Deciding on the strategic direction of a corporation is complex and increasingly so in the volatility, uncertainty, and ambiguity that characterises the strategic options facing a company today. Faced with this complexity, the model of governance, which has largely remained unchanged for many decades, raises several important questions. Economic theories of corporate governance have held sway for over three decades and have exerted considerable influence on board studies and writings on the subject. In particular the agency paradigm and its assumptions, has de-emphasised the human side of governance, which may be better explained by drawing on theories in social psychology.In the existing literature on boards and board dynamics, the internal context in which the board director works, has been inferred from structural or compositional factors such as number of independent directors. However, we know for instance that independence of a board director does not guarantee independent mindedness. In enacting their advisory role, directors shape strategy by engaging in behaviours that include for example testing ideas, questioning assumptions, evaluating strategic logic, raising concerns, weighting risks and offering encouragement. Despite the quality of such interpersonal interactions playing a vital role, board research has adopted an "under-socialised" view of boards, failing to recognise boards as complex social systems, embedded in complex power asymmetries and role and group identity affects. Drawing from theories in the field of social psychology, the author uniquely examines the human side of corporate governance recognising the role that identities, interests and interactions between board directors plays.