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.)

Psychology Key in Tackling Crime Surge

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

Crime rates in India have surged significantly, creating an ever-growing backlog of cases. Modern crimes differ markedly from the past, often leaving minimal physical evidence at crime scenes. Such challenges pose a hurdle for investigating agencies trying to link perpetrators to their crimes. While suspects can be identified, proving their involvement in the courts remains a complex task. Forensic psychology plays a crucial role in addressing these issues.

Forensic psychology integrates principles from psychology, forensic science, and law to enhance the justice delivery system. Its application within the Indian criminal justice system has expanded over recent decades. Forensic psychology encompasses a range of techniques, collectively referred to as Forensic Psychological Investigative Techniques (FPITs). These include Deception Detection Technologies (DDTs) like polygraphs, narco-analysis, Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature Profiling (BEOS), Layered Voice Analysis, and Suspect Detection Systems, as well as methods such as Psychological Autopsy and Offender Profiling.

These FPITs combine psychophysiological principles with technology, serving as valuable tools in investigations. They are employed to screen suspects, detect deception, and determine a suspect’s knowledge or involvement in a crime. Despite their utility, the legal status of these techniques in India remains contentious.

The right to remain silent, a cornerstone of legal protection in India, is enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) reinforces this right, stating that individuals are not obliged to answer questions that could incriminate them. This right was further upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Nandini Satpathy vs. Dani.

However, the use of forensic psychological techniques such as polygraphs and narco-analysis have been contested. In the 2010 case of Selvi & Ors vs. the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of involuntary administration of these tests. The Court ruled that such tests cannot be administered without the subject’s consent, as they would infringe on the right to remain silent. Nevertheless, if these tests are administered voluntarily, their results may be admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the use of evidence obtained voluntarily in certain contexts.

One notable case where forensic psychological techniques played a significant role was the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Narco-analysis was used on the suspects to extract information about the planning and execution of the attacks. The technique provided critical leads that aided in piecing together the sequence of events and provided crucial information regarding terrorist training camps in Pakistan.

Another important case is the 2009 Aarushi Talwar murder case. In this case, polygraph tests were administered to various suspects, including the parents of the victim. While the results were not directly admissible in court, they were instrumental in narrowing down the list of suspects and guiding the investigation.

The hit-and-run case of the Dhanbad judge involved the use of BEOS and narco-analysis to extract information from the suspects. The technique was employed to confirm the identities of those involved and their roles in the crime. Although controversial, these techniques provided crucial leads for the investigation.

In 2022, Ashraf Ali, an ISI agent, was caught by the Delhi Crime Branch. BEOS and narco-analysis were used to interrogate him. The use of these techniques was crucial in uncovering hidden details about the suspect’s involvement and motivations.

Forensic psychology is vital in addressing complex crimes in India and offers essential tools like polygraphs and narco-analysis. While these methods have proved valuable in investigations, their use remains legally contentious. Balancing their application with constitutional rights is crucial for advancing justice and ensuring ethical practices in the future.

(Keshav Kumar, IPS (Retd.) is a consultant to Assam Government. Hemant Reddy is forensic Psychologist. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page