When protecting your peace starts looking suspiciously like controlling someone else's behaviour.
I've been thinking about boundaries lately. Not because I believe we need fewer of them, but because I'm beginning to wonder whether we've become so enthusiastic about setting them that we've forgotten what they're actually for.
Boundaries have become part of our everyday vocabulary. We hear about them in leadership conversations, relationships, workplaces and social media feeds. We're encouraged to establish them, communicate them, defend them and, when necessary, walk away from anyone who refuses to respect them.
Much of that advice is valuable. Some of it is even liberating.
But somewhere along the way, I think we've started confusing boundaries with instructions.
And that distinction matters.
A Boundary Is About What I Will Do
Imagine someone repeatedly interrupts you during meetings. You're frustrated, understandably. You want to contribute, and you deserve the opportunity to finish a thought without being talked over.
You might say, "My boundary is that you need to stop interrupting me."
Except that's not really a boundary. That's a request about someone else's behaviour. A perfectly reasonable request, perhaps, but still a request.
A boundary sounds different.
"When I'm interrupted, I'll ask to finish my thought. If the interruptions continue, I'll raise the issue with the meeting facilitator or choose a different way to contribute."
Notice the difference?
The first statement places responsibility for your boundary entirely in someone else's hands. The second identifies what you will do to protect your ability to participate.
One attempts to direct another person's behaviour. The other establishes your own response.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't ask people to change their behaviour. Of course we should. Healthy relationships and effective teams depend on people being willing to listen, negotiate and adjust.
But asking someone to change isn't the same as setting a boundary. And calling a demand a boundary doesn't magically make it one.
When the Language of Self-Protection Becomes a Tool of Control
Here's where things get particularly interesting.
We live in a time when psychological language is increasingly accessible. Words like triggered, toxic, gaslighting, trauma and boundaries have moved from specialized conversations into everyday discourse.
Greater awareness can be a wonderful thing. Language helps us recognize experiences we may previously have struggled to describe.
But language can also give us a sense of authority we haven't necessarily earned.
When someone says, "You're violating my boundaries," the conversation can suddenly become difficult to challenge. Nobody wants to be the person accused of disrespecting someone's emotional safety.
And yet, what if the so-called boundary is actually an expectation that another person agree with us? What if it's a demand that they avoid difficult questions, suppress their opinions or organize their behaviour around our discomfort?
Discomfort isn't always evidence of harm.
Sometimes discomfort is what happens when another human being has a different perspective, a competing need or the audacity to say no.
That's not automatically a violation.
That's being human together.
Leadership Makes This Even More Complicated
In leadership, boundaries are essential. We need clarity around responsibilities, availability, decision-making authority, respectful conduct and the limits of what people can reasonably be expected to give.
But leaders also have power.
And power changes the equation.
A leader who says, "My boundary is that I won't tolerate negativity," might believe they're protecting a positive workplace culture. Their team, however, may hear something entirely different: disagreement is unwelcome, difficult feedback is dangerous and raising concerns could carry consequences.
Suddenly, a boundary becomes a convenient way to silence people.
I've seen variations of this throughout my career. I've also had to confront the ways my own certainty and expectations have influenced the people around me.
It's remarkably easy to believe we're protecting something important when we're actually protecting ourselves from being challenged.
That realization isn't particularly comfortable.
But it's useful.
A leader can establish standards for respectful communication without demanding emotional agreement. They can insist on accountability without requiring enthusiasm. They can create expectations around professional conduct while leaving room for disagreement, frustration and honest questions.
The distinction is between creating conditions for people to work together and attempting to control how everyone experiences those conditions.
One is leadership.
The other may simply be control dressed in more fashionable language.
And Sometimes a Boundary Really Does Mean Leaving
I want to be careful here because the distinction I'm making should never become an excuse to dismiss someone's need for protection.
There are circumstances where another person's behaviour is harmful, threatening, abusive or persistently disrespectful. In those situations, a boundary may involve limiting contact, reporting misconduct, ending a relationship or removing yourself from an environment altogether.
You do not have to negotiate your safety to prove you're reasonable.
Nor does setting a boundary require giving someone unlimited opportunities to demonstrate that they won't respect it.
But even then, the boundary concerns the choices available to you. It establishes what you will accept, what you will do and what consequences follow from continued behaviour.
It doesn't give you ownership over another person's decisions.
And sometimes that is the hardest part.
We can communicate clearly, act consistently and make thoughtful choices about our own participation. We cannot guarantee that someone else will understand, agree or change.
A boundary isn't a promise that other people will behave differently.
It's a commitment to how we will respond if they don't.
The Question Worth Asking
Before announcing a boundary, I wonder what might happen if we asked ourselves a few uncomfortable questions.
Am I identifying something I need to protect, or am I trying to make someone else more comfortable for me to deal with?
Am I prepared to take responsibility for my own response, or am I placing that responsibility on someone else?
Am I communicating a limit, making a request or issuing an ultimatum?
And perhaps most importantly, am I willing to extend the same respect for another person's autonomy that I'm asking them to extend to mine?
Because other people have boundaries too.
They get to disagree. They get to decline. They get to decide that the relationship, arrangement or expectation no longer works for them.
That doesn't automatically make either person the villain.
It makes them two humans navigating the complicated business of being separate people.
And I think that's where some of our most important growth happens.
Not in learning how to make everyone respect our boundaries, but in learning how to respect ourselves without attempting to manage everyone else.
Your boundaries are yours to honour. They are not everyone else's instructions to follow.
That's not an argument against boundaries.
It's an invitation to practise them with a little more clarity, humility and responsibility.
And perhaps a little more feistiness.
Forward, with purpose.
The Feisty Human
If this reflection stayed with you, explore The Feisty Human: Recipes for Becoming Someone You Don’t Have to Negotiate.
Enjoyed this essay? Connect with me on LinkedIn or join the email list below to receive every new edition.
