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.)

Mohammed Siraj: The Relentless Warrior

ree

In the annals of Test cricket, few series capture the imagination quite like a clash between England and India. The inaugural Anderson-Tendulkar Trophy in 2025, named after two legends—England’s swing maestro James Anderson and India’s batting icon Sachin Tendulkar—lived up to its billing as a grueling, five-Test epic in English conditions. Amid the rain delays, swinging Dukes balls, and high-stakes drama, one player emerged as India’s unbreakable spearhead: Mohammed Siraj. The Hyderabad pacer, often called “Miyan Magic,” shouldered the bowling attack with unyielding stamina, finishing as the series’ leading wicket-taker with 23 scalps across all five matches.


His journey through the series was a rollercoaster of triumphs and trials, culminating in a fairytale finish that etched his name into cricketing folklore. In my view, Siraj’s performance wasn’t just about numbers; it symbolized the grit of a new-era Indian fast bowler thriving in alien territories.


Siraj’s highs were nothing short of spectacular, showcasing why he’s become India’s go-to enforcer in overseas Tests. From the outset at Lord’s, where the series began, Siraj set the tone with his aggressive seam bowling. He bowled tirelessly, clocking 185.3 overs—the second-most by an Indian seamer in a series since 2002—and delivered a staggering 1,113 balls, leading the charts for endurance. This workload was no mean feat in seaming English pitches, where pacers often break down. His peak came in the second Test at Edgbaston, where he dismantled England’s middle order with a spellbinding 6/70 in their first innings. Siraj’s ability to swing the ball both ways, combined with his bouncer barrage, tormented batsmen like Joe Root, with whom he engaged in a tactical duel spanning 222 deliveries across the series—the longest individual battle of the contest. Root, England’s linchpin, fell to Siraj multiple times, underscoring the Indian’s tactical acumen.


Another highlight was Siraj’s consistency in hostile conditions. Unlike previous Indian tours where pacers faded, Siraj played every Test, becoming only the third Indian bowler to achieve this in three away series while picking 10 or more wickets each time. His 23 wickets equaled the record for the most by an Indian in a Test series in England, tying with legends like Kapil Dev. In the fourth Test at Old Trafford, amid overcast skies, Siraj’s four-wicket haul in the first innings helped India gain a foothold, even as England fought back. His raw pace, often exceeding 140 km/h, and reverse swing in the later stages made him indispensable. Post-series, Siraj stormed to a career-best ICC Test ranking, jumping several spots after his Oval exploits. For me, these moments highlight Siraj’s evolution from a fiery debutant to a mature leader of the attack, especially with Jasprit Bumrah sharing the load but Siraj out-wicketing him.


Yet, no fairytale is without its shadows, and Siraj’s lows reminded us of the unforgiving nature of Test cricket. His average of 32.43, while respectable, hinted at spells where he leaked runs, particularly in the first Test at Lord’s, where England amassed a mammoth total, and Siraj went wicketless in one innings while conceding over four runs per over. The third Test at Headingley saw him struggle against England’s aggressive Bazball approach; Ben Duckett and Zak Crawley feasted on loose deliveries, forcing Siraj to toil for minimal rewards. A notable low was a fielding blunder in the fifth Test’s fourth innings, where he dropped a crucial catch off his own bowling, allowing Chris Woakes to extend England’s resistance. Critics, including Sachin Tendulkar himself, snubbed Siraj’s ripping delivery to dismiss Crawley as the “ball of the series,” opting instead for a teammate’s effort—a subtle reminder that even stars face scrutiny. These moments tested Siraj’s mental fortitude; his economy rate occasionally ballooned under pressure, reflecting the challenges of leading an attack without consistent spin support on pitches that flattened out. In opinion, these dips weren’t failures but learning curves, exposing the fine line between aggression and control in English summers.


The series’ fairytale end, however, redeemed everything and elevated Siraj to heroic status. Trailing 2-1 after the fourth Test, India entered the decider at The Oval on July 31, 2025, needing a win to draw the series. Batting first, India crumbled to 224, but Siraj’s 4/84 pegged England back to 247. Yashasvi Jaiswal’s second-innings 118 propelled India to 396, setting England 374 to win. On a tense Day 5, with drizzle threatening, Siraj produced a performance for the ages: 5/104 in the fourth innings, including key wickets of Ollie Pope (lbw) and Ben Stokes. England, cruising at one point, collapsed as Siraj, Prasidh Krishna (4 wickets), and Akash Deep turned the screws.


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

Comments


bottom of page