Clarification of Answer by
journalist-ga
on
25 May 2003 08:36 PDT
To address you additional questions, I have located information at
http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/meetings.htm from "Decision
Process Guidebook" that discusses the concepts behind holding a
meeting and relates:
Deciding to Hold a Meeting
http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/meetings.htm#decide
Setting Up a Meeting
http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/meetings.htm#setup
Holding the Meeting
http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/meetings.htm#hold
Ending the Meeting
http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/meetings.htm#end
The site also offers the Why, Meanings, Timing and Effectiveness of
Communication at http://www.usbr.gov/Decision-Process/talk.htm
Another difference of formal vs. informal meetings is the use of
Robert's Rules of Order which is based on parlimentary law. In formal
meetings, the rules are *supposed* to be followed exactly. Conceived
by General Henry M. Robert, you may read the Rules of Order online at
http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm. During informal
meetings, Robert's Rules are followed sporadically or completely
ignored. As a news reporter, I attended and wrote about many "formal"
meetings and you would be surprised the amount of "educated" people
who have no idea about following Robert's Rules. A few formal city
and county meetings about which I reported are still in session years
later because no one present bothered to make a motion to close the
meetings. lol
In the preface of Robert's Rules is noted:
"The object of Rules of Order is to assist an assembly to accomplish
in the best possible manner the work for which it was designed. To do
this it is necessary to restrain the individual somewhat, as the right
of an individual, in any community, to do what he pleases, is
incompatible with the interests of the whole. Where there is no law,
but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least
of real liberty. Experience has shown the importance of definiteness
in the law; and in this country, where customs are so slightly
established and the published manuals of parliamentary practice so
conflicting, no society should attempt to conduct business without
having adopted some work upon the subject as the authority in all
cases not covered by its own special rules."
"While it is important that an assembly has good rules, it is more
important that it be not without some rules to govern its proceedings.
It is much more important, for instance, that an assembly has a rule
determining the rank of the motion to postpone indefinitely, than that
it gives this motion the highest rank of all subsidiary motions except
to lay on the table, as in the U.S. Senate; or gives it the lowest
rank, as in the U.S. House of Representatives; or gives it equal rank
with the previous question, to postpone definitely, and to commit, so
that if one is pending none of the others may be moved, as under the
old parliamentary law. This has been well expressed by one of the
greatest of English writers on parliamentary law: "Whether these forms
be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great
importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go
by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of
proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the chairman or
captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency,
and regularity he preserved in a dignified public body."
The original Robert's Rules is in the public domain. You should be
well-versed with Robert's Rules to hold a successful formal meeting.
The introduction to Robert's Rules is located at
http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--04.htm
For additional reading, see "The Conduct and Recording of Formal
Meetings" at http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:jo9coZZWuzEJ:www.tonic.port.ac.uk/communications/Handbooks/HB.500.01%2520Conduct%2520of%2520Meetings.pdf+%22formal+meetings%22&hl=en&start=16&ie=UTF-8
and, somewhat related, there is the study of formal and infomal groups
at http://edp5285-01.sp03.fsu.edu/Guide3.html
Umiat already posted the differences between formal and informal
meetings below in the comments section:
Formal vs. informal collaboration
================================
Formal communication:
Scheduled in advance
Arranged participants
Preset agenda.
One-way
Impoverished content
Formal languag
Used for predicted situations (co-ordination)
Not useful for social maintenance of the group.
Informal communication:
Unscheduled
Random participant
No arranged agenda
Interactive
Rich content
Informal language
Used for unpredicted situations
Used for social maintenance of the group
From "Presence Technologies for Informal Collaboration," by BabakA.
Farshcian.
http://www.idi.ntnu.no/emner/sif80ao/lecture/presence.pdf
For educational fun, a short quiz on formal meeting procedure is
located at http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.fh-karlsruhe.de/ifs/html/eng/bus_exercises/formal_meeting.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522formal%2Bmeetings%2522%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
Should you require clarification of any of the links or information I
have provided, please request it and I will be happy to respond.
SEARCH STRATEGY:
"formal meetings"
"informal meetings"
"formal versus infomal" meeting
"formal versus infomal" communication
"formal versus informal" collaboration
Robert's Rules of Order
"effective meetings" informal
"effective meetings" formal
"conducting an informal meeting"
"conducting an formal meeting"
"holding an informal meeting"
"holding a formal meeting"
