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.)

Safety Mirage

It has been a year since Badlapur was convulsed by the Akshay Shinde case, a chilling reminder of how vulnerable children remain even in supposedly safe educational spaces. Shinde, accused of sexually assaulting two schoolgirls, was killed in a murky police encounter while being taken for questioning. The sordid episode forced the state government to promise sweeping reforms. A year on, those promises look less like systemic safeguards and more like theatre.


State government authorities have been quick to trumpet new measures like Police Clearance Certificates for school staff, surprise inspections and CCTV cameras in classrooms and on paper. While the system resembles an airtight fortress of vigilance, the fortifications are hollow in practice as shocking misdemeanours continue unchecked in schools and varsities across Maharashtra.


The Sangli rape case in May exposed just how little has changed in the culture of safety. A 22-year-old medical student was drugged and assaulted by her classmates. If universities, which ought to nurture mature professionals, cannot protect their own students, what hope is there for schoolchildren?


In Nashik, the rot is even starker. A school inspection this April revealed knives, chains, condoms and playing cards in the bags of pupils as young as 12. The discovery shocked even jaded inspectors, but instead of grappling with the underlying breakdown in supervision and discipline, officials offered another round of pious statements about ‘safety awareness.’


Nashik was rocked again earlier this month when a 15-year-old boy was beaten to death by his classmates over a dispute about seating in a tuition class. A trivial quarrel escalated into a fatal assault in full view of a teacher and other students.


These incidents puncture the government’s carefully cultivated narrative of reform. Rather than a serious re-engineering of student safety, what Maharashtra has delivered is cosmetic compliance. CCTV cameras, often installed haphazardly, are as effective as scarecrows in deterring predators. Awareness workshops only amount to tick-box exercises when predators lurk within institutions or when teachers themselves prove incapable of handling conflict among students.


After Badlapur, the state could have instituted transparent audits of schools, mandatory reporting of safety breaches and legal liability for institutions that fail to protect students. Instead, responsibility has been dispersed so widely that no one is to blame when the next outrage erupts. A state that fails to protect its students is one that has normalised neglect. The casual brutality of Nashik’s classroom killing is a symptom of the erosion of values within schools. Maharashtra’s rulers are fond of announcing grand schemes, but the gap between promise and reality has rarely been so stark.


The anniversary of Badlapur ought to have been an occasion for redoubled commitment. Instead, it reveals a state content to confuse surveillance with safety and tokenism with reform. The mirage of protection may satisfy bureaucrats. It will not bring back the children whose lives were shattered because those tasked with protecting them preferred optics to action.

Comments

bottom of page