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.)

Logjam over Mahayuti seat-sharing continues

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Sources indicate that BJP to get 157 seats whereas Shiv Sena to get 78 and NCP 55


Logjam over Mahayuti seat-sharing continues

Mumbai: Even as the date to state filing nominations for Assembly elections is approaching the seat sharing between the constituents of the Mahayuti is yet to be finalised.


Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, who had stayed back for a few meetings in the national Capital after his meeting with Union Home Minister Amit Shah, told the media that all the coalition partners have reached a consensus over most of the assembly seats and issues related to only about a 30-35 seats remains to be resolved. He also expressed confidence that the issues will be resolved soon and that the Mahayuti shall win the state elections.


Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, who was at Nashik on Saturday after the late night meeting in Delhi with Shah, too said that everything is going smooth in the alliance. Pawar, after visiting the Tryambakeshwar temple in the morning, said that the CM and the two DCMs shall address a joint meeting soon to reveal the details of seat sharing pact.


According to sources, the BJP, that currently has 102 seating MLAs is likely to settle for 157 out of 288 seats. The NCP that has 39 MLAs is likely to settle for 55 seats and the Shiv Sena under CM Shinde is likely to get 78 seats even though they too have only 39 MLAs on their side in the present assembly. There are 13 independent MLAs in the current assembly while 15 seats are lying vacant.


All the parties in the alliance would get their seats where they have sitting MLAs. This means there is no difference of opinion over 180 seats. There are around 80 other seats where the alliance partners are on the second position. There are little differences over these seats also. Real tug of war is going on for the remaining lot of 28 seats, said a senior BJP leader. The issue is unlikely to resolve soon as it will primarily depend upon whom does the seat go to from the MVA side and whom does the MVA field.


Another leader said that the seat sharing in Mumbai has been settled and that the BJP is likely contest 17 or 18 of the 36 seats in the city leaving 15 for Shiv Sena and rest shall go to the NCP. The BJP wants to contest more seats in the state and hence other parties will be compensated with other political positions. That is the reason why it is taking a bit long to conclude the negotiations, the leader said.


“There are no problems. The talks were constructive and are in the final stages,” Shinde told reporters. “We have decided to move ahead with the task at hand. We want to bring the Mahayuti government to power once again and we are confident about it.”

Comments

bottom of page