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.)

BMC auctioning three land parcels to raise funds, says Aaditya

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Aaditya

Mumbai: Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray on Thursday alleged Mumbai’s civic body had decided to auction three land parcels to raise funds and make up for the “loot” of the metropolis by the Eknath Shinde government.


The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, which is being run by an administrator now, has decided to auction the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Mandi (Market), the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport (BEST) Malabar Hill Receiving Station and the Worli Asphalt Plant, Thackeray pointed out.


“The sale of Mumbai is being done by the Eknath Shinde regime to benefit its favourite builders and contractors,” he alleged.


A criminal investigation will be conducted into the matter after the Maha Vikas Aghadi government comes to power, Thackeray added.


“So on one end, they looted the BMC and Mumbai and gave the money to their favourite contractors. Now, by auctioning these iconic and important land parcels, the BMC will be left without both funds and plots,” the Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and former state minister claimed.


When Shiv Sena started controlling the BMC in 1997, its finances were in deficit but by 2022 his party turned around the fiscal health of the civic body, Thackeray said.


Alleging that the Shinde government wants to drive Kolis and fisherfolk out of Mumbai, he said, “We will oppose this. It has to remain and be made into a fish market, and (should be) in the ownership of the BMC.”

ree

Aaditya puppet for urban naxals: Shelar

Bharatiya Janata Party ( BJP ) Mumbai chief Ashish Shelar has called Uddhav Thackeray’s son and Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray as a puppet for urban naxals after former’s comments on the Dharavi Redevelopment project and has also challenged him for a debate.

Ashish Shelar said that the project is a necessity and a priority project, adding that Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena and Congressleader Varsha Gaikwad are peddling lies.

Aaditya Thackeray seems to have become the spokesperson of urban Naxals. Without studying the subject (Dharavi) in detail, Aaditya Thackeray is speaking like an ignorant. I have seen that these people have been trying to set a narrative regarding Dharavi and the re-development work,” Ashish Shelar said.

He challenged Aaditya Thackeray and Varsha Gaikwad in a debate on the Dharavi Redevelopment Project.

“Uddhav ji and the people of his party – Aaditya Thackeray and Varsha Gaikwad have started this false narrative regarding Dharavi. I openly challenge Aaditya for a debate. I want to ask him that 70 per cent of the homes in the Dharavi Redevelopment Project will go to Marathi people, Muslims and Dalits. It is their rightful home, so why are they putting roadblocks by creating a false narrative?”

Comments

bottom of page