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 the SCO Islamabad Summit Improve Indo-Pak Relations?

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

SCO

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), established in 2001 began with China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, evolving into one of the world’s largest trans-regional economic and security organisations. India and Pakistan joined in 2017.

The upcoming meeting in Islamabad has the potential to thaw relations between India and Pakistan. As Pakistan assumes the rotating chairmanship of the SCO CHG, it is set to host a series of high-level meetings, culminating in the October summit. For both nations, the SCO provides a neutral venue to engage in dialogue amid heightened global scrutiny.

Jaishankar’s visit is the first by an Indian foreign minister to Pakistan since 2014. Over the last decade, relations have been hostile and marked by diplomatic disengagement, with the Kashmir issue remaining an intractable barrier to peace. Both countries have escalated their military postures and intensified their nationalistic rhetoric, especially following India’s revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status in 2019.

The upcoming visit to Islamabad may signal a shift in India’s approach toward Pakistan. It remains to be seen whether this trip is merely a diplomatic formality or if it has the potential to restart bilateral dialogue. The lack of confirmed meetings between Jaishankar and his Pakistani counterparts suggests that expectations should be tempered. Nonetheless, sending a senior official to Islamabad is noteworthy in the current geopolitical climate.

Pakistan is currently grappling with internal security threats, particularly in Balochistan and along the Afghanistan border. A recent surge in terrorist attacks has intensified Islamabad’s efforts to project stability before the summit. The deployment of the Pakistan Army, Rangers, and police under Article 245 of the Constitution to maintain order highlights the high stakes for the government. Successfully hosting the summit will enhance Pakistan’s diplomatic standing and help address some domestic challenges.

Engaging with the SCO remains essential for India to counterbalance China’s influence and carve out its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific. The SCO’s focus on Central Asia allows India to strengthen its economic and security ties with Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan in key energy markets and security frameworks. However, Jaishankar’s visit may be viewed with scepticism, particularly as Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares for key elections next year.

China’s growing presence in South Asia and its partnership with Pakistan complicate India’s strategy. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has deepened economic and military ties between Islamabad and Beijing. For Pakistan, China, an ally, provides diplomatic cover in international forums, financial support, and military assistance. India, however, is concerned about China’s expanding footprint in South Asia amid rising tensions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Himalayas.

Beijing will likely welcome the prospect of reduced hostilities between India and Pakistan, given its broader regional ambitions. A stable South Asia serves China’s economic interests, particularly in ensuring the security of its investments in Pakistan and its energy corridors passing through Central Asia. Additionally, as a founding member of the SCO, China has a vested interest in ensuring the success of the upcoming summit in Islamabad.

However, China’s ties to Pakistan make it a partial actor in the India-Pakistan dispute. Nonetheless, its economic clout and strategic interests make it an influential stakeholder in any potential thaw between India and Pakistan.

Following Western sanctions on Russia due to the Ukraine conflict, Moscow has sought to diversify its partnerships by increasingly turning to Asia. The SCO summit presents an opportunity for Russia to deepen its engagement and expand economic and security ties in the region. However, its role as a potential mediator in South Asian conflicts remains limited. Participation in the SCO allows India and Pakistan to project stability and leadership. Jaishankar’s visit to Islamabad, while symbolically significant, may ultimately fall short of sparking meaningful dialogue. However, it does create a window—however small—for diplomatic engagement, which could set the stage for future talks.

The SCO summit in Islamabad may serve as a litmus test for the future trajectory of India-Pakistan relations. Will pragmatism prevail over entrenched hostilities, or will this opportunity for diplomacy be another missed chance for reconciliation? For world capitals like Washington, Beijing, and Moscow, the outcome of this summit will be closely monitored for its regional implications and broader impact on global geopolitics.

In a world increasingly defined by power competition, climate change, and economic uncertainty, South Asia’s stability is critical. The upcoming SCO summit could reduce tensions between India and Pakistan. Whether this leads to concrete action remains to be seen, but the opportunity is there—and the world will be watching.

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

Comments

bottom of page