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.)

Balancing the Books

Updated: Feb 14

Union Budget

The Union Budget speech by the Finance Minister captures public attention with a few headline-grabbing announcements. Yet, buried in the fine print of the 200-page annexure lies the real story of the government’s finances, where money comes from and where it goes. The latest budget for the financial year 2025-26 offers a fascinating glimpse into India’s fiscal priorities, revealing a mix of optimism, discipline and political pragmatism.


The government’s tax revenues are expected to grow robustly, with gross tax receipts budgeted at Rs. 42.7 trillion, up from Rs. 38.53 trillion this year. After transferring Rs. 14.22 trillion to states, the Centre’s net tax revenue will be Rs. 28.37 trillion—an 11 percent increase. Direct tax collections, despite income tax sops costing Rs. 1 trillion, are set to rise by 12.65 percent, driven by expectations of an urban demand revival and a boost to micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). Indirect taxes, however, are a mixed bag. While the Goods and Services Tax (GST) is forecast to rise to Rs. 11.78 trillion, up from Rs. 10.62 trillion, customs and excise duties remain sluggish.


Beyond taxation, non-tax revenue - profits, dividends, and disinvestment proceeds - is set to rise to Rs. 5.83 trillion. The government expects stronger returns from public sector undertakings (PSUs) and the Reserve Bank of India’s dividend, a trend that has bolstered revenues in recent years. Disinvestment receipts, though, remain modest at Rs. 47,000 crore, indicating a reluctance to aggressively privatize state-owned enterprises.


On the spending side, the government’s total expenditure is budgeted at Rs. 50.65 trillion, with revenue expenditure (day-to-day expenses) at Rs. 39.44 trillion and capital expenditure (long-term investments) at Rs. 11.21 trillion. While capital expenditure has been a key driver of post-pandemic recovery, its share of GDP remains around 4.3 percent, higher than pre-pandemic levels but not significantly increasing. Ministries overseeing infrastructure - railways, roads, and defence - account for the bulk of capital outlay, while social spending remains relatively restrained.


The government’s establishment costs, including salaries and pensions, continue to climb, reaching Rs. 8.68 trillion. Spending on central schemes and subsidies, including food and fertilizer, remains stable at Rs. 4.26 trillion. Defence remains a major cost at Rs. 4.91 trillion, alongside substantial allocations for home affairs and rural development. Meanwhile, the railways, benefiting from increased ticketing revenue, require just Rs. 3,445 crore in support.


But the real challenge lies in managing the deficit. The revenue deficit - the shortfall between regular government income and routine expenses - is expected to fall to Rs. 5.24 trillion (1.5 percent of GDP), down from Rs. 6.1 trillion (1.9 percent). If grants in aid for capital assets are considered as investment rather than expenditure, the effective revenue deficit shrinks further to just Rs. 1 trillion (0.3 percent of GDP). The government’s fiscal deficit, which is the gap between total spending and revenues, stands at Rs. 15.68 trillion (4.4 percent of GDP), down from 4.8 percent this year.


While fiscal discipline appears to be improving, debt remains a concern. The Centre’s outstanding liabilities, which had fallen from 52 percent of GDP in 2013-14 to 49 percent in 2018-19, surged to 61 percent during the pandemic. The government now aims to reduce it to 50 percent of GDP by 2030-31. If nominal GDP grows at 10.5 percent annually, debt will fall within 48.4-51 percent of GDP. This is manageable, but still high by emerging-market standards.


However, fiscal consolidation must be balanced with sustaining economic momentum. Infrastructure spending has underpinned growth in recent years, but private sector participation remains crucial. A slowdown in private investment could strain government finances, forcing a choice between higher borrowing or reduced spending. Meanwhile, rising global interest rates and external shocks, such as oil price fluctuations or geopolitical tensions, could add further uncertainty.


India’s budget reflects a fine balancing act, boosting capital investment while keeping borrowing under control. But whether this fiscal discipline can be maintained depends on external shocks, economic growth, and political pressures. If revenue projections hold and reforms continue, India’s fiscal path may remain steady. But any economic slowdown or populist spending spree could throw these calculations off balance. As ever, the numbers tell a story, but it is the execution that will determine the ending.


(The author is a Chartered Accountant and works at Authomotive Division of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page