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.)

IPO Investment Strategy

Updated: Nov 12, 2024

IPO Investment Strategy

Investors have amassed significant wealth through investing in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in India. In 2024, 70 IPOs were launched, with 56 of them delivering positive gains on their initial listing. Among these, Vibhor Steel Tubes, which began accepting subscriptions in February 2024, achieved the highest listing gain at 195 per cent. BLS E-services and Bajaj Housing Finance were the next two IPOs to see substantial gains, with returns of 171 per cent and 135 per cent, respectively. Investors can approach IPOs from two angles: focusing on listing gains or on long-term investment. Let's explore the key factors that contribute to a successful IPO investment strategy.


For Listing Gains

1. Consider the size of the issue. Small IPOs with issues below 2000 crores tend to offer better listing gains.


2. Monitor the Grey Market Premium (GMP). GMP should consistently exceed 30% before the IPO.


3. GMP should either remain stable or increase, and it should not decrease leading up to the IPO's closing date.


4. Even if the goal is to focus on listing gains, it's important to review the company's financials. Financial indicators such as profit growth, Return on Equity, and Price to Earnings ratio are crucial to avoid investing in low-quality IPOs.


5. If the company shows long-term growth potential, it's advisable to hold off on selling shares.


For Long-Term Investment

1. Established companies like LIC, Zomato, Ola Electric, and Hyundai Motors have not met market expectations, often due to the size of their initial offerings. If the issue size exceeds $20 million, it's advisable to consider investing for long-term gains rather than just listing gains.


2. The valuation of the company is critical for long-term wealth creation through IPOs. The company should be profitable, and its price to earnings ratio should be below 25.


3. Occasionally, companies like Zomato, Swiggy, and Ola, which are currently unprofitable, but they have a potential for significant future growth. In such cases, it's important to be mentally prepared for a multi-year period of time correction. It's possible that returns may not be realized until the company becomes profitable.


4. Shares in this category are susceptible to significant price drops, potentially by 50 per cent to 70 per cent from their initial offering price. However, it's beneficial to buy these shares during these price drops. For instance, Zomato, listed at 116 rupees in July 2021, fell to 41 rupees by July 2022. Following this decline, the stock began to rise, currently trading at 248 rupees.


5. If a company is fundamentally strong but its valuation is high, it may consolidate over several years, requiring patience. An example is CDSL, which was listed in 2017, didn't deliver any returns for the next three years. However, from 2020 to 2024, the stock appreciated by over 10 times.


(The author has spoken to experts in the field for writing this piece.)

Comments

bottom of page