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.)

Bridging the Disconnect

India’s SME digital revolution will succeed not through code or speed, but through context, language and patience.

ree

When I worked as an L&D head, training call-centre teams for UK and US clients, I often found myself explaining why empathy is not a script. You could teach someone to say, “I understand how frustrating that must be, ma’am,” but that wasn’t the same as feeling what it meant for a couple in Manchester to have their washing machine break down on a winter evening. Imagine being 24, sitting in a brightly lit office in Hyderabad, trying to picture the irritation, the cold, the small domestic disruption and then translating that understanding into a conversation that feels real. That was contextualisation. It was not about accent; it was about perspective. It took time. And sometimes, despite our best efforts, we never quite got there.


Context Gap

Years later, I see the same challenge playing out in a very different arena: the technology transformation of India’s small and medium-sized enterprises. Technology solutioning for SMEs is often imagined as a problem of tools, costs, and skills. But at its heart, it is a problem of context. An ERP consultant walking into a fabrication unit in Coimbatore or a packaging plant in Rajkot is often armed with templates, dashboards and jargon and an expectation of compliance. But on the other side of the table sits a business owner who measures his world not in processes but in people. The language of solutioning often doesn’t match the language of business. The vendor speaks in terms of modules and workflows while the entrepreneur speaks in terms of deliveries, labour and margins. When the two don’t meet, the result is disengagement.


We often overlook that the complexity of India extends beyond its economic aspects; it encompasses linguistic, cultural, and relational dimensions. Businesses here are deeply embedded in local contexts. The same word ‘inventory’ could mean five different things across sectors and states. Yet our solutioning assumes uniformity. A significant portion of India’s SME workforce operates in vernacular languages. The owner might think in Gujarati, the accountant in Hindi, the technician in Tamil, and the consultant in English. Somewhere in translation, the essence of what technology is meant to solve gets lost. When we train users in English manuals or conduct ERP demos in technical vocabulary, we unknowingly exclude the very people who will live with the system daily. A bilingual interface is not enough. What is needed is bilingual thinking - a human bridge between business knowledge and digital design.


A good implementation partner does more than speak the client’s language; they grasp its reality. They know that an update may come through a driver’s phone call, not a dashboard; that production depends as much on the weather as on workflow; that a ‘report’ might simply mean the owner’s nightly request for what’s pending. When software ignores such realities, adoption collapses. The SME retreats to spreadsheets while the vendor boasts a ‘successful’ go-live.


Wrong Fit

Patience, once a virtue in technology, has become a casualty of speed. Vendors chase rapid rollouts; clients expect instant transformation. But understanding an SME cannot be rushed. This ‘patience deficit’ is the silent killer of digital transformation. We confuse speed with success. The assumption is that faster roll-outs mean greater efficiency. However, when you skip understanding, you build tools that don’t communicate with the business. And eventually, the business stops talking to the tool. The truth is, SMEs don’t fail to adopt technology because they fear it; they fail because the technology doesn’t fit their needs.


I often think of my younger brother’s Grade 3 math exam. The question was simple: How many coins will you need to make 50 paise? He wrote: one 25p, one 20p, one 3p, and one 2p coin. Technically, he was right. Mathematically, his answer added up. But the teacher marked it wrong.


The ‘approved’ combinations in the textbook were 25p + 20p + 5p, because the 2p and 3p coins were going out of circulation. The irony was that they hadn’t yet disappeared. At home, we still had a few, and the local grocer accepted them without fuss. My brother had answered from his reality, not the textbook’s. But the system judged him by the context it recognised, not by the one he lived in.


That small moment has stayed with me. It showed how early we begin to disconnect knowledge from context. In classrooms, we learn to answer what is expected, not what is observed. In workplaces, we replicate that pattern: we design, code, consult, and deliver within frameworks that make sense to us, not necessarily to those who live with the outcome. Contextualisation is not a deviation from correctness; it defines what correctness truly means.


The future of SME technology in India will not be written in code alone; it will be written in context. As we race towards digitalisation, we must invest in the invisible capacities that make it sustainable: language, empathy, and patience. Technology firms must recruit and train implementation teams that can not only implement but also translate. Governments and industry bodies must support local-language digital education and create technology ecosystems that are vernacular-friendly. We need a new role in the technology chain — the contextual interpreter who can stand between business and software, translating not just words but worlds.


When the washing machine stops, what matters is not how quickly you can restart it, but how well you understand why it stopped in the first place. The same is true of technology, teaching, and transformation.


If a Grade 3 child can be marked wrong for being right in his world, it’s no surprise that an SME entrepreneur feels unheard in his. India doesn’t lack innovation or intelligence. What we often lack is translation between what is taught and what is lived, what is coded and what is experienced. Until we learn to bridge that gap, we’ll keep designing elegant systems that don’t quite fit the world they’re meant to serve.


(The writer is a learning and development professional. Views personal.)

1 Comment


Once in a while a blog post comes where its contents actually ring a bell. Tech doesn't fail because of bugs but by blindness to rhythms of people, to the tiny cultural cues that shape decision making. Your parallel between the coin count, call centre empathy and SME digital transformation is spot on. Context is never an add on to competence. It is competence and competence only all the way. The soul is in that one line, India's digital future will not just be written in code but by listening without rushing, translate without diluting and design without erasing traditional wisdom. The call for contextual interpreters is truly loud and needed. Thank you for bringing this out because af…

Like
bottom of page