Third sector organisations, including social enterprises (SEs), are facing significant challenges. Primarily, this is because they are often engaged in contracting with the public sector and many are dependent on grant funding streams at risk of being cut during turbulent economic times. In the United Kingdom, these conditions are embellished by contemporary political discourse that further integrates the future of the Third sector with the changing provision of services by the welfare state (Cabinet Office 2008). SEs are going to play a particularly active role in the implementation of emergent public policy. Within this context, this paper presents the findings of a small-scale study of Social Firms, a type of SE. In particular, the paper presents an analysis of attitudes towards one of the key organisational functions, namely governance. The key research question this study aims to resolve is: how do Board and non-Board member attitudes to governance issues vary? Since a level of change in orientation is anticipated of UK SEs, it is timely to survey some of the internal perspectives to such changes. Drawing on the main definitional themes commonly used in social enterprise research, the study outlines four key propositions relating to the expected features of SE governance. Key internal tensions between Board and non-Board members are revealed over issues such as legitimacy, accountability, democracy and enterprise-focus. Notably, the number and type of staff, and the presence of a social audit, also pose significant tensions to the governance of Social Firms. Mindful of the difficulties associated with generalising across SE types, the implications position the UK SE sector between the entrepreneurial model common in the USA and the traditional social model prevalent in mainland Europe. The paper enhances SE governance theory by addressing the accepted tenets of SE in light of the attitudes of people managing the organisation. By highlighting how governance legitimacy is led less by social benefit and accountability, we begin to understand the challenges facing Board members in integrating their workforce more closely with core, social and entrepreneurial, values.