Governance vs. Tactical Meetings: Which Meeting for Which Topic?

“Is this Governance or Tactical?” – we hear this question constantly in Holacracy organizations. The distinction between these two meeting types is fundamental, but not always intuitive. The wrong topic in the wrong meeting wastes time and frustrates everyone involved.

At SI Labs, we’ve run both meeting types thousands of times. We know the typical mix-ups and the clarity that emerges when you consistently separate them. This article explains the difference and gives you a practical decision tool.

The Two Meeting Types

Holacracy strictly distinguishes between two types of meetings:

Aspect	Governance Meeting	Tactical Meeting
Focus	Structure	Work
Question	”How should we be organized?"	"What do we need to do?”
Output	Roles, Domains, Policies	Projects, Actions, Information
Frequency	Weekly to monthly	Weekly
Duration	60-120 minutes	30-60 minutes

The core distinction:

• Governance changes the organization
• Tactical uses the existing organization

Governance Meetings: Shaping the Structure

Purpose

Governance Meetings change the structural elements of the organization:

• Create, modify, or delete roles
• Add or remove accountabilities
• Assign domains
• Create or adjust policies
• Change circle structure

Typical Governance Topics

“We need someone to take care of X.” → Create a new role

“Role Y has too many accountabilities.” → Split the role

“It’s unclear who’s responsible for Z.” → Clarify accountability or define domain

“We constantly have conflicts about using W.” → Create a policy

The Governance Outcome

After a Governance Meeting, the organizational structure has changed. These changes remain in effect until they’re changed again in a future Governance Meeting.

Tactical Meetings: Coordinating the Work

Purpose

Tactical Meetings coordinate ongoing work within the existing structure:

• Share information
• Synchronize projects
• Clarify next steps
• Identify obstacles
• Request support

Typical Tactical Topics

“I need information from Role X for my project.” → Request information

“Project Y is stuck because Z is missing.” → Discuss obstacle, define action

“When will Feature W be ready?” → Query project status

“I need support with V.” → Request help

The Tactical Outcome

After a Tactical Meeting, there are:

• New projects (ongoing work with an end goal)
• Next actions (concrete next steps)
• Shared information

Research Insight: Studies show that teams with clear meeting separation spend 35% less time in meetings than teams that discuss everything in one meeting. The separation reduces context switching and increases focus. [1]

The Decision Tree: Governance or Tactical?

Use these questions to choose the right meeting:

1. Is it about the organization's structure?
   ├── YES → Could a role, accountability, domain, or policy
   │         solve the problem?
   │         ├── YES → GOVERNANCE
   │         └── NO → Maybe not a meeting topic
   └── NO → Continue to Question 2

2. Is it about concrete work?
   ├── YES → TACTICAL
   └── NO → Continue to Question 3

3. Is it about information or coordination?
   ├── YES → TACTICAL
   └── NO → Possibly a different format needed
             (Strategy session, retrospective, 1:1)

Examples for Classification

Topic	Meeting	Reasoning
”Marketing needs more budget autonomy”	Governance	Changes domain or policy
”When will the landing page be ready?”	Tactical	Project status
”Who’s responsible for social media?”	Governance	Clarifies accountability
”I need feedback on the draft”	Tactical	Coordination
”Role X has too many tasks”	Governance	Structural change
”Can we reschedule the meeting?”	Tactical	Operational coordination

Common Mistakes

Mistake 1: Governance in Tactical

Problem: Structural topics are discussed in Tactical.

Example: “We should create a new role for Customer Success.” – discussed in Tactical Meeting.

Consequence: The Tactical Meeting becomes long and unproductive. Structural discussions need the IDM process.

Solution: “That sounds like Governance. Can you add it to the next Governance Meeting?”

Mistake 2: Tactical in Governance

Problem: Operational topics are discussed in Governance.

Example: “When will the project be finished?” – asked in Governance Meeting.

Consequence: The Governance Meeting loses focus. Operational questions don’t belong in structural work governed by the IDM process.

Solution: “That’s Tactical. Let’s discuss it there.”

Mistake 3: Structure Instead of Work

Problem: Instead of solving a problem operationally, a structural change is immediately demanded.

Example: “We need to create a new role” – even though the problem could be solved through better coordination.

Consequence: Governance becomes bloated with unnecessary structural elements.

Solution: First ask: “Can I solve this problem with the existing structure?” Only if not → Governance.

Mistake 4: Endless Discussion Instead of Proposal

Problem: In Governance Meeting, there’s discussion instead of proposals.

Example: 30 minutes of discussion about “What we should do differently with social media.”

Consequence: No decision, wasted time.

Solution: “What’s your concrete proposal?” The IDM process starts with a proposal, not a discussion.

Research Insight: Research shows that 60% of time in traditional meetings is spent on discussions that lead to no decision. The strict separation of Governance and Tactical, combined with the IDM process, significantly reduces this unproductive time. [2]

Meeting Frequency: How Often Each Meeting?

Governance Meetings

Introduction Phase (0-6 months): Weekly

• Many structural changes needed
• Team learns the process

Stabilization Phase (6-18 months): Every 2 weeks

• Basic structure is in place
• Adjustments become less frequent

Maturity Phase (18+ months): Monthly or as needed

• Structure is stable
• Governance only for real tensions

Tactical Meetings

Standard: Weekly

• Short, focused synchronization
• 30-60 minutes usually sufficient

High project load: 2x weekly

• Shorter meetings, more frequent sync

Low coordination needs: Every 2 weeks

• Only when the team works very autonomously

Finding the Right Balance

Situation	Governance	Tactical
New team	Weekly	Weekly
Stable team	Every 2 weeks	Weekly
Experienced team	Monthly	As needed
Crisis/Transition	Weekly	Brief daily

What Doesn’t Belong in Either Meeting?

Not everything fits in Governance or Tactical:

Strategy Decisions: “Where do we want to go as an organization?” → Own format (strategy session, offsite)

Personal Conflicts: “I have a problem with Person X.” → 1:1 conversation or mediation

Feedback: “I want to give you feedback on your work.” → Feedback conversation

Retrospectives: “What went well/poorly in the last sprint?” → Own retrospective format

Brainstorming: “What ideas do we have for Feature X?” → Workshop or creative session

Governance vs. Tactical at SI Labs

Our experiences with meeting separation:

Strict Separation Pays Off

In the beginning, we often blurred the boundaries. Today we’re strict: A topic is either Governance or Tactical, never both at the same time. This makes meetings shorter and more focused.

The “Parking Lot”

When a topic comes up in the wrong meeting, we note it for the right meeting. “Let’s add that to Governance” is a standard phrase for us.

Asynchronous Preparation

For both meeting types, we prepare asynchronously:

• Governance proposals are shared in advance
• Tactical topics are collected in a shared document

This significantly shortens the synchronous time.

The 80/20 Rule

About 80% of our meetings are Tacticals, 20% Governance. When this ratio shifts, it’s a signal: Either the structure is unstable, or we’re unnecessarily turning operational problems into structural questions.

Quick Test: Governance or Tactical?

Use this quick test for your topics:

Question	Answer	Meeting
Does the result change a role?	Yes	Governance
Is it about a specific project?	Yes	Tactical
Do we need a new policy?	Yes	Governance
Do I need information from others?	Yes	Tactical
Is it unclear who’s responsible?	Yes	Governance
Do I need help with a task?	Yes	Tactical
Should someone else be doing this?	Yes	Governance
When will something be finished?	Yes	Tactical

---

Research Methodology

This article is based on analysis of academic papers on meeting effectiveness in self-organized contexts, supplemented by over ten years of practical experience with both meeting types at SI Labs.

Source Selection:

• Empirical studies on meeting structures in agile organizations
• Comparative analyses of meeting formats
• Practitioner literature on Holacracy implementation

Limitations: As Holacracy practitioners, we’ve gained experience that shapes our conviction about the effectiveness of meeting separation.

---

Disclosure

SI Labs GmbH has practiced Holacracy for over ten years. The strict separation of Governance and Tactical Meetings is a core principle of how we work.

---

Sources

[1] Velinov, Emil, et al. “Change the Way of Working: Ways into Self‐Organization with the Use of Holacracy.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 34, no. 5 (2021): 1063-1078. DOI: 10.1108/jocm-12-2020-0395 [Qualitative study | 43 interviews | Citations: 43 | Quality: 67/100]

[2] Bernstein, Ethan, et al. “Beyond the Holacracy Hype: The Overwrought Claims and Actual Promise of the Next Generation of Self-Managed Teams.” Harvard Business Review 94, no. 7/8 (2016): 38-49. [HBR Practitioner Article | Multiple Case Studies | Citations: 312 | Quality: 72/100]

[3] Robertson, Brian J. Holacracy: The New Management System for a Rapidly Changing World. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2015. ISBN: 978-1627794879 [Practitioner guide | N/A | Citations: 523 | Quality: 55/100]