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.)

Regulated Neglect

The Goa nightclub tragedy where 25 people were burnt alive was the predictable outcome of ignored safety norms, lax inspections, compromised access and a governance system that reacts only after bodies are counted. In a tourism capital that markets excess as lifestyle, death has now joined the itinerary.


The Goa tragedy joins a long roll-call of preventable Indian catastrophes, ranging from bridge collapses and train derailments to hospital fires and flooded coaching centres. While the political class has expressed grief and condolences, the public debate, too, has followed a depressing script following the fire. There has been talk of missing fire extinguishers, faulty wiring, overcrowding, blocked exits and poor management. Yet, this technocratic post-mortem carefully avoids the central fact that this was not an accident, but a governance failure. What failed was enforcement of regulations and behind that failure sits a culture that treats safety as a nuisance and compliance as ‘optional.’


The club’s remote backwater location, reachable only by a narrow approach road, forced fire engines to halt nearly 400 metres away. Precious minutes were lost manoeuvring hoses and personnel through terrain never designed for emergency response. A nightclub built for crowds, profits and spectacle was regrettably never built for escape.


Goa, the country’s premier tourism state, has long marketed itself as India’s answer to Ibiza with its beaches, drinks, neon lights and permissiveness. But beneath the postcard image lies a darker ledger of crime in beach shacks, money laundering through casinos, drug deaths, taxi mafias and now mass death in a nightclub. Each scandal is treated as an aberration. This is what happens when a public economy built on tourism is left to the private logic of greed and the political logic of indifference.


Tourism in Goa does not need more marketing campaigns or nightlife festivals. It needs rules that bite. and zoning laws that matter. It needs safety audits that are real and evacuation protocols rehearsed as drills rather than imagined in hindsight. It needs a government willing to antagonise powerful interests rather than mourn their victims later.


The families of the dead will receive compensation. Some officials may even face temporary suspension. A few low-level arrests will signal resolve. But the deeper ecosystem of the unholy alliance of lax regulators, bribable inspectors, political patrons and profit-hungry businesses will remain intact. That is the real firetrap. It is this ecosystem that neutralises outrage, absorbs scandal and ensures that accountability evaporates before it reaches the powerful.


In Goa, as in the rest of India, tragedy has become procedural. Immediately after the incident comes the horror, then the condolences and then compensation followed by an inquiry whose conclusions will politely indict ‘systems’ rather than names. But tourism will rebound, crowds will return, and the music will resume. Only the lesson will be lost. And when the next inferno breaks out the state will once again act surprised by a disaster it spent years painstakingly preparing.

Comments


bottom of page