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.)

When Bureaucracy Stymies Security

Updated: Oct 21, 2024

When Bureaucracy Stymies Security
ree

The assassination of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, in Sriperumbudur, and the second attempt on former U.S. President Donald Trump on September 15, 2024, in Florida, illustrate a striking similarity: how bureaucratic inertia can undermine the security of the most threatened individuals.

The second attempt on the life of former US president Donald Trump on 15 September 2024 was foiled by an alert Secret Service (SS) agent who spotted a muzzle of a gun sticking out through the thick foliage while Trump was playing golf. Trump’s sprawling West Palm Beach golf course is next to his iconic Mar-a-Lago mansion in Florida.

Unconfirmed reports said that the agent’s attention was drawn to that portion of the foliage when he heard a cough. When he saw the muzzle, he fired in that direction. Upon this, suspect Ryan Wesley Routh tried to flee through Inter-State 95 but was caught by the police. The Washington Post said that digital footprints of Routh’s cell phone revealed that he had hidden for nearly 12 hours in the bushes around the former president’s golf course. It is not clear whether drones were used to sweep the vast area surrounding Mar-a-Lago.

Normally US security authorities should have taken added precautions to guard the periphery of Trump’s engagements in addition to his proximate security, after the failure of US SS on July 13 in Pennsylvania. On that day Trump escaped death by a whisker when Thomas Crooks, who was hiding in the periphery, shot him, injuring his right ear.

In this background, it was surprising to hear Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw saying on September 15 that “we would have had the entire golf course surrounded” had Trump been the president. “Because he’s not, security is limited to the areas that the Secret Service deems possible.” In other words, security goes only with the rank and not whether the person is the most threatened, as the 1991 Rajiv Gandhi assassination would prove.

SS acting director Ronald Rowe said Trump received its “highest” level of security. Yet the golf course was not checked in advance as it was not in Trump’s official programme. When Trump suddenly decided to go, a security ‘bubble’ checked the area and detected the assailant. However, he did not clarify why drones were not used.

When asked about this, President Joe Biden reportedly said: “The service needs more help. And I think Congress should respond to their need.” This was apparently after Speaker Mike Johnson of US House of Representatives criticised the allocation of manpower to protect Trump.

After the July 13 incident, Johnson had taken serious note of the failures of SS and had held a Congressional hearing which finally led to the resignation of the then Director Kimberly Cheatle on July 23.

A similar bureaucratic failure marked the first serious attempt on Rajiv Gandhi’s life on October 2, 1986, at Raj Ghat. Much like the Florida incident, intelligence warnings had been issued. India’s R&AW had alerted security agencies to an impending attack by a terrorist disguised as a gardener, lurking in the bushes when Gandhi, President Zail Singh and other top leaders would assemble at ‘Rajghat’ to pay homage on Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary. While security forces scoured the area, the assailant, Karamjit Singh, eluded them by hiding in a tree for over 16 hours.

He then fired a few shots at the gathering, causing superficial skin-deep injuries to some, as he had only an old pellet shot weapon. Had he been able to get a more deadly weapon like AK-47, the entire leadership of the country could have been wiped out.

Events preceding Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination on May 21, 1991 resembled the bureaucratic answer given by Sheriff Ric Bradshaw. Although Gandhi demitted power after the December 1989 general election, he was the most threatened person in India. As long as he was PM, he was guarded by the Special Protection Group, (SPG) modelled on the American SS. However, a law passed in 1988 allowed only the PM and family to be protected - not former PMs.

Hence former Minister of State (internal security) in the Congress government wrote to the late G.S. Bajpai, then Security (Security) on 3 February 1990, to extend SPG protection to the Gandhi family.

Documents filed at the Justice Milap Chand Jain Commission enquiring into the failure of Central and State authorities in giving due protection, commensurate with the threats faced by the late prime minister, revealed a cavalier manner with no decision.

Had the Tamil Nadu State organised security commensurate with the threats faced by the late prime minister, they could have ensured a sanitised area around the VIP to prevent unauthorised persons gaining access to the VIP. It was not done, resulting in the ghastly assassination on May 21, 1991.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. He was part of the two-man high level committee, appointed by Maharashtra government to enquire into the police performance during the Mumbai 26/11 terror attacks. Views personal).

Comments

bottom of page