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.)

Royal Swagger

ree

As Maharashtra gears up for a pivotal assembly election, the state’s Maratha royals are emerging as influential players, reinvigorating their legacy and political relevance. From Kolhapur’s Ghatge and Chhatrapatis to the warring Bhosales of Satara, these regal figures are turning heads and wielding clout —whether in switching political camps, drawing massive crowds, or resolving high-stakes disputes over candidate nominations. Their involvement reflects both tradition and strategic electoral recalibration. While the jury is out as to their ability to tip the electoral balance, they certainly are in the reckoning in the November 20 battle.


In September, Samarjeet Ghatge, a BJP leader and a descendant of the Kagal royal family, known for his close ties with Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, turned his coat to Sharad Pawar’s Nationalist Congress Party (SP) with considerable fanfare.


Ghatge has been seething ever since his arch-rival Hasan Mushrif, a cabinet minister and another key member in the Ajit Pawar-led NCP, aligned himself with the ruling Mahayuti coalition in wake of Ajit’s rebellion. Ghatge and Mushrif have been daggers drawn for a long time when the latter was part of the undivided NCP. Their feud is well-known in Kolhapur. Now, with Ghatge on the MVA’s side, Mushrif, as the ruling Mahayuti’s candidate, finds his 25-year grip over Kagal seriously challenged.


Meanwhile, another dramatic about-face was witnessed in Kolhapur within the MVA coalition, as it nominated Madhurima Raje Chhatrapati, daughter-in-law of Kolhapur’s Congress MP Shahu Chhatrapati, over its previous candidate Rajesh Latkar. After tensions among Congress workers culminated in protests and vandalism, the decision to field Madhurima—a name carrying weight and sway—demonstrates the MVA’s effort to leverage royal clout for electoral gain. This nomination showcases the Congress’ acknowledgement of the potential impact of royal bloodlines to bolster voter confidence and minimize intra-party discord.

Earlier, in the Lok Sabha election, when the MVA lacked a suitable candidate in Kolhapur, it was Sharad Pawar who managed to get Shahu Chhatrapati to contest on the Congress symbol. The result was a resounding win for the Maratha royal.


A most intriguing role is being played by Shahu II’s son - Yuvraj Sambhaji Raje Chhatrapati. After his Rajya Sabha stint, Sambhaji Raje, an influential voice in the Maratha reservation agitation, formed the Swarajya Sangathan and has thrown in his lot with the ‘Parivartan Mahashakti Aghadi’ - a formidable alliance of Maharashtra’s smaller yet influential factions which include Raju Shetti’s Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana and Bacchu Kadu’s Prahar Janshakti Party among others.


The PMA has now emerged as a viable ‘third front’, poised to eat into votes of the ruling and opposition coalitions.


In Satara, the descendants of Chhatrapati Shivaji— Udayanraje and Shivendraraje Bhosale (both in the ruling BJP)—continue to capture public attention. Udayanraje, who won the Lok Sabha contest this time, will now be expected to support his rival, Shivendraraje, who is seeking re-election from the Satara Assembly segment for the fourth consecutive time. The duo is notorious for their turbulent and at times fractious rivalry, their dramatic familial feuds and equally dramatic public reconciliations.


With Maharashtra’s upcoming election touted to shape the state’s future, the re-emergence of Maratha royals as kingmakers signals a calculated nod to heritage and electoral might. The Maratha royals, it seems this time, are not only guardians of the past but also architects of the state’s political landscape.

Comments

bottom of page