I recorded this article so you can listen to it or read it. It runs about 5 minutes.
Many directors are familiar with a moment like this as a motion is put. The chair asks whether there are any concerns. Nobody speaks. Someone turns a page, and after a few seconds the motion passes. The minutes will record the decision as unanimous, and afterwards we may wonder what the silence held.
A board can bring together directors with sound judgement, sustained attention and a willingness to listen, yet its collective judgement will still depend on what happens between them. How a concern enters the room, how a paper frames a decision and whether a question changes the course of a discussion all shape what the board is able to see.
In our survey of 185 Australian directors, reported in our chapter in the new Elgar Encyclopedia of Wisdom Research, Justin Brienza, Vince Murdoch and I asked directors about their own attention during board meetings and about their sense of the board as a whole. Each was serving on at least one board and came to the study through Australian governance networks and director associations.
The analysis showed that mindfulness in the boardroom takes two distinct forms. We called the first 'Embodied Mindfulness'. It concerns a director’s own inner state in the meeting, captured in items such as “I pay attention to my body during the board meeting”. We called the second 'Group Attunement'. It concerns a director’s sense of the board as a whole, captured in items such as “I am aware of the group dynamic” and “I am aware of the various agendas in the meeting” (King, Brienza & Murdoch, 2026, p. 390).
Both forms were related to wisdom, which we measured with the Adult Self-Transcendence Inventory (r = .33 for Embodied Mindfulness and r = .23 for Group Attunement). Only Embodied Mindfulness was related to general mindfulness, as measured with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (r = .28). Group Attunement showed almost no relationship with general mindfulness (r = .03).
That last result is the one for us all to consider. A director can be attentive, calm and self-aware, and those qualities tell us little about whether they are reading the room. Group Attunement behaved like a separate capacity, a form of social mindfulness. As we wrote, “This form of ‘social mindfulness’ is what allows a director to discern the difference between authentic consensus and compliant silence, or to notice when a critical issue is being avoided” (King, Brienza & Murdoch, 2026, p. 392).
The finding unsettles a familiar view in leadership development. “Our results challenge the prevailing assumption in leadership research that mindfulness is a unitary, individual capability” (p. 393). This matters because mindfulness training for leaders begins and ends with the individual. This is not enough for effective governance. The boardroom demands attention to the board itself; therefore, leaders must develop both individual and collective broader mindfulness skills.
Neither form of mindfulness is enough alone given the complexity of governance. A board where every director attends closely to the group can slide into groupthink, with harmony prized above judgement. A board where every director attends only to their own view can fragment into parallel monologues and uncoordinated action. In the chapter we put it this way. “It is in the balancing of self-awareness (Embodied Mindfulness) and social-awareness (Group Attunement) that directors can avoid both egocentric, rigid decision-making and passive, compliant groupthink” (p. 393).
The balance works well as a mental skill practice. Directors can learn to notice where their attention rests, widen it to the table, and move between the two as a discussion unfolds.
The findings come from self-report, so they show how directors see themselves and their boards. The sample was Australian, and the majority of participants served on non-profit or unlisted boards. The Group Attunement scale also had low reliability (Cronbach’s alpha of .54), so the construct is not yet fully captured and should be read with care. However, the distinction between attending to oneself and attending to the board is clear enough to use in practice while the measurement improves.
Attunement also depends on what surrounds the directors. An agenda gives some items time, and places others late in the meeting. A risk dashboard decides which changes appear side by side. A paper can invite inquiry through the questions it sets out and the uncertainty it makes visible. A board’s attention emerges from people and the materials provided, together.
In our work on Mindful Chairship, presented at EGOS in July 2026, Justin Brienza, Vince Murdoch and I describe the chair as the steward of the board’s collective attention, the person who tends these conditions. We sketch four modes for that work: Executor, Connector, Strategist and Steward. A later piece will return to them in further detail.
The Encyclopedia chapter offers two short process checks that a board can use during a long or contentious discussion (King, Brienza & Murdoch, 2026, p. 394). The first draws on Group Attunement. “Are we missing any perspectives in this discussion?” The second draws on Embodied Mindfulness. “Do we need a few minutes to review the materials before deciding?” Neither takes long, and both turn a silence into information.
We also wrote that “If wisdom is the goal, mindfulness is a primary pathway to achieving it” (p. 385). For a board, that pathway runs through both forms of attention, that of each director, and that of the board’s shared sense of itself.
At your next meeting, when the chair asks for concerns and the room says nothing, notice the silence. Is it agreement, or has nobody yet checked?
Discover your Director Score. It is an individual survey of your own mindful practice as a director. It provides 18 questions that take under ten minutes to complete, and is a useful place to start before your next board meeting.
We have attached a one-page guide outlining the two forms of attention. Take it to your next board meeting and observe the activity around you. The guide sets out the findings, the balance between the two forms, and the questions to ask before a vote if you are wondering about the silence.
Thank you for reading or listening. I hope your next board meeting is one where every voice is heard
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
King, E. L., Brienza, J. P., & Murdoch, V. (2026). A new framework for measuring two key dimensions of mindfulness in the boardroom. In D. Rooney, J. P. Brienza, A. Intezari, & E. L. King (Eds.), Elgar encyclopedia of wisdom research (pp. 380–398). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035302628
King, E., Brienza, J. P., & Murdoch, V. (2026, July). Enacting collective wisdom: The practice of Mindful Chairship in the integrated boardroom [Conference paper]. EGOS 2026 Colloquium, Sub-theme 53: Responsible Management-as-Practice in More-than-Human Organisations, Bergamo, Italy.
Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., & Shiraishi, R. W. (2005). Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 60(2), 127–143. https://doi.org/10.2190/XRXM-FYRA-7U0X-GRC0