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.)

BJP’s ‘chota popat’ jibe at Rahul after he mocks Modi’s slogan

BJP

Mumbai: After Rahul Gandhi’s swipe at Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Ek hain toh safe hain’ slogan, the BJP hit back at the Congress leader on Monday, calling him “chota popat” which it claimed was coined by Shiv Sena founder Bal Thackeray to mock him.


The party also slammed Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge over his “poisonous snakes should be killed” barb, saying it shows the party’s “Emergency mindset” which likens rivals to snakes and incites violence against them.


Earlier in the day, claiming a link between the BJP’s slogan and the Dharavi redevelopment project being given to the Adani Group, Gandhi pulled out two posters from a safe he had brought to his press conference in Mumbai -- one featuring a picture of industrialist Gautam Adani and PM Modi along with the caption “Ek hain toh Safe hain” and another showing a map of the project.


“It was a very low-level press conference. Bringing a safe and creating drama around it. Holding this kind of press conference by the so-called top leader of the so-called national party does not suit Rahul Gandhi and the Congress,” BJP MP and national spokesperson Sambit Patra said reacting to Gandhi’s jibe.


“Today I say this from this platform and in Rahul Gandhi’s language that ‘Chota popat ne kiya hei Congress ko chaupat’ (he has ruined the Congress). His name is Rahul Gandhi,” the BJP leader said.


“I saw an interview of Bal Thackeray where he referred to Rahul Gandhi as chota popat. From today onwards, Rahul Gandhi’s name is going to be ‘chota popat’. This name will now be there on every child’s lips in Maharashtra.”


In another swipe, the BJP said on X that the Congress keeps anti-national elements safe, and if “we are together, then the Congress is unsafe”.

“If the Congress is there, then terrorists, Pakistan, Rohingyas and Waqf are safe. If we are one, then the Congress is unsafe,” it said.


Chief Minister Eknath Shinde on Monday mocked Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for bringing a safe to a press conference and said the latter would have found something valuable if it was brought from Matoshree, the Bandra residence of Shiv Sena (UBT) supremo Uddhav Thackeray.


“Rahul Gandhi’s act is childish. He should have brought the safe from Matoshree. He might have found something valuable,” Shinde said in a swipe at the Congress leader as well as Thackeray.


Attacking Thackeray for claiming only 60,000 people would benefit from the Dharavi redevelopment project, Shinde said the massive makeover of one of the world’s densest urban sprawls will give new homes to two lakh people.

“Under Thackeray’s leadership (government), only eligible residents, numbering around 60,000, would have got homes,” he said while calling the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader’s statement as “double standards” and “akin to match fixing”.


“We do not seek any political advantage from this. The Dharavi redevelopment project is on a global scale,” Shinde asserted.

Comments

bottom of page