What Are the Two Main Types of Meetings? Understanding Formal and Informal Business Gatherings

Understanding what are the two main types of meetings has become essential knowledge for professionals navigating modern business environments where effective communication determines organizational success. Research indicates that executives report forty-five percent of meeting agendas lack clear purpose, while seventy-one percent of senior managers consider most meetings inefficient and ineffective. These alarming statistics reflect fundamental misunderstanding about meeting types and when to deploy each format appropriately. The two primary meeting categories represent distinct approaches to bringing people together for collaboration, decision-making, information sharing, and problem-solving, video conferencing solutions in Oakland.

The classification of meetings into two main types helps organizations optimize their gathering effectiveness by matching meeting format to actual objectives and circumstances. These categories encompass formal meetings characterized by structured agendas, official protocols, and documented outcomes, and informal meetings featuring more flexible approaches, collaborative discussions, and adaptive formats. Mastering the distinctions between these types, recognizing appropriate applications for each, and implementing best practices for conducting both formal and informal gatherings enables professionals to maximize meeting productivity while minimizing the waste that costs businesses an estimated thirty-seven billion dollars annually through unproductive meetings.

Formal Meetings: Structured and Regulated Gatherings

Formal meetings represent the first major type of business gathering, characterized by highly structured formats, established protocols, and regulatory compliance requirements that distinguish them from their informal counterparts. These meetings serve critical functions in organizational governance, strategic decision-making, and official communications where documentation, accountability, and legal compliance prove essential. Understanding formal meetings requires examining their defining characteristics, appropriate applications, required components, and best practices for execution.

The defining characteristic of formal meetings involves their adherence to predetermined structures and official protocols that govern how meetings proceed from beginning to conclusion. Formal meetings take place for the purpose of achieving a common stated objective, feature predefined agendas distributed in advance specifying discussion topics and time allocations, require formally documented minutes that capture discussions and decisions in standardized formats, involve specifically assigned roles including chairpersons and secretaries with defined responsibilities, and follow established procedures for discussions, voting, and decision-making processes. These structural elements distinguish formal meetings from casual conversations or ad-hoc gatherings, creating frameworks that ensure important business gets conducted systematically and transparently.

The legal and regulatory context surrounding formal meetings adds another dimension distinguishing them from informal gatherings. In many jurisdictions, specific types of formal meetings must comply with statutory requirements governing how organizations conduct official business. In the United Kingdom, the Companies Act of 2006 establishes legal frameworks for formal company meetings including board meetings and shareholder gatherings. These regulations specify requirements for notice periods, quorum thresholds, voting procedures, and record-keeping that organizations must follow to maintain legal compliance. The formal meeting structure provides frameworks supporting these compliance obligations while creating audit trails documenting how decisions were made and who participated.

Board meetings represent perhaps the most recognizable category of formal meetings, bringing together organization directors to oversee management, approve major decisions, review organizational performance, and fulfill governance responsibilities. These high-stakes gatherings typically occur on predetermined schedules ranging from monthly to quarterly intervals, follow strict agendas covering financial reports, strategic initiatives, policy approvals, and other board business, require comprehensive documentation including meeting minutes that become official corporate records, and involve voting procedures with recorded outcomes documenting how directors voted on various resolutions. The formal structure of board meetings ensures directors fulfill their fiduciary duties while maintaining transparent records of governance activities.

Management meetings represent another common formal meeting type, convening senior leaders to review departmental performance, make strategic decisions, allocate resources, and align organizational direction. These meetings typically occur monthly or quarterly, depending on organizational needs and management structures. The agenda usually includes updates from each department on performance against targets, evaluation of progress toward annual goals, discussions of strategic initiatives requiring cross-functional coordination, and votes on key decisions including budget allocations, policy implementations, or significant operational changes. The formal nature ensures management decisions get documented properly and communicated clearly throughout organizations.

Strategy meetings bring together organizational leaders to determine long-term direction, set objectives for upcoming periods, and make high-level decisions about competitive positioning and resource allocation. These formal gatherings may occur annually or quarterly, involving the most senior stakeholders from each department or division who collectively shape organizational strategy. The formal structure ensures strategic decisions receive thorough consideration, diverse perspectives get incorporated, and final strategies get documented comprehensively for implementation throughout organizations. The outcomes of strategy meetings cascade down through organizational hierarchies, guiding departmental planning and individual objectives.

Annual general meetings and shareholder meetings represent legally mandated formal gatherings for many organizations, particularly publicly traded companies. These meetings provide forums where shareholders exercise ownership rights, elect directors, approve major corporate actions, and receive updates on organizational performance. The formal protocols governing these meetings ensure fairness, transparency, and legal compliance while creating official records of shareholder decisions. The structured format accommodates potentially large numbers of participants while maintaining order and ensuring important business gets completed efficiently.

The planning and preparation required for formal meetings significantly exceeds that needed for informal gatherings. Organizations must schedule formal meetings well in advance, sometimes up to a year ahead, ensuring key participants can attend and adequate preparation time exists. Detailed agendas get developed specifying not just topics for discussion but time allocations for each item, supporting documents that participants should review beforehand, and specific votes or decisions scheduled for consideration. These agendas get distributed to participants days or weeks before meetings, providing time for thorough preparation. Supporting documents including financial reports, proposals, policy drafts, and analysis get compiled and distributed, enabling informed discussions and decision-making.

Role assignment represents another formal meeting characteristic distinguishing them from informal gatherings. Every attendee has a clearly defined role and purpose for being present, with no one showing up accidentally or without specific reason for participation. The chairperson or meeting leader guides discussions, maintains order, ensures agenda items get addressed appropriately, and facilitates voting procedures. The secretary or minute-taker documents proceedings, capturing key discussions, decisions made, votes recorded, and action items assigned. Other participants may have specific responsibilities including presenting reports, leading discussions on particular topics, or representing specific stakeholder groups. This role clarity ensures meetings operate efficiently with everyone understanding their responsibilities and contributions.

Documentation requirements for formal meetings create comprehensive records that serve multiple purposes including legal compliance, organizational memory, accountability tracking, and communication to stakeholders who didn’t attend. Meeting minutes follow standardized formats using formal language to document who attended, what topics were discussed, what decisions were made including vote counts when applicable, what action items were assigned with responsible parties and deadlines, and when the next meeting will occur. These minutes become official organizational records, often requiring approval at subsequent meetings before being finalized. The documentation creates audit trails essential for governance, compliance, and accountability purposes while ensuring knowledge about decisions and rationale gets preserved.

Voting procedures in formal meetings follow established protocols ensuring decisions get made fairly and transparently. Unlike informal meetings where consensus might emerge through discussion or simple shows of hands, formal meetings typically employ recorded votes where each participant’s position gets documented. Voting methods might include roll call votes identifying how each person voted, written ballots for sensitive decisions, or electronic voting systems providing immediate tallies. The results get recorded in meeting minutes, creating permanent records of how decisions were made and who supported various positions. Some decisions may require specific vote thresholds like simple majorities, supermajorities, or unanimous consent depending on organizational bylaws and the nature of decisions being made.

The advantages of formal meetings justify their structured nature and extensive preparation requirements for appropriate scenarios. The clear structure keeps discussions focused and ensures all agenda items receive appropriate attention within scheduled timeframes. Participants arrive prepared because they know what topics will be discussed and what decisions need making, improving discussion quality and decision effectiveness. The documentation creates accountability by clearly recording what was decided, who was responsible for implementation, and what deadlines applied. The professional atmosphere signals the importance of topics being addressed, encouraging participants to bring their best thinking and most considered contributions. For organizations operating in regulated industries or facing governance requirements, formal meeting structures help maintain legal compliance and reduce risk.

However, formal meetings also present limitations that make them less suitable for certain purposes. The extensive preparation required consumes significant time and resources that may not be justified for routine discussions or minor decisions. The rigid structure can stifle creativity and spontaneous ideation that might emerge in more flexible settings. The formal atmosphere may inhibit some participants, particularly junior employees or those uncomfortable with structured environments, from contributing their full insights. The time required to convene formal meetings means they cannot respond quickly to rapidly evolving situations requiring immediate decisions. Organizations must balance the benefits of formal meeting structure against these limitations when deciding which format serves specific situations best.

Informal Meetings: Flexible and Collaborative Gatherings

Informal meetings represent the second major type of business gathering, characterized by more flexible structures, collaborative approaches, and adaptive formats that make them suitable for the majority of workplace interactions. Contrary to what many people assume, informal meetings actually constitute the vast majority of business meetings held daily across organizations. These gatherings serve essential functions including problem-solving, brainstorming, team coordination, relationship building, and routine communication that drives daily operations. Understanding informal meetings requires examining their characteristics, appropriate applications, execution approaches, and value within organizational communication ecosystems.

The defining characteristic of informal meetings involves their flexibility and reduced protocol compared to formal counterparts. Informal meetings may be planned in advance or organized spontaneously as needs arise, feature flexible agendas that can adapt as discussions evolve, allow free-flowing discussions where topics can naturally expand or shift based on participant input, involve participants without rigidly defined roles beyond their regular job responsibilities, and do not require formal minutes though notes capturing key points and action items remain valuable. This flexibility enables informal meetings to adapt to circumstances and respond to emerging needs without being constrained by rigid protocols that might inhibit productive discussion.

Team meetings represent perhaps the most common informal meeting type, bringing together groups working on shared projects or within the same departments for coordination, updates, and collaborative problem-solving. These meetings might occur weekly, daily in some agile environments, or as needed based on project demands. The informal nature enables teams to discuss challenges they’re facing, share progress on various work streams, coordinate activities to avoid conflicts or duplication, and make tactical decisions about how to approach specific tasks. While these meetings benefit from basic structure including agenda topics and time limits, they don’t require the formal protocols or extensive documentation that characterize board meetings or official governance gatherings.

One-on-one meetings between managers and direct reports exemplify informal meetings that play crucial roles in organizational effectiveness despite their casual structure. These regular check-ins enable managers and employees to discuss progress on goals, address challenges or concerns, provide feedback and coaching, align on priorities, and maintain strong working relationships. The informal setting encourages open, honest conversations that might not occur in more structured group settings. While some organizations provide frameworks or templates for these meetings, they remain fundamentally informal in nature without requiring formal minutes or adherence to rigid agendas.

Brainstorming sessions demonstrate how informal meeting structures facilitate creativity and innovation better than formal alternatives. These gatherings bring together diverse participants to generate ideas, explore possibilities, and think creatively about challenges or opportunities. The informal atmosphere encourages free thinking and creative contribution without the constraints or judgment that might emerge in more formal settings. Participants can build on each other’s ideas, explore tangents that might lead to breakthroughs, and experiment with unconventional approaches. The collaborative, non-hierarchical nature of informal brainstorming enables contributions from all participants regardless of seniority or formal authority.

Problem-solving meetings address specific challenges or obstacles impeding progress on projects or initiatives. These informal gatherings typically include subject matter experts in relevant areas along with team members facing the issues in question. The informal structure enables flexible exploration of problems from multiple angles, collaborative development of potential solutions, and adaptive discussion that follows wherever the problem-solving process leads. The goal involves leaving with clearer understanding of issues and viable paths forward rather than making formal decisions requiring documentation and compliance procedures.

Progress updates and status meetings keep stakeholders informed about ongoing work without requiring the formality of comprehensive presentations and formal reporting. Team members share what they’ve accomplished, what they’re currently working on, what obstacles they’re encountering, and what help they might need. The informal format enables quick updates and responsive discussion without the time investment formal reporting would require. These meetings maintain alignment and awareness across teams while identifying issues early when they’re easier to address.

Social and relationship-building meetings serve important organizational functions despite lacking traditional business objectives. Coffee chats, team lunches, and informal gatherings help colleagues build relationships, strengthen social bonds, and develop the trust and rapport that facilitate future collaboration. Research increasingly recognizes that these informal interactions contribute significantly to organizational culture, employee engagement, and team cohesion. The lack of formal structure or business agenda actually enhances their effectiveness by enabling authentic personal connection without the pressures of performance or evaluation.

Training sessions represent an interesting hybrid that some might consider formal but typically function as informal meetings. While training may satisfy some formal meeting criteria, it usually doesn’t involve voting, formal minutes, or the governance aspects that define truly formal meetings. Instead, training represents collaborative knowledge transfer between trainers and participants, often with interactive discussions, questions, and exercises that benefit from informal, flexible approaches over rigid formal protocols.

The planning and preparation for informal meetings typically proves much less extensive than formal meetings require. Many informal meetings can be scheduled with days or even hours of notice rather than the weeks or months needed for formal gatherings. Agendas for informal meetings might be as simple as a few bullet points outlining discussion topics rather than the detailed, time-allocated agendas formal meetings require. Participants may need little advance preparation beyond general familiarity with topics to be discussed. This lighter planning burden enables organizations to convene informal meetings responsively when needs arise without the advance scheduling and preparation that formal meetings demand.

Role flexibility in informal meetings contrasts sharply with the defined roles that characterize formal gatherings. While someone typically facilitates or leads informal meetings to keep discussions on track, this role may rotate among participants or be handled informally without official designation. Note-taking might be handled by whoever volunteers or be shared among participants rather than assigned to designated minute-takers. Decision-making may involve consensus-building through discussion rather than formal voting procedures. This flexibility enables informal meetings to adapt to participant strengths and meeting needs without being constrained by rigid role definitions.

Documentation for informal meetings typically focuses on capturing action items, key decisions, and important points rather than comprehensive minutes documenting all discussions. Simple notes often suffice, recording who’s responsible for what follow-up actions, what deadlines apply, and what decisions were made. These notes get distributed to participants to ensure alignment and accountability without requiring the formal approval processes that official minutes undergo. The lighter documentation burden makes informal meetings more efficient while still maintaining records necessary for follow-through and accountability.

Decision-making in informal meetings tends toward consensus-building through discussion rather than formal voting procedures. When decisions need making, participants discuss options, express preferences and concerns, and work toward solutions that gain group support. Some organizations establish simple conventions for informal decisions such as requiring verbal agreement from all participants or using quick polls to gauge consensus. The goal involves making necessary decisions efficiently without the formal protocols and documentation that characterize official decision-making in formal meetings.

The advantages of informal meetings make them suitable for the vast majority of workplace interactions and collaboration needs. The flexibility enables meetings to adapt to circumstances, follow productive tangents, and respond to emerging issues without being constrained by rigid agendas. The reduced preparation requirements mean meetings can be convened quickly when needs arise without extensive advance planning. The collaborative atmosphere encourages participation from all attendees regardless of seniority, with people often feeling more comfortable contributing in informal settings than formal ones. The efficiency of informal meetings enables organizations to maintain communication and coordination without the time investments that formal meetings require. The lack of rigid structure actually facilitates creativity, innovation, and authentic relationship-building that might be inhibited in more formal environments.

However, informal meetings also have limitations that make them unsuitable for certain purposes. The lack of structure can sometimes lead to unfocused discussions that waste time without accomplishing objectives. Without formal documentation, important decisions or commitments might be forgotten or misremembered by participants. The casual nature may lead some participants to treat meetings as lower priority, arriving unprepared or distracted. For decisions with significant organizational implications or legal consequences, the informal meeting format provides insufficient documentation and accountability. Organizations must recognize these limitations and deploy informal meetings appropriately rather than attempting to use them for purposes requiring formal structures.

Distinguishing Between Formal and Informal Meetings

Understanding what are the two main types of meetings requires recognizing the key distinctions that separate formal from informal gatherings and guide appropriate deployment of each format. While individual meetings may blend characteristics from both categories, understanding the fundamental differences enables organizations to match meeting formats to purposes and circumstances.

Structure and planning represent perhaps the most obvious distinction between meeting types. Formal meetings follow predetermined structures with detailed agendas distributed well in advance, scheduled far ahead to accommodate important participants, and adhering to established procedures throughout. Informal meetings feature flexible structures with simple agendas that can adapt during meetings, can be scheduled with short notice, and follow fewer predetermined procedures. Organizations planning meetings should consider how much structure the purpose requires, with high-stakes decisions or compliance requirements suggesting formal formats while routine coordination or creative collaboration benefits from informal approaches.

Documentation requirements distinguish the types significantly. Formal meetings require comprehensive official minutes following standardized formats, capturing detailed records of discussions and decisions, undergoing formal approval processes before finalization, and being maintained as permanent organizational records. Informal meetings need only simple notes capturing action items and key points, without requirements for formal approval or permanent archiving, though maintaining basic records remains good practice. The documentation needs of specific situations should guide format selection, with regulatory requirements or governance obligations necessitating formal approaches while routine operational coordination allows informal documentation.

Participant roles and responsibilities differ markedly between meeting types. Formal meetings assign specific roles including chairperson, secretary, and designated presenters or discussion leaders, with clear expectations about each participant’s function and contribution. Informal meetings allow flexible role assignment with facilitation and note-taking handled informally, and all participants generally able to contribute freely without rigid role constraints. Organizations should consider whether the situation requires clear authority structures and defined responsibilities suggesting formal formats or whether collaborative flexibility serves better through informal approaches.

Decision-making procedures separate the types distinctly. Formal meetings employ structured voting procedures with recorded outcomes documenting how each participant voted or at minimum capturing final vote tallies, creating official decisions that become organizational record. Informal meetings rely on consensus-building through discussion, may use simple shows of hands or verbal agreement, and don’t require formal documentation of decision processes. The weight and implications of decisions should guide format selection, with major commitments, policy changes, or legally significant choices requiring formal procedures while tactical operational decisions function well with informal consensus.

Atmosphere and cultural tone differ between formal and informal meetings in ways that impact participant behavior and contribution patterns. Formal meetings project professional, serious atmospheres emphasizing importance and consequences of topics being addressed, potentially inhibiting some participants particularly junior employees from speaking freely. Informal meetings create relaxed, collaborative environments encouraging open discussion and creative thinking, helping all participants feel comfortable contributing regardless of hierarchy. Organizations should consider which atmosphere better serves specific purposes, with formal tones appropriate for governance and critical decisions while informal environments facilitate innovation and team building.

Choosing the Appropriate Meeting Type for Different Situations

Successfully answering what are the two main types of meetings requires not just understanding formal and informal categories but recognizing when each format serves organizational needs optimally. Organizations that thoughtfully match meeting formats to purposes maximize effectiveness while avoiding the dysfunction that results from inappropriately structured gatherings.

Formal meetings prove most appropriate for situations requiring documentation, accountability, legal compliance, or significant organizational impact. Governance activities including board oversight, fiduciary responsibilities, and official approvals require formal structures ensuring proper procedures get followed and decisions get documented. Major strategic decisions affecting organizational direction, significant resource allocations, or long-term commitments benefit from formal meeting rigor that ensures thorough consideration and clear accountability. Policy approvals and changes to organizational rules, procedures, or official positions need formal meeting documentation creating clear records of what was decided and when it took effect. Regulatory compliance situations where laws or industry regulations specify meeting procedures or documentation requirements demand formal approaches ensuring legal obligations get satisfied. Stakeholder communications to shareholders, major partners, or other important external constituencies typically employ formal meeting formats demonstrating professionalism and providing official records.

Informal meetings serve most routine workplace interactions and collaborative activities that constitute the majority of organizational communication. Team coordination and operational planning including daily stand-ups, weekly check-ins, and tactical planning benefit from informal flexibility enabling responsive adaptation to changing circumstances. Creative collaboration including brainstorming sessions, design reviews, and innovation workshops thrives in informal environments encouraging free thinking and open contribution. Problem-solving efforts addressing operational challenges, project obstacles, or technical issues work well with informal formats allowing flexible exploration of issues and solutions. Relationship building through one-on-ones, coffee chats, and social gatherings depends on informal atmospheres enabling authentic personal connection. Training and knowledge sharing including workshops, skill development, and expertise transfer typically employ informal collaborative approaches over rigid formal structures.

Hybrid approaches sometimes prove optimal, incorporating elements of both formal and informal meeting types to serve specific purposes. Some organizations hold regular team meetings following modified formal structures with agenda distribution and documented action items but without the full formal protocols of official minutes and voting procedures. Others conduct quarterly reviews combining formal presentations and performance reporting with informal discussion segments encouraging questions and collaborative problem-solving. The key involves thoughtfully selecting which elements from each meeting type serve specific purposes rather than defaulting to one format for all situations.

Maximizing Effectiveness for Both Meeting Types

Understanding what are the two main types of meetings provides foundation, but organizations must implement best practices for conducting each type effectively to maximize returns on time invested in meetings.

For formal meetings, thorough preparation proves essential to success. Organizers should develop detailed agendas with time allocations for each topic, ensuring adequate coverage without rushing critical decisions. Supporting documents should be distributed well in advance, giving participants time to review materials and formulate informed positions. Clear role assignments ensure everyone understands their responsibilities including who leads discussions, who documents proceedings, and who makes or influences decisions. Following established procedures throughout meetings maintains order and ensures requirements get satisfied. Comprehensive documentation captures not just decisions but rationale behind them, creating institutional memory and supporting future reference. Timely distribution of minutes to participants maintains accountability and enables follow-through on commitments.

For informal meetings, maintaining focus despite flexibility requires thoughtful facilitation. Even without rigid agendas, identifying key topics and desired outcomes keeps discussions productive. Designating someone to guide conversation, even informally, prevents meetings from wandering unproductively. Encouraging broad participation ensures diverse perspectives get heard rather than having dominant voices monopolize discussions. Capturing action items and commitments, even in simple notes, maintains accountability and enables follow-through. Time-boxing discussions prevents informal meetings from expanding indefinitely, respecting participants’ schedules and maintaining efficiency. Building in time for relationship development alongside task focus recognizes the dual role informal meetings play in both accomplishing work and strengthening team bonds.

Conclusion

Understanding what are the two main types of meetings provides essential framework for organizational communication effectiveness. Formal meetings with their structured agendas, official protocols, comprehensive documentation, and regulatory compliance serve critical functions in governance, major decision-making, strategic planning, and situations requiring accountability and legal compliance. Informal meetings with their flexible structures, collaborative approaches, and adaptive formats enable the vast majority of workplace interactions including routine coordination, creative collaboration, problem-solving, relationship building, and daily operations that drive organizational performance.

The distinction between these two main types enables organizations to match meeting formats to purposes and circumstances, deploying formal structures when situations demand rigor, documentation, and official procedures while leveraging informal flexibility for routine interactions, creative work, and team coordination. Recognizing that informal meetings actually constitute the majority of business gatherings challenges assumptions that formal equals important while informal equals trivial, instead highlighting how each type serves distinct essential functions.

Success requires not just understanding the two main types of meetings but implementing best practices for conducting each format effectively, knowing when to employ each type, and occasionally blending elements from both categories to serve specific purposes. Organizations that master this meeting type selection and execution create communication environments where time gets invested productively, participants engage meaningfully, decisions get made effectively, and collaboration flourishes—transforming meetings from drains on productivity into drivers of organizational success in increasingly complex and dynamic business environments where effective communication separates high-performing organizations from those struggling with dysfunction and wasted resources.