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.)

India’s Reckoning with Crimes Against Women

Updated: Feb 6

National Crime Records Bureau

Crimes against women in India remain a grim reality, their nature and frequency painting a stark picture of systemic failure. Official figures from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) catalogue a litany of horrors: rape and murder, gang rape, domestic violence, dowry deaths, feticide, abetment to suicide, acid attacks, honour killings, sexual harassment and an ever-expanding digital frontier of cybercrimes in form of marital frauds, financial scams, fake digital arrests and the insidious spread of online sexual harassment. The scale is vast and the urgency to act unmistakable.


In significant legislative overhauls, the Indian government has sought to confront these crises head-on. The introduction of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam in July last year marks a departure from archaic colonial-era criminal laws, promising a more victim-centric approach to justice. These laws embrace technological innovation with electronic evidence now admissible in court and e-FIRs encouraged while summonses can be issued digitally and trials can proceed even in the accused’s absence - a crucial provision given how many perpetrators flee abroad to evade justice.


The government’s push for immediacy extends beyond legislation. The 112 India emergency app, operational nationwide, ensures that police response times in urban areas have dropped to under ten minutes. The cyber helpline 1930, along with the www.cybercrime.gov.in portal, allows victims to lodge anonymous complaints, mitigating the fear of social stigma. For survivors of sexual violence, justice is meant to be swift: investigations into rape cases must now conclude within two months, fast-track courts have been established, in-camera trials are mandated, and the victim’s identity cannot be disclosed in the media. Legal aid and financial compensation have also been introduced to help survivors rebuild their lives.


The intentions are noble. Yet, the battle is far from won. Laws alone cannot bridge the chasm of mistrust between victims and the justice system. Many women still hesitate to report crimes, fearing retribution, social ostracization or worse, apathy from law enforcement. If these new legal frameworks are to succeed, they must be accompanied by systemic and cultural change.


A first step is ensuring that victims feel heard from the very moment they seek help. All complaints related to sexual harassment and rape must be recorded via video, in the complainant’s own words, eliminating the possibility of manipulation by law enforcement or legal loopholes exploited by the accused. Transparency in the process is paramount.


Second, courts need to function at an accelerated pace. Zero-pendency must be the goal, and achieving it requires dedicated judicial bodies operating in two shifts. Delays in trials only embolden perpetrators and wear down victims’ resolve. Maharashtra’s former Director General of Police implemented a 24-hour charge sheet filing system for sexual harassment cases - a practice that should be adopted nationwide. Early legal intervention can ensure both the victim’s safety and a fair trial, free from external pressure or influence.


Third, bail policies must be revisited. Time and again, individuals accused of sexual crimes reoffend while out on bail. In such cases, stringent preventive measures should be imposed, including surety bonds from the victim’s relatives and women-led surety groups to ensure accountability.


Additionally, legal representation must be bolstered. Prosecutors should include a panel of lawyers with expertise in cybercrime, acknowledging the increasingly digital nature of gender-based violence. Victims navigating these cases require not only legal but also psychological support. Recognized counsellors must be available at every administrative subdivision to guide survivors through the arduous process of seeking justice.


Yet, justice cannot be purely reactionary. Prevention demands an overhaul of societal attitudes. Schools and colleges must implement continuous education programs on gender sensitization, sexual harassment laws, and digital safety. Self-defence training should be mandatory in educational institutions, ensuring that young women are equipped to protect themselves in an increasingly hostile world. Awareness campaigns for the 112 emergency app need to be relentless—broadcast daily on radio, television, and social media until its use becomes second nature. Today, even in metropolitan cities like Chennai, few are aware of this life-saving resource.


Another crucial, yet often overlooked, aspect of women’s safety is environmental design. Universities, workplaces, and public spaces must enforce strict access controls to prevent predators from targeting unsuspecting women. Surveillance systems, well-lit pathways, and rapid-response security personnel should be the norm, not the exception.


There is reason for cautious optimism. India has taken a significant step toward creating a legal system that prioritizes victims over bureaucracy, action over inertia. But the real test lies in implementation. Will police officers execute these laws with diligence and sensitivity? Will the judiciary commit to speed without sacrificing fairness? Will society at large abandon its culture of victim-blaming and rally behind survivors instead of shaming them into silence?


If these new laws are to mark a true turning point, they must be accompanied by a societal shift that moves beyond reactive measures. Anything less would be yet another betrayal of the countless women whose voices have long gone unheard.

(The writer is DGP (retd.) Maharashtra and recipient of the President’s Medal for Distinguished Service. Views are personal)

Comments

bottom of page