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.)

Jaishankar’s Historic Visit: A Path to Dialogue and Economic Cooperation?

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Jaishankar’s Historic Visit: A Path to Dialogue and Economic Cooperation?

Jaishankar’s visit to Pakistan, the first by an Indian foreign minister in almost a decade, was a remarkable diplomatic event. He was welcomed with the kind of formality that underscored Pakistan’s desire to present itself as a stable and secure nation. Many, including Nawaz Sharif, saw this as an opportunity to break the ice and create a pathway for dialogue between the two countries.


Nawaz Sharif praised Jaishankar’s visit as a “good opening” and stressed the need for both nations to engage in meaningful dialogue and “bury the past” to build a better future. He argued that both countries are bound by geography and history and that neither can change its neighbour. His call for a reset in relations is not new, but the timing of it, during Jaishankar’s historic visit, gave his words extra weight.


Sharif also reflected on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s unexpected visit to Lahore in 2015, which had kindled hopes of peace. Unfortunately, relations soured soon after, exacerbated by a series of terror attacks in India that were linked to Pakistan-based groups. Sharif lamented the missed opportunities for peace since Modi’s visit, stressing that the region cannot afford another 70 years of animosity.


What makes Sharif’s appeal particularly compelling is his focus on the economic potential of improved relations between the two countries, which could unlock unprecedented opportunities for trade, investment, and regional stability. His vision is not just about ending conflict but about lifting millions out of poverty through shared economic prosperity.


The timing of this message could not be more crucial. The global economy is in flux, with emerging markets like India and Pakistan facing challenges from inflation, unemployment, and external debt. In such an environment, regional cooperation could offer a way out. The SCO summit, where Jaishankar and Pakistani officials discussed trade and humanitarian issues, highlighted the economic stakes involved. According to Sharif, the two nations must prioritise their economic futures over historical grievances.


One of the main obstacles to peace has been the Kashmir dispute. When India revoked the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir in 2019, Pakistan responded by downgrading diplomatic ties and suspending bilateral trade. Sharif’s call to sideline the issue temporarily in favour of a more pragmatic engagement aligns with his long-held belief that peace and prosperity should take precedence over territorial disputes.


At the SCO summit, Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar followed a strictly diplomatic script focused on trade, humanitarian, and social issues. However, his presence in Islamabad signalled a potential softening of India’s hardline stance on Pakistan, at least on multilateral engagement. Although there were no formal bilateral talks, the atmosphere at the summit suggested a cautious willingness on both sides to re-engage, even if only through multilateral platforms like the SCO.


Pakistan went out of its way to ensure that Jaishankar’s visit was smooth and devoid of tensions that have marred previous engagements. Islamabad’s handling of the summit demonstrated a clear desire to be seen as a responsible and constructive player on the global stage. The fact that Jaishankar could participate in the summit without any significant diplomatic incidents was a victory in itself.


For Sharif, this moment was the culmination of his long-held belief that India and Pakistan must find a way to coexist peacefully. His three terms as prime minister were marked by repeated attempts to engage India, despite setbacks and opposition from hardliners within Pakistan. Sharif’s vision has always been one of economic integration and mutual benefit. He has consistently argued that the two nations if they could overcome their political differences, could create a more prosperous South Asia.


Sharif’s call for a reset in relations is not without challenges. Both nations have deep-rooted political, military, and ideological differences that will not be easily overcome. The memories of past conflicts, including the three wars fought since their partition in 1947, remain in the collective consciousness of both countries. The issue of terrorism, which India accuses Pakistan of fostering, is a significant stumbling block. However, Sharif’s message is clear: these obstacles should not be allowed to define the future.


Together, India and Pakistan represent over a billion people. If they could set aside their differences and focus on economic cooperation, it could spur growth, create jobs, and lift millions out of poverty. The South Asian subcontinent, long seen as a region of conflict, could instead become a beacon of economic opportunity and stability.


The SCO summit provided a platform for dialogue, demonstrating both nations’ ability to engage in diplomacy within a multilateral framework. Nawaz Sharif’s remarks reignited hope for reconciliation, with his focus on dialogue and economic cooperation offering a vision for a more prosperous South Asia. Jaishankar’s visit was a symbolic step forward. If both nations heed Sharif’s call, they could unlock immense potential and bring prosperity to the region.


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

Comments

bottom of page