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.)

We Bought the Tools, So Why Didn’t Our Operations Improve?

Tech only amplifies what you have designed; it does not design for you.


ree

In Indian epics, there’s a character named Karna, one of the greatest warriors, with celestial weapons gifted by the gods. But when the moment came, he couldn’t summon them. Why? Because he hadn’t done the inner work, he had forgotten the invocation.

 

Operations, at scale, work the same way. You can have the best tools, the slickest dashboards, and AI auto-tagging, but if you haven’t done the work of design, of clarity, handoffs, escalation, and roles, the tools won’t show up for you. They’ll sit there, like Karna’s weapons—dormant.

 

Over the past two years, we’ve seen Indian SMEs undergo a wave of digitisation:

  • ERPs for stock and finance

  • CRMs for leads and follow-up

  • Notion and ClickUp for task flows


These tools promise scale, and they do unlock it if you’ve earned the right to use them. But in most teams we meet, here’s what’s really happening:

  • Tasks are logged but not owned

  • Dashboards show lags, but no one acts.

  • Automations exist but require manual nudges.


What looks like tech maturity is often just process confusion in high definition.

 

A Story from the Showroom Floor

One of our clients, an automotive parts chain, adopted a cloud POS and real-time inventory tracker across three cities. On paper, it was a game-changer, but two months in, the same issues returned:

  • Wrong orders dispatched

  • No clarity on who fixes the mismatch

  • Senior team jumping in to firefight


The culprit?

Everyone was using the system, but no one had redesigned how decisions flowed.


The tool was fast, and the ops logic was not. And similar to Karna in battle, the moment the crisis hit, the system didn’t show up.

 

Why This Happens So Often?

Here’s the silent mistake: Most teams deploy tools to solve for scale. But tools don’t solve; they amplify. If your logic is broken, the tech will amplify the chaos. If your roles are fuzzy, the CRM will just make confusion trackable. And the scariest part? Good tech masks bad design beautifully, making things look professional, even as they’re dysfunctional.

 

A Simple Test: Karna vs. Krishna

Ask yourself:

  • When a mistake happens, does your team know who rethinks the system?

  • Does your dashboard spark questions, or is it just reporting?

  • Can a new joiner understand the logic, not just the tool?


If the answer to any of these is “hmm… not really,” your tools are leading you, and that’s not what scaling needs. Scale needs clarity before complexity, rhythm before reporting, and most of all, design before deployment.

 

So, what should you do instead?

Here’s the 3-level approach we recommend:

1. Design the flow without the tool first.

Use whiteboards, post-its, and tables in Word. If the logic isn’t clear on paper, it won’t survive automation


2. Assign roles before you assign permissions.

Every field, tag, and status must map to a person. If ownership isn’t visible, tools will only create noise.


3. Run one process offline.

Before launching your shiny dashboard, simulate the entire process without it. Let the team feel what “good ops” feels like, not just what good UI looks like.

 

Founders often ask, "Should we wait till we grow more to invest in tech?" That’s the wrong question. The right question is, “Have we earned the tech yet?” Because tools don’t fix what you haven’t designed. They just show you what you’ve ignored in colour-coded charts.


(The author is a co-founder at PPS Consulting. He is a business transformation consultant. He could be reached at rahul@ppsconsulting.biz.)

Comments

bottom of page