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.)

Escalating Conflict in Balochistan Threatens Global Stability

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Escalating Conflict in Balochistan Threatens Global Stability

In the province of Balochistan on the southwestern edge of Pakistan, violence has become disturbingly routine. It’s a region rich in natural resources and geopolitical significance, yet its story is largely untold outside the corridors of power in Islamabad, Washington, and Beijing. And that’s a problem—because what’s happening in Balochistan could have repercussions far beyond Pakistan’s borders.

Imagine, if you will, a bus journey where the passengers—ordinary men, women, and children—are suddenly thrust into a nightmare as armed men storm the vehicle. These men, hardened by years of conflict, pull off the male passengers, leaving behind women and children to run for their lives. Moments later, the night air is filled with the staccato of gunfire and the gut-wrenching cries of men being executed on the spot.

This isn’t the plot of a Hollywood thriller, but the grim reality that unfolded in Balochistan left nearly two dozen people dead. It is part of a broader wave of violence that claimed at least 74 lives within a 24-hour span.

So, why should the U.S. and the international community care about Balochistan? The answer lies in the interconnected nature of global politics, where even remote conflicts can have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences.

Balochistan is the linchpin in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multi-billion-dollar infrastructure project critical to China’s global ambitions, including its Belt and Road initiative. The province’s Gwadar Port offers China access to the Arabian Sea and the Middle East.

Balochistan remains one of the most underdeveloped and unstable regions in Pakistan, with the ethnic Baloch locals feeling marginalised by the central government. Their grievances the exploitation of their land’s resources without any tangible benefits to the local population—have fuelled a decades-long insurgency by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and the Balochistan Liberation Front (BLF), who have demanded greater autonomy or outright independence.

This insurgency might have stayed local, but outside involvement changed the game. Islamabad has accused India of backing Baloch separatists, especially after the capture of Kulbhushan Yadav, who Pakistan claims was running a spy network in Balochistan. Yadav’s arrest and confessions have intensified suspicions that India is fanning the rebellion in Pakistan’s most restive province.

Additionally, Islamist militant groups, including Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), have also entrenched themselves in the province, turning it into a battleground for their sectarian and anti-state agendas. These groups have targeted Shia Muslims, security forces, and even Chinese nationals working on CPEC projects, creating a volatile mix that threatens to destabilise the entire region.

For Pakistan, the situation is a security nightmare. Despite launching multiple military operations and killing dozens of militants, the state has struggled to contain the violence. The porous border with Afghanistan provides militants with a safe haven, complicating Islamabad’s efforts to restore order.

The United States, too, has a stake in what happens next in Balochistan. As tensions rise between Washington and Beijing, the stability of regions like Balochistan becomes increasingly important. If CPEC falters due to instability, it could slow China’s economic rise, impacting global markets in ways that would be felt in New York as much as in Islamabad or Beijing. Furthermore, the spread of extremist ideologies in Balochistan could eventually find its way back to the West, as has happened with other conflict zones.

If insurgents are for better governance, fair distribution of resources, and respect for their cultural identity, then they are reasonable, and the authorities in Islamabad need to take care of it. On the other hand, if the insurgents only intend to blackmail, Islamabad needs to come hard on them. Beijing, the US, and the entire world should help Pakistan to quell militancy in Balochistan.

Washington must recognise the province’s strategic importance and support efforts to address the root causes of the conflict—poverty, underdevelopment, and political disenfranchisement. This means encouraging Islamabad to pursue a more inclusive approach, one that prioritises dialogue over brute force. Second, the international community must press all the forces to end their proxy battles in Balochistan. Islamabad needs support on a large scale to quell militancy in Balochistan.

Finally, the U.S. should work with Pakistan to counter the growing influence of Islamist militant groups in the province. This requires more than just military cooperation; it involves supporting educational and economic initiatives that can offer young Baloch a viable alternative to joining extremist organisations.

The situation in Balochistan is complex, and there are no easy solutions. But as the violence continues to spiral out of control, the cost of doing nothing becomes increasingly untenable. For the sake of regional and global security, it’s time the world starts helping Pakistan in its fight against militancy and terrorism.

Because in a world as interconnected as ours, the conflicts that seem far away are often closer than we think!


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

Comments


bottom of page