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.)

Para-athletes merit a level playing field

While India’s para-athletes bring glory overseas, they face an uphill battle against indifference at home.

ree

 

In the scorching summer of 2024, while the Seine river shimmered under the bright Parisian sunlight, a group of Indians were making history. At the Paralympic Games, India’s para-athletes hauled in 29 medals - seven gold, nine silver and 13 bronze, finishing 18th out of 169 nations. It was not merely their finest Paralympic performance; it was also a trouncing of their able-bodied counterparts, who returned from the Olympics with just six medals - none of them gold - and a humbling 71st-place finish.

 

In Paris, the tricolour rose often, carried not by familiar sporting celebrities but by athletes whose grit redefined excellence. And yet, in the streets and stadiums back home, the cheers remained muted. Public adulation, which is usually lavished on able-bodied stars, rarely strayed toward those who had achieved as much, or more, in arenas far from the limelight. As India prepares to host the 12th World Para Athletics Championship in Delhi from September 27 to October 5, 2025, the question that looms is why do the nation’s para-athletes continue to remain in the shadows?

 

Glaring Discrimination

The disparity is glaring. Last month, the Neeraj Chopra Classic in Bengaluru drew some 15,000 spectators, their chants echoing through the stands for the Olympic javelin champion. Days later, in the same city, Sumit Antil, a two-time Paralympic gold medallist and world-record holder in javelin, competed in the Indian Open Para Athletics Championship before mostly empty seats.

 

The gulf is not confined to athletics. Shooters such as Manu Bhaker, whose Olympic medals adorn television commercials and billboards, enjoy household recognition. Yet Avani Lekhara, who, like Bhaker, competes in shooting, but with the added distinction of winning two Paralympic golds, remains a name known to few outside sporting circles.


This is not simply about fame. Para-athletes must fight a contest twice over - on the field, against their competitors and off it, against the weight of social neglect and ingrained bias. While their victories are feats of athletic talent, they are also living proof of how inclusion and opportunity can yield world-beating results.

 

True Grit

The backstories of India’s Paralympic champions read like epics of resilience. Sheetal Devi, born without arms, taught herself to draw a bow with her legs; in Paris, she claimed a bronze in archery. Avani Lekhara, paralysed in a car accident at the age of 11, rose to the top of her sport with unerring precision. Sumit Antil, whose right leg was amputated after a road accident, has repeatedly rewritten the javelin world record. Harvinder Singh, struck by dengue as an infant and left with impairments, battled through the ranks to win Paralympic archery gold.

 

These are not tales of “overcoming disability” in the narrow, sentimental sense that the media sometimes peddles. They are about agency—of athletes refusing to be defined by the limitations others expect of them, and instead setting new definitions for themselves.

 

Such triumphs are won despite a system that offers para-athletes less of nearly everything: funding, facilities, corporate sponsorships, and basic accessibility. The 2011 Census estimated India’s disabled population at 26.8 million. However, newer unofficial estimates suggest the true figure could exceed 60 million. The 2021 Census might have provided clarity had it been conducted.

 

Yet, disability-inclusive infrastructure remains an afterthought. Most schools lack accessible sports facilities. Public transport remains a labyrinth of barriers. Participation in physical education for differently-abled children is the exception, not the rule.

 

Some schemes do exist. The Target Olympic Podium Scheme (TOPS) has expanded to include para-athletes. Non-profits such as the GoSports Foundation provide training grants and mentorship. Yet the depth and breadth of institutional support still lags far behind that lavished on able-bodied athletes. “Para-athletes don’t need sympathy; they need systems,” says coach Satyanarayana, who has worked with several Paralympic medallists.

 

Financial disparity is as telling as it is demoralising. In state after state, cash awards for para-athletes are smaller than for their Olympic peers. Corporate endorsements are rare. Media coverage, when it comes, is fleeting, mere spikes of attention during global events, followed by long silences.

 

Cultural Barriers

The biggest barrier may be cultural. In a country where cricket stars can rival film actors in mass adoration, recognition for para-athletes is scarce currency. The fastest route to changing this lies through endorsement and example. Imagine Virat Kohli fronting a campaign with Avani Lekhara, or Neeraj Chopra mentoring Sumit Antil in a public training series. Such gestures would not merely validate achievements; they would normalise the presence of para-sport in the mainstream.

 

The media’s role is equally critical. Beyond occasional “inspirational” features, para-sport merits the same sustained storytelling accorded to other disciplines like season previews, expert commentary and full-length documentaries. The Delhi Championships offer an ideal hook for such coverage. The question is whether editors will seize it.

 

For para-athletes from rural India, the journey is doubly hard. Many hail from areas where sports facilities are non-existent, prosthetics are prohibitively expensive, and trained coaches are scarce. Often, their ascent is propelled by personal grit and family sacrifice rather than institutional backing.

 

The policy prescriptions are straightforward enough. Introduce para-sport into school curricula. Mandate accessible playgrounds. Organise inclusive inter-school tournaments. And get corporations involved, not just as a Corporate Social Responsibility box-ticking exercise, but as genuine investors in human potential.

 

Equal recognition is not charity; it is justice. These are not ‘lesser’ athletes. They are, in many cases, more accomplished than their better-known peers, having reached the podium from a starting point of deep physical and social disadvantage.

 

Tangible Action

Delhi’s hosting of the World Para Athletics Championship in 2025 will be more than a sporting fixture. It will be a test of whether India can match its rhetoric about inclusivity with tangible action. The ingredients for transformation are all there: an unprecedented medal haul, a swelling pool of talent, and a marquee event on home soil. What remains to be seen is whether the country’s sports establishment and its public will rise to the occasion.

 

A successful championship would mean more than packed stands and medals. It would mean breaking the cycle in which para-athletes are remembered briefly and then forgotten. It would mean creating pipelines that allow disabled children to dream of and realistically train for international glory. And it would mean changing the perception of para-sport from a niche pursuit to an integral part of the national sporting identity.

 

If India’s para-athletes can overcome the loss of limbs, the absence of facilities, and the indifference of sponsors to reach the pinnacle of their sports, surely the rest of the country can overcome its own inertia. That requires more than applause; it demands sustained investment, visibility and respect.

 

Beyond medals, they have already won something rarer in sport: the moral high ground. Now, they deserve the nation’s full-throated cheer not only in moments of victory, but in the long seasons in between.

 

(The writer is a former banker based in Bengaluru. Views personal.)

Comments


bottom of page