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 Test of Prestige for the BJP in Eastern Vidarbha

Eastern Vidarbha

As the election draws nearer, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) finds itself locked in a high-stakes contest in Eastern Vidarbha, particularly Nagpur—a region long considered the heart of its ideological and political machinery given that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has its headquarters here.


This particular electoral battle transcends mere numbers as the very prestige of the party’s state unit is at stake this time, especially with key figures like Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, state BJP President Chandrashekhar Bawankule and senior leader Sudhir Mungantiwar in the fray and the presence of Union Minister Nitin Gadkari looming large.


Among the 23 candidates nominated by the BJP in Vidarbha, an impressive 19 are incumbent MLAs. Bawankule, in particular, is eager to reclaim his place in the political landscape after a hiatus from electoral contests since 2014. His previous exclusion from the ticket in the 2019 Assembly elections is believed to have cost the BJP several seats, especially given his affiliation with the Teli community, which boasts a significant voter base.


Under Fadnavis’ leadership, the party has spearheaded substantial infrastructural projects, including the Nagpur metro.


The transformation of districts like Gadchiroli, Bhandara, Gondia, and Chandrapur from hotbeds of Naxalism to areas now declared ‘Naxal-free’ is a testament to the decisive action taken by the erstwhile Fadnavis government and present Eknath Shinde-led Mahayuti coalition, supported by central forces. This substantial victory over Maoist elements will be touted as a key achievement by the BJP in Vidarbha. The decimation of Naxal influence and the establishment of a climate conducive to industrial development, creating new employment opportunities will be the BJP’s plank as it reaches out to voters here.


Fadnavis, once the undisputed face of the BJP in Maharashtra, hails from Nagpur and has deep roots in the region. However, the party’s poor performance in the Lok Sabha elections, has raised doubts about whether Fadnavis can rally the base for a more convincing mandate this time around. For Mungantiwar, the challenge this time is even more daunting given his abysmal performance in the Lok Sabha, where he lost heavily in the Chandrapur Lok Sabha contest to the Congress’ Pratibha Dhanorkar, trailing by more than 48,000 votes from his own Assembly segment stronghold of Ballarpur.


Traditionally, the contest in Vidarbha has been between the two national parties – the Congress and the BJP, which has eaten into the Congress’ pie since 2014. However, an attenuated Congress maintains a formidable presence in this region, posing a significant threat to the BJP’s dominance. Even today, the party has the maximum number of MLAs concentrated in the entire Vidarbha region, 15 of its total strength of 45.


Vidarbha has produced three Chief Ministers for the Congress—Maratrao Kannamwar, Vasantrao Naik, who remains the state’s longest-serving CM, and Suddhakar Rao Naik (Fadnavis being the fourth CM from this region). The Congress has also maintained a strong cadre of second-line leaders, with influential figures such as Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) chief Nana Patole, Leader of Opposition Vijay Wadettiwar, and former ministers Nitin Raut and Sunil Kedar, all important players from this belt.


As it faces a charged-up Congress on November 20, the eyes of Maharashtra will be on Eastern Vidarbha, where the BJP’s prestige hangs in the balance. As the BJP locks horns with a formidable Congress in Eastern Vidarbha, the Assembly election here is a fight for the saffron party’s identity, transcending mere numbers.

Comments

bottom of page