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.)

England’s Swashbuckling Swagger Sinks into a Snooze-Fest

ree

How the mighty have fallen—or rather, how the mighty have been forced to sit down, sip some chamomile tea, and play like it’s 1995. England’s Bazball revolution, that testosterone-fueled, chest-thumping, boundary-bashing philosophy, got a proper spanking at Lord’s this week in the India vs. England Test. On a slow, dry pitch that looked like it was plotting to turn into the Sahara by day five, England’s batters were reduced to prodding and poking like nervous accountants at a tax audit. Three runs an over? Is this cricket or a funeral procession?


Let’s set the scene. Lord’s, the so-called Home of Cricket, was dressed up in its Sunday best, ready to host another chapter of Bazball’s Greatest Hits. Except, someone forgot to tell the pitch it was supposed to be a flat belter for England’s cavaliers to plunder. Instead, it turned up like a grumpy uncle at a family reunion—dry, uncooperative, and ready to make everyone miserable. India’s spinners, led by the wily Washington Sundar, who probably spent the night whispering dark spells into the turf, licked their lips and got to work. The result? England’s batters, usually swinging like pirates in a rum-soaked tavern brawl, were tamed into submission, crawling along at a run rate that made Geoffrey Boycott look like Glenn Maxwell.


The Bazball faithful in the stands must have been gutted. They came expecting pyrotechnics—Joe Root reverse-scooping Jasprit Bumrah for six, Ben Stokes charging down the track to loft Ravindra Jadeja into the Mound Stand. Instead, they got Zak Crawley poking at deliveries like he was defusing a bomb, and Ben Duckett playing with the intensity of a man choosing wallpaper samples. Three runs an over? I’ve seen faster scoring in a chess match. The Long Room probably started serving decaf just to match the vibe.


Let’s talk about the culprits. The pitch, for one, deserves a stern talking-to. It was so slow and dry it could’ve doubled as a set for a Mad Max reboot. Every ball seemed to take an eternity to reach the batter, giving India’s spinners enough time to solve a Rubik’s Cube between deliveries. Jadeja, with that devilish grin, was tossing up deliveries that spun like a politician dodging a question. Poor Ollie Pope looked like he was trying to read Sanskrit while facing him, his bat waving around like a white flag.


Then there’s England’s own Bazball bravado, which, let’s be honest, has always been one bad day away from looking like a midlife crisis. The philosophy—attack everything, fear nothing—works when the pitch is flatter than a pancake and the bowlers are spraying it like a toddler with a garden hose. But on a Lord’s track that’s turning like a corkscrew? Good luck, lads. Stokes, the ginger general, tried to rally the troops with his usual “let’s smack it and see what happens” vibe, but even he ended up playing a forward defensive that would’ve made Alastair Cook shed a tear of pride. The irony? England’s most aggressive captain since Douglas Jardine was forced to channel his inner tortoise.


India, meanwhile, were loving every minute of it. Shubman Gill, sipping chai in the slips, was probably composing a victory poem in his head. Bumrah, with that slingshot action, was unplayable, sending down yorkers that had England’s batters questioning their life choices. And don’t get me started on Jadeja, who was spinning the ball so much it looked like it had its own GPS. India didn’t just outbowl England; they outsmarted them, outfoxed them, and probably out-tangoed them in the team hotel’s dance-off the night before.


So, where does Bazball go from here? Do they double down, come out swinging, and risk looking like lunatics on a pitch that’s crumbling faster than a digestive biscuit? Or do they admit that sometimes, just sometimes, a bit of old-school Test cricket nous might be the way to go? Knowing Stokes, he’ll probably try to reverse-sweep a bouncer on day four just to prove a point. But for now, Bazball’s been muted, its volume turned down from 11 to a whimpering 2. Lord’s, that grand old stage, has spoken: even the brashest of revolutions can’t always bully a pitch into submission.


And as for India? They’re probably back at the hotel, toasting their dominance with mango lassi and plotting how to make England’s batters cry again. Bazball, you’ve been served. Time to dust off the old textbook and remember how to grind. Or, you know, just pray for rain.


(The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

Comments


bottom of page