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.)

Small vs. Mighty: Lithuania’s Strategic Shift Against China

Updated: Oct 21, 2024


Small vs. Mighty: Lithuania’s Strategic Shift Against China

Lithuania, a small northeastern European country of just 65,000 square kilometres and a population of 2.8 million has emerged as a source of diplomatic tension for China. In contrast, China is a vast nation with approximately 9.6 million square kilometres and a population of 1.4 billion.

Lithuania, annexed by the USSR in 1944 during World War II, gained independence in 1990, becoming the first country to break free from Soviet control. China was among the first countries to recognise Lithuania’s independence, seeing it as a strategic foothold in the Baltic region despite Lithuania’s limited economic significance. Diplomatic relations were established in September 1991 with China opening its embassy in Lithuania in 1992, followed by Lithuania’s embassy in China in 1995.

Relations between the two countries remained sluggish as Lithuania focused more on building stronger ties with Europe and the United States, eventually culminating in Lithuania joining the EU and NATO in 2004. Following its EU membership, trade between Lithuania and China began to grow, with Lithuania exporting machinery, electronics, and agricultural products to China, and importing consumer goods.

China sought to expand trade and investment in Central and Eastern Europe, forming a group with 16 countries from the region, including Lithuania in 2012, known as “16+1”. In 2019, Greece’s entry made it “17+1”. Trade between China and Lithuania increased through the EU and “17+1”, as did concerns about China’s policies in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Similar concerns were rising in other EU countries, leading to declining relations with China.

Geopolitical shifts emerged with Donald Trump’s presidency in 2016 as he reassessed US trade policies and global involvement, sparking a new cold war with China. The US also began pressuring its allies to join in exerting pressure on China.

Some young lawmakers from Lithuania’s conservative Homeland Union-Christian Democratic Party (TS-LKD) saw this as an opportunity to shift Lithuanian foreign policy focus from China to Taiwan, believing that this would please the US and bolster Lithuania’s leadership claim within the EU. They argued that Taiwan is a small democratic nation facing pressure from a powerful authoritarian neighbour, so Lithuania should stand with it rather than align with China.

In 2019, following a visit to Taiwan, Lithuanian parliamentarians proposed establishing formal diplomatic relations. They reasoned that such a partnership would enhance Lithuania’s national security and high-tech industry development while helping Taiwan preserve its democracy. Their efforts gained traction, securing support from the Lithuanian President and the Liberal Party (LS), amid other ongoing concerns about leasing Lithuania’s main port to a Chinese company.

In the same year, a split in the Liberal Party led to the Freedom Party (LP) formation, whose members also supported closer ties with Taiwan. Following the October 2020 parliamentary elections, a new coalition government led by TS-LKD was formed.

In March 2021, Lithuania announced plans to open a diplomatic office in Taiwan while reducing involvement in the “17+1” group, citing insufficient economic benefits. In August 2021, Taiwan announced the opening of a representative office in Lithuania under the name “Taiwan” instead of the customary name “Taipei,” defying China’s “One China” policy. In response, China recalled its ambassador, expelled the Lithuanian ambassador, and imposed undeclared boycotts on Lithuanian companies. By 2022, Lithuania fully exited the group, angering China.

Lithuania then sought support from the EU and the US, securing new business alternatives that helped stabilise its economy. The EU and the US, already in conflict with China, saw an opportunity to counter China’s influence by backing Lithuania. Lithuania’s limited economic dependence on China also made this strategy feasible.

However, this situation has resurfaced due to the upcoming elections in Lithuania and the U.S. Taiwan fears that a pro-China government in Lithuania might compel it to withdraw. Similarly, the US presidential election could alter US-China relations, impacting countries like Lithuania and Taiwan. However, strong anti-China sentiments in Lithuania make a rapid policy shift unlikely.

While the future course of action largely depends on the outcomes of Lithuanian and US elections, Lithuania has shown that even a small country can challenge a giant like China by playing its cards wisely. This gambit serves as a valuable lesson for other countries around the world.


(The writer is an IT professional. Views personal)

Comments

bottom of page