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.)

SCO Aims to Unite Regional Powers for Trade and Security Gains

Trade and Security Gains

Indian scholar and political commentator, Sudheendra Kulkarni, founder of the Forum for a New South Asia, has underscored the potential of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) to break the ice between India and Pakistan. Although bilateral talks between the two countries did not occur during the meeting, Kulkarni highlighted that the SCO’s first article calls for “mutual trust, friendship, good neighbourliness, and cooperation.” By adhering to these principles, the SCO could serve as a catalyst for renewed dialogue between India and Pakistan, he argued.


Kulkarni’s remarks come at a time when global trade and cooperation face significant hurdles because of rising protectionism, sanctions, and geopolitical conflicts. The SCO, which includes India, Pakistan, China, and Russia as key members, stands as a multilateral platform that can counter these challenges by promoting cooperation rather than competition. With India and Pakistan already members, the SCO provides a rare platform for the two nations to engage in regional trade, technology, and security, potentially overriding political differences.


One of the critical points that Kulkarni raised is the growing trade between India and China, which reached over $136 billion last year. Kulkarni believes that India and Pakistan could similarly benefit within the SCO framework. “We hope this will break the ice and open up India-Pakistan dialogue, even though no formal talks took place during this meeting,” he said. The SCO’s mandate to foster good neighbourly relations between member states could be instrumental.


According to Kulkarni, developing countries, particularly those in the SCO and BRICS (another multilateral group that includes India and China), should leverage these platforms to foster trade and technological cooperation that bypasses Western-dominated financial systems. In doing so, these nations can shield themselves from the adverse impacts of Western-imposed sanctions and protectionist policies, which have disrupted global markets and harmed developing economies.


Kulkarni’s critique of Western sanctions goes hand in hand with his call for a more equitable form of globalisation. “The illegitimate, dividing sanctions of Western powers go against the spirit of globalisation, starving developing countries of finance, investment, and access to markets,” he said. For countries like India and Pakistan, which face significant economic challenges, the focus should be on poverty alleviation and sustainable development—not on becoming pawns in the geopolitical games of global powers.


The SCO brings together nations from Eurasia and beyond, offering a framework for cooperation that sidesteps the entrenched political divisions seen in other international forums. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, who described the recent SCO meeting as “productive,” highlighted key areas of cooperation, including business, medicine, food security, and climate action. These are precisely the kinds of issues that transcend borders and political differences, offering a path forward for India and Pakistan to work together under the SCO umbrella.


Moreover, Kulkarni emphasised China’s role in sharing its technological and infrastructural advancements with the world, particularly through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). If India and Pakistan can set aside their hostilities and engage with China constructively, the entire region could benefit from increased connectivity, technological innovation, and economic growth. The SCO’s emphasis on mutual benefit and regional cooperation aligns well with this vision, providing a framework for India, Pakistan, and China to collaborate on shared goals.


However, the long-standing rivalry between India and Pakistan, fuelled by border disputes, terrorism, and historical animosities, has often overshadowed efforts at regional cooperation. While the SCO provides a platform for dialogue, real progress will require sustained political will from both sides. Nonetheless, Kulkarni’s optimism offers a glimmer of hope that the SCO could be the venue where India and Pakistan start to re-engage, if not directly, then at least through shared multilateral objectives.


By participating actively in the SCO, India and Pakistan can diversify their economic and political alliances, reducing their dependence on Western-dominated institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. For Pakistan, which has been grappling with economic instability and political unrest, such engagement could offer a way out of its current crises. For India, it provides an avenue to assert itself as a major player in Eurasian geopolitics, independent of Western influence.


Ultimately, Kulkarni’s call for India and Pakistan to embrace the SCO’s potential is a timely reminder that in a world beset by conflict and division, multilateralism remains a viable path forward. The challenges of trade protectionism, sanctions, and geopolitical tensions are too complex for any one country to solve alone. As part of the SCO, India and Pakistan can work together—if not as allies, then at least as partners in the pursuit of shared regional stability and economic growth. If they can seize this moment, the SCO may become the platform where one of the world’s most enduring rivalries finally begins to thaw.


(The author is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page