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.)

Crime Solving with Trained Canines

Updated: Nov 29, 2024

rained Canines

Trained dogs, known as K9 units, have become invaluable in a range of criminal investigations worldwide, acting as powerful allies to law enforcement agencies. Their keen senses and loyalty have earned them a central role in investigations across diverse areas. Dogs have been integral to policing since ancient times, initially serving as guardians, hunters, and occasional trackers. In Europe, early law enforcers used dogs to locate suspects and stolen goods—a practice that has evolved into today’s essential K9 units.


K9 units are becoming essential in high-profile cases. In the 2018 Kathua rape case, dogs traced the accused’s movements, leading to convictions. In a 2020 Uttar Pradesh gang rape, dogs tracked suspects, enabling swift arrests. Police forces across regions, like in Madhya Pradesh, use K9s effectively, with one unit tracking a suspect over 12 km. Recently, Gujarat registered its first prohibition case using an alcohol-detecting Labrador Tamri of 18 months old. Canine evidence, especially when paired with DNA and witness testimony, is valuable and accepted in Indian courts.


Several court cases have shaped the legal standing of canine evidence. In Shri Ashok Gavade v. State of Goa (1993), the court stressed the importance of proper documentation of the dog's tracking process and consistency in evidence. In Pandian Kanappan Nadar v. State of Maharashtra (1993), the court accepted tracking dog evidence after a dog identified the accused by sniffing a slipper and knife at the crime scene. The Supreme Court, in Gade Lakshmi Mangraju v. State of A.P. (2001), highlighted inherent weaknesses in sniffer dog evidence, while Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam (2008) deemed it hearsay and unsuitable as primary evidence.


Col. Chug, the Founder and Former Head of the Police K9 Cell at the Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India has worked extensively with the K9 Force, leveraging their skills in diverse cases. Dr. Keshav Kumar himself, in his service times, used K9 units to solve many cases. In 1991, a Dog Squad traced stone pelters during the Nadiad riots, leading to key arrests. In 1999, dogs helped seize five kg of smuggled RDX in Kutch, breaking up a cross-border gang. In 2013, a CBI sniffer dog detected poached tiger bones, a first in wildlife crime detection, and another tracked discarded bribe money in a corruption case. Dogs have also proven effective in locating hidden cash in corruption cases, showcasing their versatility in fighting crime.


They detect explosives to prevent terrorism, search for drugs in customs, and help track missing persons or fugitives in rugged terrain. They scan airports, public events, and government sites, effectively preventing attacks. In natural disasters, K9s excel in search and rescue, locating survivors faster than human responders. Regarding wildlife crime, countries like India use dogs to track poachers and detect illegal wildlife products. K9s also aid forensic investigations, finding weapons, remains, and crime scene evidence. Recently, they've even trained to detect hidden electronic devices like SD cards and USB drives, aiding in cybercrime cases.


In the UK, dogs help combat cable theft by detecting forensic markers like SmartWater and SelectaDNA on stolen cables. This approach aids authorities in recovering stolen property and protecting infrastructure, offering a model for other countries facing similar issues.


In India, one competition of the All India Police Duty Meet focussed on the skills and capabilities of trained dogs. They are often awarded medals and monetary rewards for exceptional service. Upon retirement, these dogs receive ceremonial honours, and if dismissed, they are granted due respect for their dedication.


While forensic science evolves, canine units remain vital in solving crimes, especially in India's unyielding pursuit of justice.


(Dr. Kumar is a former IPS officer and forensic consultant to Assam government. Das is a student of FSU, Guwahati. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page