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.)

Waqf Wars and Cracks in the Lotus

The BJP’s campaign against Waqf Board land claims is energizing its base but is instead exposing fault lines within its leadership.

Waqf Wars

The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Karnataka has found its latest battleground to corner the ruling Congress-led government over the contentious issue of Waqf lands. A recent rally in Belagavi led by senior BJP leaders, was the latest in a series of protests accusing the state’s Waqf Board of overreaching its mandate and laying claim to land owned by Hindu farmers and religious institutions. While this campaign has amplified a long-standing grievance among sections of the BJP’s base, it has also laid bare divisions within the party’s state unit.


The anti-Waqf movement, spearheaded by former minister Ramesh Jarkiholi, comes amid allegations that the board has arbitrarily increased its land holdings to over six lakh acres, a figure that BJP leaders contend lacks transparency. Party firebrands such as Basanagouda Patil Yatnal have framed the issue as a threat to property rights, accusing the Waqf Board of targeting Hindu-owned lands.


Historical tensions over Waqf governance are hardly new. Originating as charitable land endowments during Islamic rule, Waqf properties have frequently been the subject of legal and political disputes in modern India. Critics of the current system argue that it lacks oversight and accountability, often leading to allegations of encroachment and corruption. The BJP’s push for reforms echoes similar actions in Andhra Pradesh, where the board’s powers were curtailed under Chandrababu Naidu’s government.


However, what distinguishes Karnataka’s protests is the political theatre surrounding them. Despite the strong turnout of senior BJP figures at the rally—including Jarkiholi, Arvind Limbavali, and Pratap Simha—several local legislators conspicuously stayed away. The absence of unity has fuelled speculation about deeper fractures within the party, particularly as Yatnal continues to publicly criticize state president B.Y. Vijayendra for alleged ‘adjustment politics’ with the ruling Congress government.


Yatnal, a polarizing figure within the BJP, has become emblematic of the party’s internal strife. His vocal dissent, coupled with a show-cause notice issued by the BJP’s Central Disciplinary Committee, underscores the leadership’s struggle to contain rebellion. These tensions were exacerbated by the BJP’s poor performance in recent bypolls, which Yatnal attributed to compromised leadership and backroom deals with Congress.


The Waqf controversy has thus become both a rallying cry and a flashpoint for Karnataka’s BJP. On the one hand, it allows the party to consolidate its Hindu vote base by framing the issue as a matter of property rights and justice. On the other, it seems to be exacerbating internal divisions within the party at a time when unity is critical.


Karnataka has historically been a bellwether state for the BJP, offering a foothold in the south and a proving ground for its ideological narratives. But as the anti-Waqf agitation gathers momentum, the party’s national leadership faces a delicate balancing act: championing its base’s demands for reform while addressing the fractures that threaten to undermine its cohesion.


In this battle over land and legitimacy, the BJP may find that its real challenge lies not in confronting the Waqf Board but in reconciling the contradictions within its own ranks.

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page