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.)

Iceland’s Political Upheaval: A Snap Election Amid Policy Disagreements

Iceland’s Political Upheaval: A Snap Election Amid Policy Disagreements

Iceland, a small island nation in the North Atlantic Ocean near the Arctic Circle between Greenland and Norway, is one of the most geographically isolated countries in Europe. Its tiny population, with just over 370,000 inhabitants, is a stark contrast to India’s population of over 1.4 billion. Geographically, Iceland covers an area of approximately 1 lakh square kilometres, making it much smaller than India, which spans around 33 lakh square kilometers. Iceland is known for its stunning landscapes, active volcanoes, and pioneering use of geothermal energy.


This tiny island nation is now unexpectedly heading towards a snap election, a pivotal moment in the country’s political landscape. Internal disputes within the coalition government led to its collapse on 13th October. Prime Minister of Iceland Bjarni Benediktsson announced the dissolution of the government, setting the stage for elections taking place on 30th November. The election comes at a time when Iceland faces critical challenges—ranging from economic uncertainty to complex debates over immigration and energy policy.


The Collapse of the Coalition

The current political crisis in Iceland stems from deep divisions within the three-party coalition government, which has been in place since 2021. The coalition comprised the conservative Independence Party (led by Benediktsson), the centrist Progressive Party, and the left-leaning Left-Green Movement. Though these parties initially found common ground, the disagreements on key issues, particularly immigration and energy policy, became irreconcilable.


Prime Minister Benediktsson stated that it was impossible to move forward given the lack of unity on critical policies. He highlighted the growing rift on matters that impact Iceland’s future, such as how to manage the inflow of immigrants and the development of Iceland’s renewable energy sector. This division ultimately left the coalition unable to provide coherent leadership, prompting Benediktsson to request the dissolution of the parliament.


Key Contenders in the Election

Several political parties will compete in the upcoming election, representing different ideologies and policy proposals. The major contenders include:


Independence Party (Centre-right): Prime Minister Benediktsson’s party remains one of the leading forces. They focus on economic stability, conservative immigration policies, and energy resource development. Despite the collapse of the coalition, Benediktsson is expected to be the PM candidate once again.


Progressive Party (Centrist): Led by Sigurður Ingi Jóhannsson, this party traditionally champions rural and agricultural issues. The party is known for its pragmatic approach to governance and is expected to play a key role in the election.


Left-Green Movement (Centre-left): The Left-Green Movement advocates for environmental sustainability and a more progressive stance on immigration. Its departure from the coalition was driven by disagreements over energy policy and the handling of asylum seekers.


Pirate Party (Syncretic): Known for its focus on digital rights and transparency, the Pirate Party could attract voters disillusioned with the traditional parties.


Social Democratic Alliance (Centre-left): Another significant player, this party pushes for stronger social welfare policies and is expected to appeal to voters seeking more inclusive economic reforms.


Key Issues at Stake

The upcoming election will centre on several crucial issues that have divided Iceland’s political landscape:


Immigration Policy: One of the most contentious points of debate is how Iceland should handle immigration and asylum seekers. The Independence Party advocates for stricter controls, while the Left-Green Movement and other progressive parties call for more open and humanitarian policies. This divide reflects broader European discussions on immigration.


Energy Policy: Iceland, a leader in renewable energy due to its geothermal and hydroelectric resources, is also facing internal debates on how to develop these resources further. The Independence Party and its allies support expanding energy projects, while the Left-Green Movement is more cautious, focusing on sustainability and environmental protection.


Economic Recovery and Inflation: Like many other nations, Iceland is grappling with inflation, partly driven by recent volcanic eruptions and disruptions to public life in the country’s southwest. Voters will be looking for parties that can address these economic challenges effectively.


Iceland’s Role in Europe

Although Iceland is not a member of the European Union, it is part of the European Economic Area (EEA), maintaining close ties with the EU, particularly in trade and regulatory matters. The outcome of this election could influence Iceland’s approach to its relationships within Europe, particularly concerning energy markets and immigration policy.


The outcome of Iceland’s snap election on 30 November remains uncertain, as major parties compete for dominance after the coalition government’s collapse. The election’s results will not only shape Iceland’s future but may also influence its position within the broader European context, particularly in areas like immigration and energy policy.


(The author is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page