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 Baloch Struggle and Conflict with Pakistan

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Baloch

Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest province by area, has a rich and complex history. Until its forced inclusion into Pakistan in 1948, Balochistan was an autonomous region comprising princely states with its unique culture and language.

There have been multiple waves of uprisings in the 1950s, 1970s, and early 2000s—seeking greater autonomy or independence, resulting in longstanding tensions with the Pakistani state. Balochistan also witnessed widespread protests in July and August this year.


The Root Causes of the Conflict

One of the primary grievances of the Baloch people is their demand for political autonomy. Many Baloch nationalists argue that the region has historically been denied a fair share of power within Pakistan’s federal structure and that their rights to self-governance have been systematically undermined.

Despite being resource-rich and possessing natural gas, coal, gold, and minerals, Balochistan remains one of Pakistan’s poorest regions. The local population alleges that the Pakistani state exploits the province’s natural resources while providing minimal economic benefits or development for the Baloch people. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a key infrastructure project, has only intensified these concerns. The local Baloch community feels that they are being excluded from economic gains and that the development is focused more on strategic and commercial interests than on local welfare.

Balochistan has seen frequent military operations aimed at suppressing dissent and combating insurgent groups. Human rights organisations have reported allegations of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary arrests of activists, students, and political leaders. This heavy-handed approach has deepened the distrust between the Baloch people and the Pakistani state.

The Baloch are an ethnic minority within Pakistan, with their own language, culture, and customs. Many Baloch activists feel that the Baloch identity is being suppressed, leading to a fear of losing their cultural heritage and language.


The Current Situation

Various Baloch armed groups, such as the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), have been waging a low-intensity insurgency against the Pakistani government. Their demands range from greater autonomy and resource control to full independence. These groups have targeted government installations, infrastructure projects, and security forces.

In response, the Pakistani state has deployed military and paramilitary forces. Counter-insurgency operations have focused on dismantling militant networks but have also been criticised for human rights violations. Development projects under CPEC are meant to bring economic growth to the region, but there is concern that they might exacerbate local grievances if not managed inclusively.

Ordinary Baloch citizens often find themselves caught between insurgent groups and state forces. The ongoing violence and military presence have disrupted daily life, contributing to a sense of insecurity and socio-economic stagnation.


The International Angle

The Baloch struggle has started to receive international attention, partly due to the efforts of the Baloch diaspora. Protests like the recent one in Geneva aim to shine a spotlight on human rights violations and political repression in Balochistan. These protests emphasise the need for global intervention and a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.

The strategic location of Balochistan, particularly with the development of the Gwadar port and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), has attracted attention from key international stakeholders like China, which has major investments in CPEC; the United States, concerned about regional security; India, with its geopolitical interests in the region; and Iran, as a neighbouring country affected by regional dynamics.

China is deeply involved in Balochistan through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multi-billion dollar infrastructure project to enhance connectivity between Gwadar Port and China. China’s investments in the region make it a key player interested in ensuring stability for the success of its economic ventures.

On the other hand, India views Balochistan through a strategic and geopolitical lens, particularly due to its rivalry with Pakistan. It has expressed concern over human rights abuses in the region and has hinted at supporting the Baloch cause as a counterbalance to Pakistan’s involvement in Kashmir.


Future Outlook

The ongoing insurgency reflects a deep-seated frustration over political and economic disempowerment. While some advocate for negotiations and reforms to address Baloch’s grievances, others believe the conflict will persist if the demands for autonomy and resource control are not adequately addressed. This divide within the Baloch nationalist movement has broader implications for regional stability, given Balochistan’s strategic location and natural resources.


A Path Forward

The Baloch conflict is a complex and multilayered issue that must address the root causes—political representation, economic equity, human rights, and cultural preservation. While the protest in Geneva and the international attention it garnered highlight the urgent issue, it remains to be seen whether the global community can play a constructive role in facilitating dialogue and promoting a just and lasting resolution for all parties involved.

(The writer is an IT professional. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page