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.)

Is Pakistan’s War Rhetoric a Distraction or a Dangerous Reality?

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

South Asia teeters on the edge of another potential conflict, as the threat of war between nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and India, looms. In a recent UN speech, Pakistan’s PM Shehbaz Sharif addressed terrorism, climate change, and conflicts in Palestine and Kashmir. While his words resonated, many question if this is a genuine concern or a distraction from domestic issues.

Sharif’s speech highlighted global conflicts, terrorism threats, and the devastating impacts of climate change. He warned of a ‘new Cold War,’ referencing U.S.-China tensions and Pakistan-India hostilities. These long-time adversaries have shaped South Asia’s political and security dynamics.

The Prime Minister made an emotional plea over Gaza, calling for action. He stressed the need for an immediate two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders, with full United Nations membership for Palestine. Without such a resolution, Sharif warned, the Middle East could be dragged into a war with consequences far beyond anyone’s imagination.

Sharif’s pivot from Palestine to Kashmir while drawing a direct comparison between the Palestinian struggle and the ongoing conflict in Jammu & Kashmir. Sharif described the plight of the Kashmiri people as a parallel tragedy, and their century-long struggle for self-determination, casting India as the aggressor in the region.

Since India revoked Jammu & Kashmir’s special status in August 2019, tensions have escalated. Sharif accused the Indian government of taking “unilateral illegal steps” in the region and implementing a “Final Solution” for Kashmir, invoking chilling echoes of the Holocaust. He went on to detail the presence of 900,000 Indian troops in the region, accusing them of terrorising the population with curfews, extrajudicial killings, and mass abductions of young Kashmiris.

His warning was clear: Pakistan would respond if provoked by India. “Pakistan will respond most decisively to any Indian aggression,” he stated, signalling that his government views the situation as a ticking time bomb. However, as he spoke of defending Kashmiri’s rights and resisting Indian aggression, many observers questioned the timing and the intensity of his rhetoric. With Pakistan grappling with severe domestic challenges, was this speech a way to rally nationalist sentiment and distract from his government’s failures?

To understand the implications of Sharif’s address, one must consider the situation in Pakistan. The country faces an economic crisis with record-high inflation, soaring unemployment, and mounting debt. The floods two years ago worsened matters, causing over $30 billion in damages and displacing millions. Though Pakistan contributes less than 1% to global emissions, it has suffered disproportionately from climate change. Sharif underscored this imbalance, stating, “We must uphold the axiom: the polluter pays!”

Sharif’s government is also facing mounting political pressure from opposition parties, particularly Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), who have been vocal in their criticism of the government’s handling of the economy and its failure to address the needs of ordinary citizens. Protests have erupted, with demonstrators calling for better governance and accountability. In this context, Sharif’s strong rhetoric on Kashmir and India could be a strategic effort to shift focus from domestic crises. By portraying India as the aggressor, Sharif may be rallying for national unity and undermining his political opponents.

Sharif’s speech, while politically useful at home, poses serious risks. South Asia is a conflict hotspot, and a war between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India would be catastrophic. Even a limited conflict could escalate dangerously. Under Prime Minister Modi, India treats Kashmir as a domestic issue while continuing to modernise its military, likely to counter Pakistan.

This arms race is escalating between the two countries, and the dangers are clear. A single spark could ignite a conflict neither side truly wants but may feel compelled to fight. The international community has remained on the sidelines, unwilling or unable to mediate. Strategic alliances—Pakistan with China and India with the United States—further complicate the situation. Any conflict between the two would destabilise South Asia and risk drawing in these external powers, with unpredictable and far-reaching consequences.

Sharif’s speech raises an important question: is this political theatre, or is it a warning of impending conflict? It is likely somewhere in the middle. While Sharif’s government faces domestic pressure, his concerns about Kashmir and India’s military expansion are valid. The situation in South Asia remains fragile, with the risks of escalation and a catastrophic conflict ever-present.

The international community must act swiftly to de-escalate tensions between Pakistan and India, as the stakes are too high to ignore. Both nations have much to lose in another conflict, but neither seems prepared to back down. Amid global challenges like climate change and rising geopolitical tensions, nuclear-armed confrontation in South Asia is the last thing the world needs.

While Sharif’s speech may serve political aims, tensions between Islamabad and New Delhi are real, the risk of conflict remains, and global intervention is crucial.

(The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page