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.)

Cong left red-faced in Kolhapur as Madhurima pulls out

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Madhurima

Mumbai: The end of the process to withdraw nominations for Assembly polls on Monday left the Congress in despair in Kolhapur North seat after its candidate Madhurima Raje Chhatrapati withdrew, while the BJP managed to convince Gopal Shetty to opt out from Mumbai’s Borivali.


However, the headache for the Mahayuti continued as Sada Sarvankar, the Shiv Sena candidate from Mahim Assembly constituency in Mumbai, braving the pressure from the party leadership, refused to pull out.


He is pitted against Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) chief Raj Thackeray’s son Amit Thackeray, who has the backing of the BJP, a constituent of the ruling Mahayuti along with the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena and Ajit Pawar’s NCP.


In Kolhapur, a visually upset Satej Patil expressed dismay at Madhurima Raje Chhatrapati pulling out of the race, which left the Congress without representation in one of its western Maharashtra strongholds.

The setback comes after the Congress changed its earlier candidate on the seat, ex-corporator Rajesh Latkar, and nominated her after a party office was vandalised by those opposed to the former. Madhurima Raje Chhatrapati is the daughter-in-law of Kolhapur Lok Sabha MP and royal family member Shahu Chhatrapati.


Sources said she may have pulled out of the race due to the negative publicity over the snub to Latkar.

They added the Congress is likely to support Latkar, who is contesting as an independent.


The BJP got a breather after former MP Shetty, who had won the Mumbai North Lok Sabha seat with margins of more than four lakh in 2014 and 2019 before being denied a seat in the 2024 edition, withdrew his nomination as an independent candidate from Borivali and announced he will support the party’s official nominee Sanjay Upadhyay.


Shetty had rebelled claiming the seat, among the safest for the BJP, was being given to outside candidates for several years now, while local party workers were being ignored. He had also flagged the lack of communication from the leadership with grassroot functionaries.


Speaking to reporters on Monday, Shetty said, “I am withdrawing my nomination today. My objection was to the BJP’s style of functioning where decisions were taken without any consultation with party workers like me. The party was consistently nominating candidates for the assembly elections from outside, and it was presumed that it was being carried out with my consultation.”


“I was never consulted when candidates were selected for the Borivali assembly segment (in the past). I am a party worker and I always expressed my concerns towards a certain style of decision-making,” he said.


The BJP also managed to get rebel Nana Kate to withdraw from Chinchwad seat in Pune district, leaving the seat clear of intra-party hurdles for official candidate Shankar Jagtap, who is pitted against Rahul Kalate of NCP (SP).


There were good tidings in Pune for Congress as well after Mukhtar Shaikh withdrew from the Kasba Peth assembly constituency and announced his support to the party’s official candidate Ravindra Dhangekar.

Shiv Sena candidates Rajashri Aherrao from Deolali and Dhanraj Mahale from Dindori (District Nashik), who hit the headlines after their AB forms (essential poll documents from the party) were ferried on special aircraft, also withdrew their nominations. The two were fielded by the Shinde-led Sena despite the seats being officially allotted to ally Ajit Pawar-led NCP as part of the Mahayuti’s seat sharing agreement.


Major withdrawals

Madhurima Raje – Kolhapur North – Congress

Gopal Shetty – Borivali – Independent

Nana Kate – Pimpri-Chinchwad – Independent

Dhanraj Mahale – Dindori – Shiv Sena

Sweekruti Sharma – Andheri East – BJP


In the fray

Sada Sarvankar – Mahim – Shiv Sena

Nawab Malik – Mankhurd-Shivaji Nagar – NCP

Comments

bottom of page