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.)

Can Pakistan Protect Its People and Foreign Workers?

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

The Duki massacre shocked the country with its brutality. The miners from the Pakhtun ethnic community and Afghan nationals were reportedly killed when terrorists launched rockets and grenades into the mine. This kind of ethnic dimension further complicates the security situation in Balochistan, a province already grappling with separatist insurgency and religious militancy. While no group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet, the tragedy highlights the vulnerability of labourers working in one of Pakistan’s most dangerous regions.


Earlier in the week, the killing of Chinese nationals who were working on infrastructure projects under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) frustrated Beijing, which is growing increasingly concerned over the safety of its citizens. Initial investigations suggest that this attack might have involved the assistance of a foreign intelligence agency, potentially to destabilise Pakistan’s relationship with China. For Pakistan, China is not just a key economic partner but also a critical player in its strategic and diplomatic landscape. These attacks have raised questions about whether the country can protect its citizens and foreign nationals.


Balochistan has long been a battleground for Baloch separatists and religious extremists. The province’s porous borders with Afghanistan and Iran make it difficult for security forces to control the movement of militants. Separatist insurgents in the region have historically targeted migrant labourers from Punjab, but the attack on the miners in Duki indicates that the province’s security situation is deteriorating.


The timing of these attacks is particularly concerning. Pakistan is on the verge of hosting the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, a major diplomatic event that will bring together regional dignitaries in Islamabad. The attacks seem deliberately timed to project an image of instability and insecurity, potentially discouraging foreign dignitaries and investors from attending the summit or making investments in Pakistan. Given that Pakistan is facing a significant economic crisis with soaring inflation and a growing balance-of-payments issue, attracting foreign investment is critical to stabilising the economy.


Hostile foreign actors may be involved in these attacks. Pakistan has often accused India of supporting Baloch separatists to destabilise the country, particularly in Balochistan. Though unproven, covert operations between the two nations have a long history, and the timing of the Duki massacre and the attack on Chinese engineers hints at external involvement. Whether these attacks are coordinated by foreign forces or driven by local militancy, the impact on Pakistan’s international standing is significant.


While it is important to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to justice, this alone will not be enough to address the broader security crisis facing the country. Pakistan needs a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy that addresses the root causes of violence and dismantles the networks that enable terrorists to operate. The state’s Azm-i-Istehkam campaign aims to restore stability by targeting terrorists, though its steps remain unclear. The government must provide more transparency and regular updates on progress being made if it hopes to build public confidence in its counterterrorism efforts.


In recent years, the country has seen a resurgence of terrorism, with both religious extremists and separatist insurgents carrying out attacks. While the state has made significant strides in reducing terrorism since the height of the insurgency in the mid-2010s, the recent wave of attacks suggests that the problem is far from solved. There are deep-rooted issues that need to be addressed, including poverty, ethnic tensions, and political disenfranchisement, all of which contribute to the conditions that allow terrorism to thrive.


The country’s strategic relationship with China is crucial for its economic future, but that relationship is under threat from both internal and external forces. For Beijing, the safety of its nationals is a top priority, and if Pakistan cannot guarantee that safety, it risks losing not only Chinese investment but also the broader strategic partnership that has been the cornerstone of its foreign policy.


At the same time, Pakistan is grappling with record-level inflation and faces a balance-of-payments crisis, and attracting foreign investment is crucial for stabilising the economy. The perception that Pakistan is a dangerous place for foreign nationals will only make it harder to secure the kind of investments the country needs to pull itself out of this economic quagmire.


The country stands at a critical juncture. If it can restore order and security, it has the potential to attract foreign investment and improve its standing on the global stage. However, if the state fails to act decisively, the consequences will be dire—not only for the victims of terrorism but also for the country’s economic future and international reputation.


Without urgent action, Pakistan risks slipping further into chaos, and the recent attacks could become the beginning of a new and even more dangerous phase of terrorism in the country. The government must act now to protect its citizens, secure its foreign partnerships, and restore confidence in its ability to maintain law and order.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page