Recently, I read something with a startling parallel to sponsorship:
"You will from time to time meet a patient who shares a disturbing tale of multiple mistakes in his previous treatment. He has been seen by several clinicians, and all failed him. The patient can lucidly describe how his therapists misunderstood him, but he has quickly perceived that you are different. You share the same feeling, are convinced that you understand him, and will be able to help." At this point my teacher raised his voice as he said, "Do not even think of taking on this patient! Throw him out of the office! He is most likely a psychopath and you will not be able to help him."Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow (pp. 27–28)
Now, the language of this ('psychopath') is strong, but the principle holds. I was someone who bounced from sponsor to sponsor, from approach to approach, based on a sequence of 'realisations' that I was on the wrong path and needed 'a new experience' or somesuch. I did not rapidly or substantially improve. Each new haloed and hallowed sponsor, group, book, therapy, or approach was great for a bit, but the halo would slip, the shine would wear off, and the sponsor, group, book, therapy, or approach would become the latest casualty in the list of 'things that had failed me'.
What was going on? I never surrendered, but rather enlisted these resources in my own structured plan for my own recovery. When their system and my system conflicted, I resisted, wriggled, and ultimately bolted.
Fortunately, this 'psychopathy' of mine did gradually abate, and I became teachable. I'm still not super teachable, but I'm way better than I was.
Sometimes you'll be on the other side of this, with someone knocking on your door telling a sorry tale of how their previous sponsors have misunderstood and mis-sponsored them. Maybe they have. But listen out for the tone. If it's one of grievance, exercise caution.