does not guarantee results. There are many high-performing consultants who fall into one or another of the above styles. What matters is how good we are at.