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.)

Kazan Summit: BRICS Nations to Push For A Multipolar World

Kazan Summit: BRICS Nations to Push For A Multipolar World

Leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa will meet in Kazan, Russia, next week for the 16th BRICS summit, marking a pivotal moment for the bloc. With an expanded roster of members and heightened global interest, the summit is expected to focus on strengthening ties among emerging economies and pushing back against Western-dominated financial and security systems.


Scheduled from October 22 to 24, the summit will engage country leaders in discussions aimed at addressing key international issues. This year's gathering is particularly significant as it follows the inclusion of Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE into BRICS earlier this year, marking the first summit of the newly expanded group.


Russia, which holds the BRICS presidency, has invited over two dozen other nations expressing interest in joining the bloc, making it the first “BRICS+” summit. Countries such as Turkey, Algeria, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Bangladesh have either applied or shown interest in joining BRICS, attracted by the prospect of benefiting from stronger trade ties and a collective effort to counterbalance the influence of the U.S. and its allies.


The BRICS bloc currently accounts for 45% of the world’s population and 28% of the global economy. Its influence extends to nearly half of the world’s crude oil production, positioning it as a critical force in shaping the future of global energy markets. These factors have made BRICS increasingly appealing to other countries looking to enhance their strategic autonomy and gain a larger voice in international affairs.

The bloc’s economic agenda has gained momentum in recent years, particularly in the area of intra-BRICS trade. In a statement from the June 2024 BRICS foreign ministers’ meeting, member countries emphasized the increased use of local currencies in trade and financial transactions within the group. From 2017 to 2022, intra-BRICS trade surged by 56%, and the trend accelerated further following Western sanctions on Russia. A report by the Boston Consulting Group noted that trade between BRICS nations has now outpaced their trade with the G7, leading to deeper economic integration among BRICS members.


As BRICS members strengthen their economic ties, they are also working to reduce their reliance on the U.S. dollar. The dollar’s dominance as a global reserve currency has long given Washington significant leverage over the international financial system, particularly through sanctions and export controls. Countries affected by U.S. sanctions, including BRICS leaders Russia and China and new members such as Iran, see reducing the dollar’s influence as essential for protecting their economies from external pressures.


Moreover, many countries view BRICS membership as an opportunity to enhance their representation on the global stage. With the United Nations and other multilateral institutions often criticized for being outdated and ineffective, BRICS provides a platform for emerging economies to push for reforms and greater inclusion in international decision-making.


The timing of this year’s summit is critical. As the United States grapples with challenges to its global leadership, BRICS is positioning itself as an importantplayer in shaping a multipolar world. This shift is expected to have profound implications for international peace, security, and the distribution of global power.


The 2024 BRICS summit will likely be seen as a defining moment for the group and for global politics. As BRICS seeks to assert its influence on the world stage, its growing economic and political clout is reshaping the international order, challenging the long-standing dominance of Western powers. While the road ahead is fraught with challenges, the summit in Kazan marks a significant step toward a more multipolar world, where emerging economies are determined to play a larger role in shaping global governance.


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

Comments

bottom of page