Directors and boards face many challenges in terms of managing complexity. A key factor of success in practising good corporate governance is the board's ability to cope with paradox. The purpose of this research has been to explore the core corporate governance dilemmas facing boards. The investigation was qualitative in nature using the Delphi technique. Six core corporate governance dilemmas facing board members were identified one of which is not mentioned in the international literature. The findings should provide directors with an ability to identify the nature of the paradoxes to which they need to respond. JEL L20; M101 Introduction Sundaramurthy & Lewis (2003) highlight that the governance of a modern corporation is an intricate challenge in that it is characterised by competing needs and perspectives, and that it is imperative that these competing needs be embraced in practice and theory. The expectations and tasks of directors within the corporate governance process often lead to the necessity to manage dilemmas; to hold an adequate balance between social goals and economic goals, and between communal and individual goals, and to align the interests of the organisation, society and all stakeholders. Many authors emphasise the need for dilemma management in current times of diversity and change (Berry & Hülsmann, 2004). Dilemma management originated from Japanese management approaches in the early 1980s, where the ability to cope with paradox was a key factor to success (Berry & Hülsmann, 2004).According to Garratt (1996) dilemmas arise due to the complex role of directors, part of which entails dealing with many decisions that are contradictory in nature. Typically, dilemmas are defined as two extreme options, elements or propositions that are opposite to each other and imply conflicting gains. A balance or tradeoff must be achieved between these options, elements or propositions (Minkes, Small & Chatterjee, 1999; University of Cambridge, 2002;Carter & Lorsch, 2003;Garratt, 2003 andHampden-Turner, 2003). Sundaramurthy & Lewis (2003) believe that it is important that current governance issues be reframed to move beyond either/or thinking thus advocating a balanced perspective. They suggest that research be conducted to understand the dynamic balance among governance imperatives. Carter and Lorsch (2003) assert that unresolved contradictions in board design have never been acknowledged. They draw attention to the fact that such contradictions have not made it onto the radars or agendas of boards. SAJEMS NS 12 (2009) No 2 195The purpose of the research is to identify and rank order the core corporate governance dilemmas facing boards. The results of the research can be drawn on by both executive and non-executive directors to understand the dualities that they are faced with in executing their duties. Literature reviewGlobal institutional investors consider board practices as important as financial performance in evaluating companies for potential investment (Sheng, 2003). In support of this po...

No abstract