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.)

Maharashtra Elections: The Satta Bazaar Dilemma!

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Maharashtra Elections

For the first time, Satta Bazaar or the Bookies Market are confused and at a loss, unable to predict which party or candidate will win the upcoming Assembly elections in Maharashtra. Mohan (name changed) one of the regulars in the circuit, shares some titbits circulating through the grapevine about how, for the very first time in many years, the entire Satta Bazaar is struggling to come up with reliable numbers on who will win or lose these upcoming elections. The reasons he says are not one but multiple. The first is the lack of trust and clarity on the seat-sharing formula amongst both the ruling Maha Yuti and the opposition Maha Vikash Aghadi coalition. The second reason is the possible coming together of multiple fronts that may include Prakash Ambedkar’s Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi (VBA), Raju Shetty’s Swabhimaani Paksha, Sambhaji Raje Bhonsale’s Swarajya Sanghatana, and Bachhu Kadu’s Prahar Janshakti Party, as well as the Maharashtra Navanirman Sena (MNS) and the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM), and not to mention the many candidates who may contest as Independents in case they fail to get a ticket. Adding to this complex mix is the possible entry of the Maratha activist Manoj Jarange Patil, who may decide to take a political plunge and contest the elections, potentially changing the entire equation.

“This is nothing less than a political circus of sorts,“ says Mohan, noting that he and his associates have analysed that while the smaller parties may come together to form a possible third and fourth front, it cannot be ruled out that most parties may prefer to go solo at the last minute, contesting all 288 seats. The victory numbers according to the ‘market’ is the MNS, which is expected to contest 250 seats and might win at least 5-6 seats of them. And the combination of VBA along with others may fetch them at least 55 seats. Similarly, AIMIM, which may contest 50 seats, stands to win at least in five prominent Muslim-dominated areas of Maharashtra, while the possible number of victorious Independents may exceed 20.

The third area that the bookies have reportedly been monitoring, he claims, is the shortage of strong candidates. Aside from ageing veterans, not a single political party has a strong and capable second or third line of leadership ready to contest these elections confidently. Instead, we see a large number of family members of established leaders―many who lack substantial political experience and understanding of grassroots politics as well. Additionally, you have contractors-cum-real-estate agents turned wannabe politicians who lack vision and are jumping on the election bandwagon, hoping to pay their way through to become the next big thing in Maharashtra.

“No one has any idea who to bet on or who will form the next government in Maharashtra. There are no good candidates this time around. Voters are tired. We think the voter turnout may be less this time, and if that happens, you can expect candidates whom you have never even heard of getting elected on a smaller number of votes, and that is quite worrying for everyone,” he says. Well, let’s wait and watch for sure!

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

Comments

bottom of page