How misalignment of implicit governance paradigms shapes the spiral of the unsaid in boards of directors

Abstract Boards of directors are expected to govern through active oversight, constructive challenge, and debate. Yet board dysfunction often arises from tensions that remain unspoken, rather than from overt conflict. We examine how silence emerges and is sustained in boardrooms, and why directors facing the same situations interpret and respond to tensions differently. Drawing on behavioural governance research, we develop the concept of implicit governance paradigms, which refers to taken-for-granted assumptions about the purpose of governance, appropriate director conduct, and the nature of oversight. We use a qualitative research design that combines direct observations of 17 Dutch two-tier boards with 113 retrospective interviews in which directors reflected on the same meetings. This design enables us to capture governance as it unfolds in situ. Our findings suggest that paradoxical tensions are a recurring feature of board governance and can be navigated productively when they are openly recognized. Difficulties arise when directors assume that these tensions can be reconciled without disagreement, often relying on taken-for-granted ideas of what constitutes “good governance”. This assumption produces collective incongruence, a condition in which directors assume alignment while underlying governance paradigms remain unarticulated and are sustained through interaction. We further identify a self-reinforcing process, the Spiral of the Unsaid, through which unspoken tensions become harder to surface in board interaction. By theorizing how competing governance assumptions shape patterns of voice, silence, and alignment, this study advances behavioural governance scholarship and offers a processual account of how board effectiveness is enabled or undermined in practice.