Interventions and tactics of change (Soroka, 1993; Fisch et Al, 1975):
Daily experience shows that most people can resolve most of their own life difficulties, especially when they do not matter too much interest in relation to their difficulties when they arise. It seems that this principle should guide the practitioner when he is faced with difficulties that arise in treatment. The obvious conclusion is an important factor in effective intervention:  you have not only to know what to do but also to know what not to do! Good therapeutic result can be accomplished simply, usually, by avoiding action. According to focused problem-solving brief therapy, there is one way that maintains the difficulties and prevention can make a big difference as to the time devoted to treatment outcome. It is important to remember that people who can’t resolve their difficulties, they took the one and only “logical” step that seemed to them right and it maintained the difficulty.  This does not mean that something is wrong with them. However, there are two ways to avoid mistakes in taking tactical intervention:
1. Not to take the solution that didn’t work (basically, to be neutral)
2. To choose the opposite way, which is 180 degree to the opposite way that maintains the original difficulty.
In general, interventions that provide the best fulcrum for change – these are often contradictory ideas and attitudes to the ideas that are considered reasonable. Such interventions for an untrained ear sound confusing, but we have to remember that focused problem-solving brief therapy process was built in order to prevent the solutions that maintain the difficulties and these are, often, the solutions that rely on “common sense” of the client.