How to work with a sponsor once the Steps have been taken

“helping other alcoholics to a solution of their problems.” (Page 15, Big Book)

Once the sponsor has instructed the sponsee on the Steps, the question arises of how to work with a sponsor. 

Sponsors are there to help but not to do the sponsee’s work for them or be their Higher Power. Sponsors show sponsees the mechanics of the programme and how to form a relationship with God, which paradoxically will enable the individual to rely on themselves, with God directing, rather than infantilising themselves and finding another person to think things through, make their decisions, direct their actions, run their lives, and act as a general safety net so that they individual need never take full responsibility for their thought, decision, and action.

Now, when someone is very new or very scrambled, quite a lot of handholding and supervision really is needed. But the individual should be led towards autonomy under God right from the start. The initial oversight and care should not become a steady state.

Set out below are some suboptimal ways of asking for help and some corrections.

‘Do you have any experience of …?’

Instead, I present the situation and the question and ask the sponsor for help in answering the question. They might reframe the understanding of the situation or apply apparently unrelated experience. They don’t have to have been in that precise situation. Also, this quick smacks of auditing or interviewing the sponsor. The sponsee is the subject matter, here, not the sponsor.

‘Can you tell me about …?’

The sponsor is not a dial-a-TED Talk. If I want to know about the service structure, the traditions, boundaries, Step Nine, whatever, I do my own research. The material is out there, waiting for me to use it. I don’t put the sponsor to work and then put my feet up. Once I’ve done my homework, I see if there are any remaining questions and then ask those.

‘Can I run some inventory past you?’

If I don’t know how to do inventory, I say so, and then that’s the topic. If I do, I don’t need to run inventory past anyone. I might need to confess. Confessions are made based on inventory. They’re not laborious reading out of the ‘this affects my …’s. They’re a succinct presentation of the exact nature of one’s wrongs.

‘Can I run some corrective measures past you?’

If I don’t know how to generate corrective measures, I say so, and then that’s the topic. If the corrective measures are effective, great. If not, I try again. If the process of generating corrective measures generates a genuine question, I ask the question. The question is not, ‘Are these OK?’ Any question I pose is based on a reasoned uncertainty. I present what I am uncertain about and why. Corrective measures are not homework to be reviewed by teacher. The sponsor is not a safety net there to catch errors.

‘Have I missed anything?’

Here, the sponsor’s asked to ‘check’ the sponsee’s ‘work’ and essentially review the ‘work’ against the full body of recovery and spiritual principles, identify and catalogue missing pieces, and report them back. That’s quite a task. Instead, I ask about any questionable element, presenting exactly why it’s questionable. I max out on thinking it through under God’s guidance first. I don’t leap to outsourcing the production or checking of ‘work’.

‘Can we talk about …?’

There’s no value in talking for the sake of it. What matters is the purpose. Why do I want to talk about something? What do I want to get out of it? What problem that I cannot solve myself do I genuinely need input on? Am I hoping that, if I and someone else talk, useful crumbs may drop from the table? They might well do, but it’s a poor way of structuring time, to simply talk in the hope that something useful might be said. A sponsor is not a parent or friend. They’re not for chatting.

‘Can I have your input on …?’

This question is usually a general fishing expedition, where I present the situation and expect the other person to assess it and then tell me what to think and what to do. This is outsourcing, pure and simple.

Here’s how I ask for help on a situation:

I have a good think and do my own research and work. I then assemble the situation, the analysis, the options, and then the decision and the corrective measures. What this looks like will vary depending on whether the situation is some incident or happening, a major decision, acting out, a defect, a conflict, etc. I talk it through with a pal. They’re there for the cud-chewing. If there remains a question, I pose the question to the sponsor, including relevant background and the cause of the uncertainty. They’re there to help with the unresolvable question, not to check my workings.

To be fair to the sponsee, the sponsor might well have permitted infantilisation over a considerable period and might have got a kick out of being the authority. The culture in AA is one of encouraging such human reliance, so one can be forgiven for imitating how others ‘do it’.

But it’s good for everyone, sponsor and sponsee, to grow up and out of these patterns of outsourcing and dependence.

What’s your experience?