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.)

The 99-Year Journey: RSS’s Contribution to India’s Rise as a Global Leader

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Dr. Keshav Baliram Hedgewar’s vision was influenced by the idea of Hindu Rashtra, a nation that draws its strength from its cultural and civilisational heritage, rooted in Hindu philosophy and culture. The organisation sought to instill a sense of pride in this heritage while addressing social issues such as caste discrimination and untouchability.

In its early years, the RSS focused on building a disciplined cadre of Swayamsevaks to serve the nation. The daily routine of the Swayamsevaks included physical exercises, group discussions on history and culture, and various forms of social service. The RSS also placed a strong emphasis on education, believing that an informed and disciplined populace was essential for nation-building.


Freedom Struggle

During the Indian freedom struggle, the RSS, while aligned with the broader goal of freeing India from British rule, maintained a distance from the Indian National Congress and other political movements. The RSS believed that the focus on political independence was overshadowing the need forsocial and cultural unity. The RSS was wary of the Congress’s policies of appeasement towards the Muslim League and its emphasis on non-violence, which the RSS saw as impractical in the face of British repression.

Despite these differences, the RSS was not completely disengaged from the freedom movement. Many RSS members, including Dr. Hedgewar himself, participated in various nationalist activities. However, the RSS’s primary focus during this period remained on character-building and social unity, believing that these would be crucial for India’s long-term strength and stability.


Response to Partition

After India’s independence in 1947, the country faced deep divisions along religious and caste lines, with the partition leading to widespread violence and displacement. In response, the RSS saw its mission of promoting social unity and national integration as more critical than ever. It set up camps for refugees, providing food, medical aid, and assistance in resettling displaced families, particularly in Punjab and Delhi. In the aftermath of partition, the RSS intensified its efforts to foster Hindu unity and nationalism, playing a significant role in aiding communities affected by the communal violence.


Rebuilding of India

Following independence, the RSS focused on nation-building through grassroots efforts, believing India’s strength and prosperity depended on active citizen participation in social and cultural renewal. They established a network of affiliate organisations, the Sangh Parivar, which worked in education, rural development, health, and economic self-reliance.

In 1951, under the leadership of Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerjee, the RSS established the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS), the political wing of the RSS that aimed to provide a nationalist alternative to the Congress Party. Although the BJS remained a relatively small party during its early years, it laid the foundation for the eventual rise of the BJP, which would later become the dominant political force in India.

Cultural Initiatives

The RSS placed a strong emphasis on education as a means of fostering national consciousness and cultural pride. In 1952, the Vidyarthi Parishad (now known as the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, or ABVP) was established as the student wing of the RSS. The ABVP aimed to promote national values among students and provide an alternative to leftist ideologies that were prevalent in many Indian universities. In addition to the ABVP, the RSS also established the Vidya Bharati network of schools, which sought to provide an education rooted in Indian culture and values.


Role in Defending Democracy

A defining moment in the history of the RSS was the Emergency (1975-1977) when then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi suspended civil liberties while the government clamped down on political opposition, censoring the press, and imprisoning thousands of activists and leaders.

The RSS, along with other opposition groups, resisted the Emergency and defended democratic rights. RSS Swayamsevaks were at the forefront of the JP Movement, led by Jayaprakash Narayan, which called for the restoration of democracy and civil liberties. RSS members were arrested and imprisoned, but the organisation continued its activities underground, helping to mobilise public opinion against the government’s authoritarian measures.

The RSS’s role in defending democratic values earned it widespread respect and legitimacy, even among sections of the population that had previously been critical of it.

(The writer is a fellow with Vishwa Samvad Kendra in Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page