top of page

By:

Rahul Kulkarni

30 March 2025 at 3:32:54 pm

The Boundary Collapse

When kindness becomes micromanagement It started with a simple leave request.   “Hey, can I take Friday off? Need a personal day,” Meera messaged Rohit. Rohit replied instantly:   “Of course. All good. Just stay reachable if anything urgent comes up.”   He meant it as reassurance. But the team didn’t hear reassurance. They heard a rule.   By noon, two things had shifted inside The Workshop:   Meera felt guilty for even asking. Everyone else quietly updated their mental handbook: Leave is...

The Boundary Collapse

When kindness becomes micromanagement It started with a simple leave request.   “Hey, can I take Friday off? Need a personal day,” Meera messaged Rohit. Rohit replied instantly:   “Of course. All good. Just stay reachable if anything urgent comes up.”   He meant it as reassurance. But the team didn’t hear reassurance. They heard a rule.   By noon, two things had shifted inside The Workshop:   Meera felt guilty for even asking. Everyone else quietly updated their mental handbook: Leave is allowed… but not really. This is boundary collapse… when a leader’s good intentions unintentionally blur the limits that protect autonomy and rest. When care quietly turns into control Founders rarely intend to micromanage.   What looks like control from the outside often starts as care from the inside. “Let me help before something breaks.” “Let me stay involved so we don’t lose time.” “Loop me in… I don’t want you stressed.” Supportive tone.   Good intentions.   But one invisible truth defines workplace psychology: When power says “optional,” it never feels optional.
So when a client requested a revision, Rohit gently pinged:   “If you’re free, could you take a look?” Of course she logged in.   Of course she handled it.   And by Monday, the cultural shift was complete: Leave = location change, not a boundary.   A founder’s instinct had quietly become a system. Pattern 1: The Generous Micromanager Modern micromanagement rarely looks aggressive. It looks thoughtful :   “Let me refine this so you’re not stuck.” “I’ll review it quickly.”   “Share drafts so we stay aligned.”   Leaders believe they’re being helpful. Teams hear:   “You don’t fully trust me.” “I should check with you before finishing anything.”   “My decisions aren’t final.” Gentle micromanagement shrinks ownership faster than harsh micromanagement ever did because people can’t challenge kindness. Pattern 2: Cultural conditioning around availability In many Indian workplaces, “time off” has an unspoken footnote: Be reachable. Just in case. No one says it directly.   No one pushes back openly.   The expectation survives through habit: Leave… but monitor messages. Rest… but don’t disconnect. Recover… but stay alert. Contrast this with a global team we worked with: A designer wrote,   “I’ll be off Friday, but available if needed.” Her manager replied:   “If you’re working on your off-day, we mismanaged the workload… not the boundary.”   One conversation.   Two cultural philosophies.   Two completely different emotional outcomes.   Pattern 3: The override reflex Every founder has a version of this reflex.   Whenever Rohit sensed risk, real or imagined, he stepped in: Rewriting copy.   Adjusting a design.   Rescoping a task.   Reframing an email. Always fast.   Always polite.   Always “just helping.” But each override delivered one message:   “Your autonomy is conditional.” You own decisions…   until the founder feels uneasy.   You take initiative…   until instinct replaces delegation.   No confrontation.   No drama.   Just quiet erosion of confidence.   The family-business amplification Boundary collapse becomes extreme in family-managed companies.   We worked with one firm where four family members… founder, spouse, father, cousin… all had informal authority. Everyone cared.   Everyone meant well.   But for employees, decision-making became a maze: Strategy approved by the founder.   Aesthetics by the spouse.   Finance by the father. Tone by the cousin.   They didn’t need leadership.   They needed clarity.   Good intentions without boundaries create internal anarchy. The global contrast A European product team offered a striking counterexample.   There, the founder rarely intervened mid-stream… not because of distance, but because of design:   “If you own the decision, you own the consequences.” Decision rights were clear.   Escalation paths were explicit.   Authority didn’t shift with mood or urgency. No late-night edits.   No surprise rewrites.   No “quick checks.”   No emotional overrides. As one designer put it:   “If my boss wants to intervene, he has to call a decision review. That friction protects my autonomy.” The result:   Faster execution, higher ownership and zero emotional whiplash. Boundaries weren’t personal.   They were structural .   That difference changes everything. Why boundary collapse is so costly Its damage is not dramatic.   It’s cumulative.   People stop resting → you get presence, not energy.   People stop taking initiative → decisions freeze.   People stop trusting empowerment → autonomy becomes theatre.   People start anticipating the boss → performance becomes emotional labour.   People burn out silently → not from work, but from vigilance.   Boundary collapse doesn’t create chaos.   It creates hyper-alertness, the heaviest tax on any team. The real paradox Leaders think they’re being supportive. Teams experience supervision.   Leaders assume boundaries are obvious. Teams see boundaries as fluid. Leaders think autonomy is granted. Teams act as though autonomy can be revoked at any moment. This is the Boundary Collapse → a misunderstanding born not from intent, but from the invisible weight of power. Micromanagement today rarely looks like anger.   More often,   it looks like kindness without limits. (Rahul Kulkarni is Co-founder at PPS Consulting. He patterns the human mechanics of scaling where workplace behavior quietly shapes business outcomes. Views personal.)

A Polarising Figure in Indian Cricket Coaching

ree

Gautam Gambhir’s tenure as head coach of the Indian men’s cricket team has been a rollercoaster of triumphs and tribulations. Appointed in July 2024 following Rahul Dravid’s successful stint, Gambhir brought a reputation for tactical brilliance from his IPL mentorship, where he guided Kolkata Knight Riders to a title in 2024. Yet, despite notable successes in white-ball cricket, including leading India to victories in the 2025 ICC Champions Trophy and the 2025 Asia Cup, he remains a deeply divisive figure. Many fans, pundits, and even former players express outright disdain for him, often amplified on social media platforms like X.


In my opinion, this dislike stems not just from recent Test cricket failures but from Gambhir’s inherent personality traits—his abrasiveness, perceived favouritism, and a history of controversies—that clash with the expectations of a more diplomatic coaching role. While his results in limited-overs formats are commendable, they haven’t shielded him from criticism, highlighting how personal style can overshadow professional achievements in the high-stakes world of Indian cricket.


SWOT analysis

To understand this paradox, it’s essential to dissect Gambhir’s coaching profile through a SWOT analysis, which reveals both his potential and pitfalls.


Strengths: Gambhir’s greatest asset is his strategic mind and ability to foster winning cultures in high-pressure environments. As a player, he was instrumental in India’s 2007 T20 World Cup and 2011 ODI World Cup triumphs, scoring crucial runs in finals. Translating that to coaching, he has excelled in white-ball cricket. Under his guidance, India clinched the 2025 Champions Trophy, defeating strong sides like England and Australia, with innovative tactics such as aggressive batting lineups and versatile all-rounders. The 2025 Asia Cup win further showcased his knack for player motivation, where young talents like Nitish Kumar Reddy thrived. His IPL legacy—two titles as KKR captain and one as mentor—demonstrates a proven track record in T20 formats, where quick decisions and bold selections pay off. Gambhir’s no-nonsense approach also instills discipline, as seen in India’s drawn Test series in England in 2025, where the team showed resilience against a formidable opposition on away soil. These successes prove he can deliver “good results,” particularly in formats that suit his aggressive philosophy.


Weaknesses: However, Gambhir’s weaknesses are glaring and often fuel the dislike. His communication style is blunt and confrontational, which alienates stakeholders. For instance, post the humiliating 0-3 home Test series loss to New Zealand in 2024 and the recent 0-2 whitewash by South Africa in 2025, Gambhir’s press conferences have been defensive, dismissing critics with remarks like, “I’m the same guy who got results in England.” This comes across as arrogant, especially when contrasted with predecessors like Dravid, who handled setbacks with grace. Critics point to perceived favoritism in selections, such as prioritising IPL performers like Sai Sudarshan (despite a modest Ranji average) over domestic stalwarts like Sarfaraz Khan or Abhimanyu Easwaran.


Social media erupts with accusations of “ego and hate,” with X users labeling him the “worst Test coach” after India lost five home Tests in a year—a stark decline from the fortress India was under Shastri and Dravid. Gambhir’s political affiliations with the BJP and past on-field spats (e.g., with Virat Kohli) add layers of personal baggage, making him a target for those who see him as divisive rather than unifying. His pessimistic demeanor, as noted by former coach John Wright in a 2019 article, where Gambhir was described as “insecure and negative,” persists, eroding team morale during slumps.


Opportunities: Looking ahead, Gambhir has ample chances to turn the narrative. The upcoming 2026 T20 World Cup presents a platform to leverage his strengths in shorter formats, where India’s talent pool aligns with his all-rounder-focused strategies. Transitioning the team post the retirement of seniors like Rohit Sharma and Virat Kohli could be his redemption arc; by nurturing emerging stars and integrating data-driven selections, he could rebuild India’s Test dominance. Collaborations with supportive figures like Suresh Raina, who recently defended him by emphasizing player responsibility over coaching blame, could help mend public perception. If Gambhir adapts his style—perhaps by being more empathetic in media interactions—he could capitalize on India’s vast resources to achieve multi-format consistency, silencing detractors and cementing his legacy.


Threats: The biggest threats to Gambhir’s position are external pressures and internal fractures. Media scrutiny is relentless; outlets like Hindustan Times and India Today have lambasted his “lost in transition” excuses, while Iceland Cricket’s satirical jab about his poor win percentage underscores global ridicule. BCCI’s impatience could lead to his ouster, as hinted in reports of potential replacements like VVS Laxman. Player unrest, fueled by selection controversies, risks a dressing room revolt, especially if veterans feel sidelined. Broader threats include the evolving game—where Test cricket demands patience over aggression—and fan backlash on platforms like X, where hashtags like #SackGambhir trend after every loss. If white-ball successes wane, these threats could culminate in an abrupt exit, mirroring his IPL coaching stints that ended amid reported conflicts.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page