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 seeks to strengthen economic, cultural relations at SCO

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

SCO

Islamabad: India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar is scheduled to visit Pakistan on Tuesday to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of Government (HoG) meeting. This visit, the first by an Indian foreign minister to Pakistan since the late Sushma Swaraj's visit in 2015, comes at a time of frosty bilateral relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. While no formal bilateral meetings between India and Pakistan are planned during this visit, Jaishankar’s presence at the summit highlights the importance of multilateral diplomacy, regional security, and India’s strategic interests within the SCO framework.


This visit also plays a key role in India’s broader foreign policy, as the country navigates its complex relationships within Asia, particularly with China and Pakistan. At the same time, India continues to balance its role in both Eastern and Western-led global initiatives. Jaishankar's presence in Islamabad extends beyond mere optics; it reflects India’s ambitions to strengthen its influence in Central Asia, improve regional security, and leverage multilateral platforms like the SCO to further its national interests.


This diplomatic visit is significant due to the longstanding tensions between India and Pakistan, which have been strained by cross-border terrorism, territorial disputes, and a lack of direct engagement in recent years. India has maintained that it will not engage in bilateral talks with Pakistan until cross-border terrorism is addressed. The absence of formal talks during this visit reaffirms India's stance while demonstrating its commitment to multilateral diplomacy.


India views the SCO as an important platform for engagement with Central Asian countries, strengthening its counterterrorism efforts, and securing energy supplies. Founded in 2001 by China, Russia, and four Central Asian nations, the SCO has evolved from a regional security forum into a broader organization focusing on issues like counterterrorism, trade, and economic cooperation. India and Pakistan became full members in 2017, adding a new layer of complexity to the organization’s internal dynamics.


For India, Central Asia holds strategic importance due to its rich natural resources, including oil, gas, and uranium. These resources are vital for India's energy security, as the country imports over 85 per cent of its energy needs. Central Asia's reserves offer an opportunity for India to diversify its energy supply, reducing its dependence on the volatile Middle East. Kazakhstan, the world’s largest producer of uranium, is particularly critical to India’s civilian nuclear program, while Turkmenistan’s vast natural gas reserves can help meet India's growing energy demands.


India’s participation in the SCO aligns with its broader foreign policy of multi-alignment, which seeks to maintain relationships with both Eastern and Western powers. India’s active role in organizations like the SCO, BRICS, and the Quad demonstrates its ability to engage with diverse geopolitical groupings. While the Quad is often seen as an anti-China coalition focusing on the Indo-Pacific, the SCO allows India to work with China and Russia on regional issues, particularly security and counterterrorism.


This multi-alignment approach reflects India's ambition to emerge as a global leader, capable of balancing different geopolitical blocs and navigating competing interests. The SCO offers India an avenue to engage with its traditional rivals while pursuing its economic and security objectives.


of the key aspects of India’s engagement with the SCO is its participation in the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS), which focuses on counterterrorism efforts. For India, which has faced terrorism threats from its western borders, involvement in RATS is crucial for intelligence sharing, coordinating counterterrorism activities, and addressing security challenges. With the rise of extremist groups in Central Asia, particularly after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the region’s security has become a priority for the SCO, making India’s participation even more important.


In addition to economic ties, India has sought to strengthen cultural and historical links with Central Asia, leveraging its shared Buddhist heritage to enhance diplomatic relations. Initiatives focused on traditional medicine, Buddhist sites, and agricultural cooperation highlight India’s use of soft power in its foreign policy.

Comments

bottom of page