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.)

Twenty-four sugar barons test political future

Updated: Nov 12, 2024

sugar barons test

Kolhapur: During the golden age of the cooperative movement in Maharashtra, the chairmanship of a sugar factory often attracted more attention in rural politics than a seat in the Legislative Assembly. It was through the political influence of sugar mills and cotton mills that the Congress party established its foothold in rural areas across the state. However, with the decline of the cooperative movement in recent years, rural political leaders have increasingly turned their focus towards the Assembly elections. As a result, this year, a remarkable 24 sugar barons from western Maharashtra are stepping into the electoral ring to test their political future. The weight of the sugar magnates in the upcoming assembly will largely depend on how much the rural electorate values their support.


The state elections are seeing intense competition in several constituencies, with some areas witnessing a direct contest between two sugar barons, while in others, they are up against candidates from established political parties. In Kolhapur district’s Kagal constituency, the battle between sugar factory chairmen Santaji Ghorpade of the Sarsepanthi Sakhara Cooperative Sugar Mill, currently a minister, and Samrajitsingh Ghatge of the Rajarshi Shahu Cooperative Sugar Mill, widely considered a model in cooperative management, is drawing significant attention. In Shahuwadi-Panhala constituency, former minister and leader of the Warna group, Vinay Kore, is facing off against former MLA Satyajit Patil-Sarudkar.


In Radhanagari-Bhudargad, K.P. Patil of Bidri Sugar Factory, Chandradeep Narke, former MLA from Kumbhi Sugar Factory in Karveer, and Amal Mahadik, chairman of Rajaram Sugar Factory in Kolhapur South, are also locked in fierce battles with their respective rivals.


The fight in Shirol constituency, between Ganpatrao Patil of Datt Sugar Factory and Rajendra Patil-Yadravkar, former state minister and chairman of Sharad Cooperative Sugar Factory, is another key contest.


In Sangli district, the Kadegaon constituency sees Congress’s Vishwajit Kadam facing BJP’s Sangram Deshmukh. The Shirala constituency’s contest between Mansingh Naik and Satyajit Deshmukh is also one to watch closely. In Tasgaon, the high-profile contest between former MP Sanjaykaka Patil of the BJP and the son of former home minister R.R. Patil, Rohit Patil, has been the talk of the town. In Walwa, a key battle is emerging between the NCP’s state president Jayant Patil and Nishikant Patil.


In Satara district, the Karhad South constituency is witnessing a high-stakes contest between Atul Bhosale and Balasaheb Patil from Karhad North, while the battle in Patan constituency involves sitting minister Shambhuraje Desai, and Shivendra Raje Bhosale contesting from Satara city. Wai constituency sees Makrand Patil gearing up for a tough fight, while in Maan constituency, the fight between Jaykumar Gore and Prabhakar Ghatge is expected to be a neck-and-neck affair.

Comments

bottom of page