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 Self-Inflicted Blow

Updated: Nov 25, 2024

Manoj Jarange-Patil

Ahead of the results, the Maratha quota movement, a simmering issue in the state’s politics for nearly 14 months, finds itself embroiled in a series of missteps and contradictions thanks in no small part to Manoj Jarange-Patil’s erratic leadership. Poised to play the role of a kingmaker in the Marathwada region in the run-up to the Assembly polls, Jarange-Patil’s vacillation on whether or not to field candidates for the upcoming polls, and his constant flip-flops, has undermined his own cause and diminished the potency of Maratha political mobilization in the region.


Marathwada, which comprises 46 assembly seats, was a key battleground in the Lok Sabha election this year where it had swung decisively against the ruling Mahayuti alliance, costing the BJP heavily.


Agrarian distress and the Maratha reservation issue brought to life by Jarange-Patil had taken centre stage among the electorate here. Long disillusioned with the establishment, sections of the Maratha community were expected to channel their grievances into a potent force against the ruling coalition this time as well.


However, the reality seems different. Jarange-Patil, with his trademark firebrand speeches, had initially rallied the community ahead of November 20 with calls of ‘revenge’ against the BJP-led Mahayuti for allegedly betraying Marathas over their reservation demands.


His dramatic announcement that he would field candidates had added to the growing pressure on the ruling parties. However, days before the polls, he performed a stunning volte-face, withdrawing the plan to field candidates by citing a lack of coordination with other caste groups and political parties. In a region where caste dynamics are a key factor, the BJP had fielded Maratha candidates in 28 of the 46 constituencies in a bid to take the wind out of Jarange-Patil’s sails.


The Maratha reservation issue, shot through with Jarange-Patil’s seemingly endless strike – a spectacle which had held Maharashtra hostage - has largely lost its steam. Jarange-Patil’s bewildering decision to reverse within a week of threatening to field candidates ensured that the quota issue would not emerge as a defining electoral debate in this region.


For the long term, this abrupt change of stance has left the Maratha community in a state of confusion. Had Jarange-Patil stuck to his guns, his entry into the electoral fray would not only have undercut the Mahayuti’s candidates but cemented his persona as a demagogue not to be trifled with. Now, by taking a step back, he has weakened the movement’s influence, costing the Maratha cause much-needed momentum. For all his earlier fire, the Maratha agitation now risks losing its teeth after the results on November 23.


The impact of Jarange-Patil’s deeds has heightened rifts within the Maratha and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities in Maratha in the past 14 months. The conflict over quotas has deepened divisions, with OBC groups mobilizing in direct opposition to Jarange-Patil’s Maratha-centric protests.

Jarange-Patil’s decision to not field candidates did little to consolidate the Maratha vote, potentially leaving the community’s grievances unaddressed at the ballot box.


The Maratha community remains angry and mobilized, but without a clear, cohesive plan or leadership. While the activist has continued to make tall claims of pressing the demands of the Marathas on the new government formed after the November 23, the final analysis may well be that Jarange-Patil’s ‘self-inflicted wounds’ may do more to benefit the Mahayuti than to further the cause of the Maratha community he once sought to lead.

Comments

bottom of page