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.)

Forensic experts baffled over the victim's death causes

By Quaid Najmi

 


ree

Mumbai: At least three well-known forensic specialists with decades of autopsies under their belts have raised questions over the death of a 28-year-old celeb manager after her family expressed fresh doubts on the probe and pointed fingers at a politician and a couple of Bollywood actors.

 

Referring to certain images of the victim – who died after falling from the 14th floor of a residential building in Malad on June 8-9, 2020, an ex-government medico Dr. V. Take said if the photos of the victim were authentic, “then, there is something very fishy”.

 

“It is very much evident that there is something amiss about the whole case. Apparently, no proper autopsy was conducted, or there could be an attempt to hush up things,” said Dr. Take, with around 300 post-mortems to his credit.

 

He said it is hard to swallow – from the purported photos in public domain – that the female victim did not suffer any head injuries despite falling from a height of at least 120-feet.

 

“It is unbelievable how the victim’s face is bereft of any facial injury, or tell-tale signs after such a steep fall, her face on the funeral pyre had no wrappings around her skull indicating that it was probably not examined internally, which is contrary to SOPs of an autopsy,” Dr. Take added.

 

Dr. Vishal Surwade, a Professor of Forensic Sciences with a prominent private medical college in Indore, with a 1000-plus autopsies in his CV, feels that after a fall from even a couple of floors, there are definitely head injuries, both internal-external which must be examined by opening the skull, but in this victim, there are more questions than answers.

 

As per reports after her death, the girl’s post-mortem was conducted around two days after her plunge to death, when rigor mortis may have suppressed some crucial biological/chemical markers, Dr. Surwade pointed out.

 

On the reports that her body was found some 25 feet away from the building, Dr. Take wonders how a body falling vertically could virtually ‘fly’ and landed so far away, whether there was a huge sound then, any screams from the victim, or verifying her friends’ claim that when they raced down, she was still ‘alive’ and they rushed her to hospital where she succumbed.

 

While highlighting the doubts, all the experts are flummoxed as to why the victim’s family – which had publicly accepted the findings earlier – wants to reopen the case after so many years.

 

They speculated, whether there were pressures then, or some compulsions now, if any fresh evidence has come to their hands, there are sinister attempts to either implicate/extricate someone, given the multiple names that have cropped in the high-profile case that came to be linked with death of a prominent actor Sushant Singh Rajput that happened five days later.

 

Commenting as many aspects of the case have just come into the open now, the specialist medico trio averred that “there’s something more than visible” but remained optimistic that the mystery may be unravelled and the gnawing doubts erased soon to ensure justice for the victim.

 

BOX-ITEM:


Peek into the Autopsy Theatre

Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s Deputy Municipal Commissioner Dr. Kailas Gaikwad – with 3000 post-mortems to his credit - explained how, during autopsy, the team cuts the skin, breaks or saws the skull with a hacksaw blade, removes and examines the brain, later places it back, covers and sutures the skin/scalp.

 

“The autopsy is usually carried out before rigor mortis sets in within hours of death. The blood keeps oozing so the head is cleaned, wrapped in polythene and cloth,” Dr. Gaikwad told The Perfect Voice.

 

However, in most cases of unnatural or suspected foul play, the autopsies are conducted late and so the blood oozing may be minimal or nil, he said.

 

Later, the body is washed, dried and handed over, and barring cases of dome/scalp injuries, the head is usually kept open, as now is shown in the celeb manager victim’s case.

 

Comments


bottom of page