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.)

Turncoats Hold Key in Western Maharashtra Contest

Updated: Oct 22, 2024

Western Maharashtra

Sharad Pawar, the Machiavelli of Maharashtra’s politics, has once again demonstrated his strategic prowess by undermining his nephew Ajit Pawar and disrupting the ruling Mahayuti coalition as the Assembly polls inch closer. Having already engineered political splits that thwarted the Mahayuti’s performance in key constituencies during the Lok Sabha election, the elder Pawar is now setting his sights on ensuring similar chaos in the upcoming election.


The Mahayuti is facing growing internal strife in the ‘sugar heartland’ of western Maharashtra owing to defections from the ruling BJP and Ajit Pawar’s NCP to Pawar senior’s NCP (SP).


By exploiting local rivalries, Pawar senior has significantly weakened Ajit Pawar’s position within the Mahayuti, especially in Assembly constituencies within Baramati, Kolhapur and Solapur.


Harshavardhan Patil, a former Congressman-turned-BJP leader from Indapur (in Baramati) and bitter rival of Ajit Pawar, recently quit the BJP to rejoin Sharad’s camp. Patil’s had major grievances when the Ajit-led NCP faction had aligned itself with the ruling BJP-Shinde Sena last year.


A seeming rapprochement between Ajit Pawar and Harshavardhan Patil was effected by state BJP leader Devendra Fadnavis ahead of the Lok Sabha polls to ensure that Patil campaigned wholeheartedly for Ajit’s wife, Sunetra Pawar, who was fielded from the Baramati Lok Sabha seat as the Mahayuti’s candidate. However, Sunetra Pawar crashed in Baramati contests, losing to her sister-in-law, Supriya Sule.


Besides securing the adhesion of the disgruntled Patil, Sharad Pawar recently poached Sanjeev Raje Naik-Nimbalkar, the brother of Ramraje Naik Nimbalkar, a senior member of Ajit’s faction and a prominent figure in the Phaltan region.


In September, Pawar senior managed to engineer the defection of BJP leader from Kolhapur Samarjeet Ghatge, said to be close to Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Ghatge has been seething ever since his arch-rival Hasan Mushrif, a cabinet minister and another key member in the Ajit Pawar-led NCP, aligned himself with the ruling coalition in wake of Ajit’s rebellion.


Ajit Pawar’s decision to split the NCP founded by his uncle, Sharad Pawar, last year and join forces with the BJP last year seemed like a bold move to stake his claim in Maharashtra’s political landscape. But the uneasy alliance has been more of a liability than an asset for both Ajit and the Mahayuti.


The cracks in the Mahayuti alliance became starkly visible in the immediate aftermath of the recent Lok Sabha election, with Ajit Pawar’s faction winning just one of the four seats it contested - a poor showing that tarnished his image as a kingmaker. Secondly, the undivided NCP’s traditional vote bank—Marathas, Muslims, Dalits, and a section of OBCs—has not fully transferred to the BJP, leaving Ajit’s faction vulnerable within the coalition.


BJP leaders in western Maharashtra, once sworn adversaries of the undivided NCP, have expressed unease at having to compromise with Ajit’s faction which was a Johnny-come-lately in the Mahayuti bandwagon. Such leaders have been resolutely opposed to shaking hands with NCP leaders of Ajit’s faction, whom they had hitherto bitterly fought against. This is the chink in the Mahayuti armour that Sharad Pawar has sought to exploit with remarkable success.

Comments

bottom of page