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.)

Assertive Statecraft

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Unlike earlier Indian External Affairs Ministers who, by and large, favoured a more measured tone when dealing with restive neighbours and India’s adversaries, S. Jaishankar’s approach has been unapologetically firm. He sets himself apart from his predecessors with a style of diplomacy that is both assertive and unflinching. Whether dealing with Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism or China’s military provocations, Jaishankar’s diplomacy merges strategic patience with sharp critique - a style that contrasts sharply with more reconciliatory stances of yore.


Consider his recent remarks at the 23rd Meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government in Islamabad. Jaishankar did not mince words, emphasizing that terrorism and extremism, often sponsored by Pakistan, hinder the region’s trade and connectivity. While former ministers like S.M. Krishna or Pranab Mukherjee might have opted for more diplomatic phrasing, Jaishankar had no inhibitions in openly calling out the “three evils” - terrorism, extremism and separatism. His blunt message was that trade and cooperation cannot flourish amidst violence, and India will not compromise on this principle.


This hard-line stance shows that India’s foreign policy has come of age. Previous ministers often focused on backchannel diplomacy and confidence-building measures, hoping to bring Pakistan to the table. Jaishankar, however, has raised the stakes, making it clear that the onus lies entirely on Islamabad. He has effectively drawn a red line, signalling that India’s patience for half-hearted promises of peace has worn thin.


His handling of China has been no less firm. Since the 2020 Galwan clashes, relations between India and China have been frosty, with border standoffs straining ties. While earlier ministers like Jaswant Singh sought to expand diplomatic channels and avoid direct confrontation, Jaishankar’s bolder approach has been to reduce India’s cooperation with Beijing to a bare minimum. At the SCO Summit, he underscored the importance of territorial integrity and mutual respect - an implicit but clear jab at Chinese expansionist ambitions. His message was that until Beijing respects India’s sovereignty, meaningful cooperation is off the table.


His remarks on Canada, delivered in response to Canada’s mishandling of separatist elements celebrating the assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi last year, demonstrate his willingness to confront far-flung Western powers. Jaishankar’s critique of Canadian PM Trudeau’s “vote bank politics” and the platform Canada has given to extremist Khalistan elements was a striking departure from the caution exercised by earlier ministers when dealing with Western democracies. Where former ministers might have chosen to tread lightly to preserve strategic partnerships, Jaishankar took a confrontational stand, calling out Canada’s complicity in nurturing forces that harm India’s unity. This approach underscores that India will no longer passively accept the actions of others, whether they be rooted in vote bank politics or geostrategic manoeuvring.

Comments


bottom of page