Real Service

by Joshua Tenpenny

  5. When determining where to store an item, keep in mind the way it is used. For example, you may want to consider the following:

   Items used frequently should very easy to access. If space is limited, put the items the master uses in the most easily accessible locations, and use the less convenient storage areas for your own things. If there are any items which the master would like immediate access to, these should be put in a readily accessible locations, even if they are rarely used.

   Items used with each other or for the same purpose should be stored together whenever possible, and ideally near the place where they are most often used. If an inexpensive item is used in multiple different contexts, getting duplicate items can greatly simplify the task.

   Items which tend to be “browsed” should be stored in a way that permits this. That is, if people frequently know they want an item of that type, but aren’t sure exactly which one they want, or aren’t sure what is currently available, they should be able to easily see their options. (This is common with food, clothing, books, and many hobby items.)

  7. Reduce the effort required of them to maintain organization. It is common for masters to be much more resistant to change than their servants, and much less inclined to do things the way they are told to do them. The ideal is to make it the established location for an item the easiest and most obvious place to put it. Clearly labeled drawers and containers are generally highly effective. Masters (and other members of the household) are generally much more inclined to leave an item laying in plain sight than to stick it into a container clearly labeled for another purpose. Don’t discourage this! It is far easier to put an item away yourself than it is to try to figure out weeks later where your master might have stashed it. Also, clear labeling reduces instances of the master feeling like the servant has “hidden” their things.

  8. After the new system is in place, observe how the space is being used, and assess whether the organizational strategies seem effective. If people are not using the space in the way you had hoped, it may be appropriate to offer gentle reminder of the intended system, but it is not appropriate (or generally effective) to insist anyone in the household do things a certain way. The servant’s job is to simply observe, and if necessary revise the system.

  9. Any organizational system requires periodic maintenance. An effective and appropriate system should not require a huge amount of time or effort to maintain, but the servant should periodically verify that various things are where they ought to be, and that any changes that have occurred since the last organizational effort are being well accommodated by the system.

  Remember the first rule of service: If the master doesn’t want it, it isn’t service. If the master doesn’t feel they’ve gotten substantial benefit from an organizational system, they will eventually decide the servant’s time is better spent elsewhere. If the servant finds the system beneficial to their own work, they can explain this to the master, but this is rarely persuasive unless the time and effort to maintain the system is minimal and any time-intensive organizing is done during the servant’s “free time”.

  Major organizational efforts should generally be undertaken only after the servant has demonstrated their ability to act in accordance with the master’s preferences rather than their own. In situations where the master is very eager to make use of a new servant’s organizational skills, the master should be especially careful that the servant maintains an attitude appropriate for their role, and defers without argument to the master’s preferences. Well-organized people frequently feel a strong sense of superiority towards disorganized people, and confronting this attitude is essential for establishing a healthy and respectful service relationship.

  It can be beneficial for the servant to use neutral non-judgmental language when discussing organizational issues. For example, referring to the “established location” of an item, rather than the “right place” or the “wrong place”, and saying something like “I would expect that item to be…” rather than “That item should be…” In general, it is corrosive to the relationship to put the servant in a position where they are continually telling the master what to do or the way things ought to be. It can also be beneficial to strictly enforce a ban on anything resembling “nagging”, including arguments about whether a given statement constitutes “nagging”.

  If a master decides they are not interested in allowing their servant to organize their space, they have no obligation to humor the organizationally-inclined servant. However, it is worthwhile to note that some masters are habitually disorganized because they associate a well-organized space with an authority figure telling them to clean up or else. If the master has a strong emotional reaction to the idea of organization, but would like to be able to find and use certain items more easily, they might find it useful to allow a trusted servant to organize one small area, using a minimally invasive approach. It is best to select an area where the disorder is especially annoying to the master, but not an area where the master has strong emotional attachment to the items. If the master finds benefit in the newly organized space, they can gradually allow the servant to organize other spaces, but the servant should be very careful to maintain the minimally invasive approach and not pressure the master about the issue.

  Correcting Problematic Behavior

  In this book, we’ve focused on what we call “real service”, meaning that these are real-world ways in which one person can make the life of another more comfortable. In a very real way, this kind of service passes from the realm of “play” to the realm of “work”. The servant is no longer playing with the master, but working for them. Because of this, the issue of obedience takes on a whole new dimension. If an s-type forgets to use an honorific or sits on unauthorized furniture, no real harm is done to a person or a household. If they decide not to pick up the dry cleaning or the children, leave the dog unsupervised in the kitchen, mouth off at the master’s new client, misplace the master’s medication, or wreck the car, there are real-world consequences beyond the master’s displeasure. When you deal with real service, you require real obedience.

  Obviously, nobody is perfect. In most situations, the occasional mistake is to be expected, especially when people are operating close to the edge of their competency. A master should quickly establish with the servant what the acceptable margin of error is for various tasks, and ensure the servant’s skill and training is sufficient to reliably achieve that.

  It takes a certain temperament in a servant to consistently operate close to the edge of their competency or on an extremely narrow margin of error. A master who desires that of a servant would do well to select one with a personal or family background in military service, law enforcement, emergency medicine, firefighting, or any other situation where mistakes mean that people die. It is difficult (though not impossible) for a master to develop this temperament in a servant who has never been exposed to this level of real-world consequences.

  We tend to assume that servants are responsible adults who want to do a good job, and will sincerely apply themselves to the tasks assigned to them. A responsible servant does what their master tells them to do, because it is their job. In our experience, the s-types who make the best servants do not respond well to traditional “punishment” as a correction method. The only situation where we feel any type of physical correction might be useful for some s-types is as an instantaneous response to a specific habitual behavior that has not responded to correction by other means, as a form of operant conditioning. However, all s-types are different, and masters have their own opinions and methods, so your mileage may vary.

  The method that we find most effective is to set clear expectations and to work with the s-type to find a way for them to meet those expectations. We feel it is essential to make it clear to the s-type that they have an obligation to actively work toward changing their behavior, just as the master has an obligation to help them in that task. Masters and servants should be on the same team, not adve
rsaries.

  This is our basic method for addressing most problems:

  1) Bring the servant’s attention to the situation, and verify that they understand what the problem is.

  The first time a problem occurs, it may be sufficient for the master to clarify their expectations and ensure the servant understands. With an experienced servant, the master often only needs to give a general indication that something about the situation is not up to the usual standard – many masters can do this with nothing more than a raised eyebrow – and the servant can immediately recognize the problem and take steps to correct it. An inexperienced servant may need a more explicit description of what they did wrong, and what is expected of them.

  2) Determine why the problem occurred.

  With a good servant, it is generally just an honest mistake, and all that is needed is the assurance that the servant will endeavor to avoid that mistake in the future. In cases where there were unforeseen or unusual circumstances, it may be beneficial to clarify what the appropriate response would have been in that situation, or what steps could have been taken to prevent that situation from arising.

  In many situations, failure comes from simple, preventable errors rather than unforeseeable circumstances or a lack of skill. If this is the case, consider making a list of the commonly overlooked steps, to be read and verified by the servant before completing the task. It may seem excessively rigid or limiting to reduce a complex task to a checklist, but by reliably removing obvious sources of error, a person can devote their full attention to the more complex aspects of the work, and consistently perform to a much higher standard.

  An inexperienced servant may not be able to give any meaningful answer when questioned about what happened. They may be very emotionally distressed or confrontational. They may think that the only response appropriate to their role is hysterical groveling, or they may be very resistant to the idea that their transgression is going to be met with reasonable discussion, rather than yelling and punishment. Whether they are stuck in a fantasy role, acting out their dysfunctional upbringing, or just extremely emotionally sensitive, it is useful to discuss exactly what went wrong, and what factors contributed to that.

  If the servant deliberately went against orders, in a way that was not justified by situation, this is a serious behavioral problem, no matter how trivial the order.

  3) Develop a plan for preventing this problem in the future.

  If having the servant try harder isn’t producing the desired results, the next step is for both master and servant to look at the situation in detail, and “brainstorm” ideas about how to do things differently in the future. The master evaluates these ideas and decides on a plan, and both work together to implement that plan. Some examples of solutions might be: finding memory aids, dealing with underlying insecurities, working on the servant being mindful of their health, training them to ask for what they want, or even finding them external therapy. Getting the servant involved with finding solutions, and making it clear that results are the ultimate goal, helps to make them more invested in making the solution successful.

  4) If necessary, reevaluate the servant’s capabilities.

  Everyone has different skills and strengths, and everyone has things they aren’t very good at. If after diligent effort, the servant is still not able to consistently perform to the given standard in an area of service, the master may need to reevaluate whether this person is capable of the task, or reevaluate their standard. (If the master feels the servant is not applying themselves or is trying to avoid work, this is a serious behavioral problem, addressed in the section below.)

  We have found that for an otherwise good servant, the most effective approach to persistent failures is for the master to drastically reduce their expectations of the servant’s competence in the area, and then slowly build back up from there. The master begins by making the task excruciatingly simple, and moves on to more complex tasks only when the simple tasks have been mastered so thoroughly that the servant is sick of them. This approach works well for many different types of servants. When done in a supportive way, it can give the emotionally sensitive servant an opportunity to develop confidence in their skills without (realistic) fear of failure. For less emotionally sensitive servants, mild humiliation can be incorporated, especially if the initial attempts are unsuccessful. (Think of techniques that might be used to assist a small child in doing the task.) For example, we spoke to one servant who continually forgot orders. He was given a small notebook to carry with him at all times, and told to write down every single order he received. When he then forgot to bring the notebook, he was made to wear it on a string around his neck. This technique is especially effective for the stubborn servant who responds to their failure with, “See! I told you I was no good at that.” It uses their natural “I’ll show you!” response to the master’s benefit. Finally, if the servant’s failure is in any part motivated by a desire to avoid being assigned the task in the future, they may be inclined to try harder if failure results in tedious practice of the same task until they get it right.

  Remedial Obedience

  With a good servant, and reasonable expectations from the master, there is no need for specific obedience training. However, there are some s-types who could make good servants, but need some help to get to a point where they can consistently perform to a reasonable standard. Some are very attached to a fantasy role, but otherwise suitable. Some have bad habits from past relationships or dysfunctional upbringing. Some still have a bit of growing up to do, no matter what their chronological age is. Some have appallingly poor self-control.

  We do want to emphasize that it is uncommon for a normal, well-adjusted adult to require any kind of “obedience” training, provided they genuinely want to serve. In particular, if the servant has been able to consistently hold some kind of paid employment in the outside world, the master can safely assume the servant is capable of working to a reasonable standard under the direction of another person, under the right circumstances. If they haven’t had much opportunity for paid employment, they can still be evaluated on their ability to take care of themselves and their normal adult responsibilities.

  Evaluating a servant’s work history gives the master an idea about the servant’s skills and experience, but more importantly, it provides valuable insight into the servant’s attitude towards work. For example, someone who has repeatedly quit or been fired because “the boss was an asshole” will almost certainly carry this same attitude into their service relationship.

  When a servant is capable of doing better in the “real world”, but cannot meet reasonable expectations of performance in a power dynamic relationship, generally it is because they see this relationship as a fantasy role or an escape from their ordinary life. If that is what they want out of the relationship, it is essential that they find a master who wants more of a fantasy role, and does not expect the servant to bring their “real world” skills and abilities into the relationship.

  If a master is interested, with thorough training, even some of the most escapist servants may be able to provide reliable, competent service in areas that don’t remind them at all of their “real world” responsibilities. Others need to have a space to be a brat (or a footstool, or whatever it is they do), but can also shift gears and provide reliable service if given clear boundaries about what is “work” and what is “play”.

  There are also are s-types who have the desire and capability for a real service relationship, but are acting out behavioral patterns they’ve learned in past relationships or in childhood. Some are young and inexperienced, some are older and never “grew up”. Often they don’t understand what the problem is and don’t know any other way to act. The right master, with the right style of training, can bring an s-type like this to a place where they flourish in service, but it will not happen without substantial effort from an experienced master. They often benefit from a very structured, controlled training environment, where they initially h
ave an extremely restricted role and gradually earn the privilege of rendering useful service, using their own judgment, and expressing their opinion. With an experienced, skilled master, this type of training program can produce an acceptable servant out of almost anyone who sticks with it. This a remedial obedience program, however, and while it may have recreational value, is generally unnecessary for a responsible, well adjusted, obedient s-type.

  On the other hand, some bad behaviors are the result of much deeper issues which cannot be addressed with this type of training. In order to make a distinction between the severity of these types of behavior, we have listed several classic bad s-type behaviors below, divided into two categories. We’re calling them “misdemeanors” and “felonies”. The misdemeanors can generally be addressed by skillful training, whereas the felonies leave little or no hope of establishing a meaningful service relationship.

  The appropriate response to misdemeanors is a serious conversation with the servant about the reasons for their behavior and their commitment to the relationship, and corrective measures must address the underlying problem as well as the behavior. Masters should note that the misdemeanors are signs that there is something fundamentally amiss with the servant’s understanding of their role. They should be addressed promptly, regardless of whether the behavior itself is bothersome to the master.