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.)

Deregulation, or the Hard Road to 2047

Updated: Feb 20

Growth at 8 percent for a decade is an ambitious target, and India will have to rethink regulation, industry and policy to get there.

Deregulation

The eve of the Union Budget presentation is typically overshadowed by the spectacle of fiscal numbers. That critical document - the Economic Survey - offers a more nuanced portrait of India’s economic trajectory. The ES typically provides an in-depth assessment of the country’s economic performance, outlines key structural challenges and proposes policy imperatives for the future.


This year’s Survey situates itself within the grand ambitions of the Vikisit Bharat Mission, which envisions India as a developed nation by 2047. But the gap between aspiration and reality is stark. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defines a developed economy as one with a per capita income of $12,500. India currently lags at a mere $2,939. To bridge this divide, the Survey argues, India must sustain an annual growth rate of 8 percent for the next decade - an acceleration of at least 1.5 to 2 percentage points from its present trajectory. A formidable challenge, but not an impossible one.


Achieving this will require a fundamental transformation of India’s economic structure. The ES identifies key drivers for this transition: full literacy, high-quality education, a thriving industrial base and an aggressive embrace of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, robotics, and biotechnology. Employment generation is critical, with the creation of at least 7.85 million non-farm jobs annually to absorb its growing workforce. The services sector has performed well, but manufacturing remains an Achilles’ heel. Investments currently stand at 31 percent of GDP, well below the 35 percent threshold necessary to sustain higher growth. Moreover, a robust social infrastructure, particularly in healthcare, is crucial to sustaining human capital and productivity.


The Survey issues a stark warning about China’s growing dominance. China currently commands a staggering 28.8 percent of global manufacturing output, a figure projected to rise to 45 percent by 2030. In contrast, India’s share is a paltry 2.8 percent. The implications are profound: India struggles to produce critical goods at scale and remains heavily dependent on Chinese supply chains, particularly in renewable energy and electric vehicle components. This vulnerability exposes the economy to price fluctuations, supply disruptions and currency risks.


The solution lies in the ‘Make in India’ initiative. Strengthening domestic manufacturing and boosting exports are non-negotiable if India is to emerge as a serious contender on the world stage. However, industrial growth cannot flourish in a regulatory quagmire. The Survey underscores the need for bold deregulation to enhance ease of doing business. Excessive red tape stifles entrepreneurship, deters investment and inflates operational costs. The government has made progress, scrapping over 2,000 obsolete laws over the past decade, implementing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), and introducing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. More recently, the Jan Vishwas Act of 2023 decriminalized 183 provisions across 182 central laws, easing the compliance burden on businesses.


The upcoming Jan Vishwas Bill 2.0 is set to decriminalize 100 more provisions across various laws. Additionally, a high-level committee will review regulatory bottlenecks in the non-financial sector, with an Investment Friendliness Index benchmarking state industry practice. If executed effectively, these measures could catalyse industrial expansion and foreign investment.


However, regulatory reform is not the sole preserve of the central government. State governments must align with the broader deregulation agenda, prioritizing economic growth over political posturing. The Survey emphasizes the butterfly effect of deregulation where incremental improvements in regulatory efficiency trigger a cascade of economic benefits, from increased entrepreneurship to heightened global competitiveness. States that recognize this dynamic will reap the rewards of higher investment and job creation.


That said, legal reform alone is insufficient. India must undergo a cultural shift in its perception of business. Decades of socialist rhetoric have ingrained deep-seated scepticism towards large enterprises, often painting them as instruments of exploitation. Business leaders are frequently vilified for political convenience, a mindset that stifles ambition and discourages risk-taking. If India is to become a global economic powerhouse, it must abandon these outdated prejudices and embrace a more business-friendly ethos.


The road to 2047 is long, and the 8 percent growth imperative is daunting. Success hinges on policy consistency, regulatory agility and an unwavering commitment to economic openness. India’s tryst with destiny is not guaranteed but with the right reforms, it is well within reach.

(The author is a Chartered Accountant and works at Authomotive Division of Mahindra and Mahindra Limited. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page