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 Wrong Target

By threatening India with secondary sanctions over its ties with Russia, the West exposes its double standards and risks alienating one of its few true democratic partners in Asia.

Mark Rutte
Mark Rutte

It is a curious spectacle when the world’s strongest democracy lectures the world’s largest on strategic morality. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s recent warning that India (along with Brazil and China) could be hit “very hard” by secondary sanctions if it continues doing business with Russia reeks of a familiar condescension. Coming hot on the heels of President Donald Trump’s announcement of a new 50-day deadline for a Ukraine peace deal, with tariffs of up to 100 percent hanging over Russian trade partners, the message was toe the Western line.

 

For India, the implied threat is galling. For decades, it has walked a careful tightrope between East and West, rooted not in opportunism but in a principled pursuit of strategic autonomy. That Delhi imports Russian oil is no secret; it does so not to bankroll Vladimir Putin’s war machine, but to protect its own economic interests in an inflation-prone, energy-starved developing economy. Moreover, unlike China, India is no revisionist power. It has neither enabled Russia militarily nor undermined the Western sanctions regime. If anything, India has emerged as a rare voice that can speak with both Moscow and Washington and be heard across the world.

 

The irony, of course, is that America and NATO now choose to single out India while continuing to mollycoddle Pakistan - China’s closest ally in the region, a nuclear-armed state with a military-dominated polity, and a long-standing haven for terror groups. For years, successive U.S. administrations have poured billions into Pakistan’s military establishment in the name of counterterrorism only to watch its generals shelter the Taliban, enable cross-border terrorism in India (as in the recent Pahalgam massacre) and deepen defence cooperation with Beijing.

 

In contrast, India has stood by the West on every fundamental value – be it democracy, rule of law, open markets and yet faces threats of punitive tariffs. If the West wants to preserve the global order it claims to defend, it would do well to treat India as a partner, not a subordinate.

 

The notion that New Delhi can simply be strong-armed into severing ties with Moscow reveals a deeper, post-Cold War Western anxiety.

 

India has legitimate defence needs that cannot yet be met by Western suppliers alone. Around 60–70 percent of India’s military hardware is still of Russian origin - an inheritance from Cold War alignments born out of necessity, when the West chose Pakistan over India. And despite all the talk of de-risking from authoritarian supply chains, India has yet to see the kind of strategic technology transfers or manufacturing partnerships from the West that would enable a full pivot.

 

This is not to suggest that India is indifferent to the Ukraine war. It has called repeatedly for diplomacy, refrained from recognising Russia’s annexations, and provided humanitarian assistance to Kyiv. But Delhi’s neutrality is not an endorsement of Russian aggression.


Trump’s new 50-day ultimatum, accompanied by Rutte’s cheerleading, will likely fall flat in South Block. Not because India supports Russia, but because it sees through the US’ hypocrisy.


NATO nations continue to import Russian gas by proxy; European firms quietly circumvent sanctions through third countries. The same West that demands India sacrifice its economic security did not flinch when arming autocracies in West Asia or coddling China until it was too late.

 

If the Western alliance believes that coercive diplomacy will bring India into line, it is badly mistaken. Far from isolating Russia, it risks pushing India away into a more assertive non-alignment, one that resists bullying from either pole. And that would be a strategic loss for the West.

 

For the world’s liberal democracies to prevail against authoritarianism, unity must be forged through trust, not tariffs. The sooner NATO realises this, the better. Because if it alienates India today, it will find itself dangerously alone tomorrow.

Comments

bottom of page