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.)

Parents, Wake Up!

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Memories of horrific incidents like the Nirbhaya case in Delhi will always remain unforgettable. Unfortunately, similar tragedies continue to be reported in both urban and rural areas across all states, without exception. Incidents of gang rape involving young girls from scheduled castes or scheduled tribes occur. Some cases involve individuals who deceive girls under false identities and then rape them. Often, these perpetrators record these horrific acts, blackmail the victims, and even subject them to repeated assaults. There are instances of girls being coerced into marriage. Their refusal leads to their murder and their bodies disposed of in a remote place.

Parents, Wake Up!

Investigations reveal that many of these acts are committed by juveniles aged 16 -18. In addition to gang rapes, rapes, dacoities, and murders, there are reports of juveniles involved in rash and drunk driving in luxury cars, often resulting in the deaths of innocent pedestrians and two-wheeler riders. These incidents invariably provoke public outrage, with a demand for an explanation from law enforcement and questioning the government’s effectiveness in addressing these issues. Often, public anger escalates to demands for the immediate execution of the accused, even if the suspect is a juvenile. Data compiled by the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) from all states reveals an increasing number of incidents involving juveniles aged 16 to 18 as suspects. According to the Juvenile Justice Act (JJA) 2015, a person below the age of 18 is considered a juvenile. The JJA stipulates that minors aged 16 – 18 be treated as adults when involved in heinous crimes. Heinous crimes are those offenses that warrant punishment for more than seven years.

Several factors contribute to juvenile delinquency, including the absence of care and affection from parents due to division in the family, large families, and poverty. Urbanisation and easy access to the internet expose children to inappropriate and pornographic content. Advertisements, TV/OTT serials, and cinemas also have an adverse impact. In red-light areas, children are often forced out during business hours, leading them into bad company and the use of illegal substances. Additionally, adolescent boys may steal to impress their friends and meet their needs.

Analysis of undertrial juveniles reveals most come from deprived backgrounds, having dropped out of school or attended irregularly. Lacking education and vocational skills, many work as casual labourers. Due to dysfunctional families, these children lacked mental or social support. Their family situations involved poverty, forced child labour, inadequate parenting, continuous stress, or crises like death, desertion, etc. Moreover, NCRB data shows that drug addiction is leading to an alarming rise in serious crimes among children from affluent families.

Although these children might have broken the law, police officers must remain sensitive to their circumstances. As the Commissioner of Police in Nagpur, I ensured they received counselling and school enrolment, if eligible. Others received vocational training, helping them become responsible individuals contributing to their families’ income. The police should seek action from the Juvenile Justice Board against the parents of such children and safeguard them from adult offenders who might coerce them into crime. Collaborating with voluntary organisations, child psychiatrists, child guidance clinics, social care workers, and probation officers is crucial to address the root cause of juvenile delinquency. Efforts should be made to identify at-risk, destitute, and neglected children before they become delinquent. Regular patrolling in urban areas prone to delinquency should be organised.

My initiatives for recreational programmes, like sporting events, holiday camps, and band displays created enthusiasm and engagement among the community.

(The writer is a former DGP, Maharashtra. Views personal )



Comments

bottom of page