should you require video on during team meetings?

by Alison Green on November 6, 2024

A reader writes:

I manage a team of 15 that holds a Zoom meeting once per week. While they work independently most of the time, there are major projects where everyone has to be on the same page, and we get updates during these meetings.

I’ve noticed that the people who turn their video off (and I know they’re set up for video because it’ll be on at the start of the meeting) often end up reaching out to me to ask questions that we covered in the meeting. Sometimes they reach out hours later, sometimes a few days later. I’m starting to think that the ones with the video off are leaving the area, muting the team, or just totally zoned out. Can I require them to keep the video on? Do you think it would help?

I answer this question — and two others — over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

Other questions I’m answering there today include:

  • Company photoshopped heavy makeup on all the women’s headshots
  • How long do I have to forward emails to my old boss, when I still work for the same company?
You may also like:
{ 126 comments }

{ 126 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Boggle*

    You should try talking to those who are reaching out to you consistently to determine why or provide a follow-up email with the meeting notes. I never use my camera (and thankfully am never asked to do so) but am always engaged in any meetings I attend. I find it very distracting looking at others on camera too.

    Reply ↓
  2. Salty Caramel*

    Re Zoom: I’d give a high-level answer, say this was covered in the meeting, and refer the asker to the meeting minutes or the recording.

    I don’t require video.

    Reply ↓
    1. T.N.H*

      I think all team meetings should require video (but not webinars etc). It’s supposed to mimic an in person meeting. You need to see people nodding or looking quizzical. The bandwidth issue should essentially never come up. My company requires us to have suitable internet just as you would need transportation or work clothes in an office.

      Reply ↓
      1. SJJ*

        Sometimes team members are in other areas/locales where adding additional bandwidth for 10 people is a burden. (Or there could be other extenuating circumstances).

        I don’t require video, but I will call on people to ask if they have any questions, concerns or feedback if they’ve been quiet most of the meeting.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nicole Maria*

          To me, those kinds of exceptions (bandwidth issues, etc.) can be addressed on a case by case basis, but as a general rule I think video on is a good standard. I don’t work from home now, but in my previous role it was normal in the company culture that everyone had their cameras on, and it wasn’t burdensome. Occasionally people would have it off and that was fine too, but I do think there is a benefit to seeing someone speak.

          Reply ↓
          1. Annie*

            I honestly don’t see any reason to have cameras on. Only on higher level meetings when VPs are presenting do they have cameras on, and even that’s unnecessary. What’s the purpose? I don’t think there’s much benefit, honestly, in day-to-day meetings to see the person speaking.

            Reply ↓
      2. Charlotte Lucas*

        15 people is a lot to have on camera! And it can be distracting (in an in-person meeting, unless it’s only a few people, I don’t look at everyone at the same time).

        Personally, I would rather be able to see the person talking and the agenda or other documents on my screen than my coworkers.

        Before video meetings, there were conference calls, and we all survived not staring at each other.

        My attitude is that people who don’t pay attention with their cameras off aren’t going to magically start doing so with their cameras on.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elizabeth West*

          100%. ^^

          I think a lot of people also still have Zoom fatigue left over from the pandemic. And we discovered during that time that having the camera on wasn’t always absolutely necessary.

          Reply ↓
        2. Salty Caramel*

          a lot of people don’t seem to get that. Others seem to believe that nobody spends time in the office not getting work done.

          Reply ↓
      3. Nonsense*

        When someone’s presenting, camera boxes are an inch square and only so many fit on the side. If you try to make them all fit, they get even smaller. You’re not see a damn thing in terms of expressions.

        Reply ↓
          1. Dinwar*

            Depends on the class. My MSHA training had a few dozen people in it, and none of us had a screen big enough to show everyone, much less to show everyone at sufficient resolution to determine who was nodding off. But this also assumes everyone has multiple monitors, which may not be the case. Office workers tend to because it’s useful, but not everyone is an office worker. I’ve taken more than one conference call in a hotel, or an airport, or a (parked) truck, and once on an active flight line (we were safe, but it was noisy); I’m not bringing a monitor to ANY of those locations! We didn’t even have a laptop for the flightline one, it was like five or six of us clustered around one cell phone that could get reception.

            Reply ↓
      4. Peanut Hamper*

        You may need to see people nodding or doing whatever, but many of the rest of don’t. There has been a lot of discussion in these comments previously about how distracting cameras on can be, especially when you are in meetings most of the day.

        If you are not comfortable managing a remote team, then maybe managing a remote team isn’t something you should be doing.

        Reply ↓
        1. Annie*

          Exactly. For day-to-day meetings of your team, the engagement should be based on how they work and if they are meeting their goals, not whether or not you can see them nod once in awhile in agreement.

          Reply ↓
      6. Consonance*

        I agree with you. I know others are commenting that it’s distracting to see people and they don’t get anything from seeing their expressions, but I know that I benefit from it. Being on screen generally helps me pay attention. Seeing others helps me feel some human connection. Being able to see their expressions is incredibly helpful if I’m presenting. I wouldn’t want to be draconian about cameras absolutely needing to be on, but I hate meetings that feel like I’m talking to an empty space, and cultures where lots of cameras are turned off can do that for me. If the culture is that Zoom is being used essentially as a conference call (audio only) that’s fine. But if it’s using Zoom as an alternative to being in-person and then lots of people have their cameras off, it feels counter productive. All that to say that I agree with Allison’s advice to address what the actual problem is, but I’m more accepting of asking people to have cameras on if possible than others seem to be.

        Reply ↓
      7. Unkempt Flatware*

        No way. You would not be able to monitor people’s faces in in-person meetings nearly as well as you can on camera. Why would you need to monitor the faces of adults instead of assuming that if they have a question, they’d ask? If you think people are paying attention in in-person meetings just because you can see them, you’d be mistaken.

        Reply ↓
      8. Salty Caramel*

        The bandwidth issue should essentially never come up

        If you’re in the US, I’m assuming you’ve never had Comcast.

        Reply ↓
      9. Falling Diphthong*

        I think the lack of visual cues to where people’s focus is directed makes the little sea of squares much less useful than in a meat-space meeting. There are ways to convey “I am focused on what Alice is saying and want to speak next” that come across in person but are lost in Zoom–your image is too small, and no one can tell that you are looking at Alice or that your posture has shifted in an “about to speak” way.

        Reply ↓
      10. iglwif*

        Nope. People can need or want to be off camera for all kinds of reasons that don’t interfere with your ability to participate in the meeting.

        With 15 people in the meeting, you might not even be able to see all of them at one time. If you’re presenting or screen-sharing, they’re probably all too small to see.

        It’s nice when people feel comfortable being camera-on. It’s not nice when people are uncomfortable and the boss makes them be on camera anyway.

        Reply ↓
      11. WillowSunstar*

        Our small team meetings do require it (fewer than 10 people), but large meetings do not. I can see why, you never know when people will get distracted by a significant other/child/other relative/pet doing something in camera view that shouldn’t be done. There are still fully remote jobs out there.

        Reply ↓
    2. Cloud Wrangler*

      Agreed on the video or transcript of the meeting (we use Teams and have a transcript). I have someone who is continually late to meetings and then asks questions. I have started referring her to the transcript. She can do a quick search for the question/topic.

      Reply ↓
  3. Tradd*

    Zoom – I don’t *have* a webcam (office computer is a desktop and no reason to have a camera). We went to Office 365 about 9-12 months ago and Teams use for calls has gotten heavier as we’ve gotten used to having it. Customer meetings have turned rather contentious at times as customers demand I have my camera on. They don’t like that I don’t have one. Even coworkers in other cities get testy about it. I really like not having a camera. A lot of the internal meetings are with overseas counterparts and in a language I don’t speak. I turn my mic off and get a lot of work done during the parts I don’t understand (not in English).

    Reply ↓
      1. Tradd*

        My office hasn’t felt the need to provide me with one. Only the owners and two higher level managers have cameras because they have laptops. Everyone else has desktop PCs.

        Reply ↓
        1. Educator*

          Boy, I would ask for one, especially if not having one is making your clients unhappy! An external webcam is a $20 item.

          Reply ↓
      2. Sometimes I Wonder*

        “Most” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. My employer only requires that we be on camera for about 10% of meetings; my team meetings do not require it at all.

        Reply ↓
    2. Yours sincerely, Raymond Holt*

      I’m really surprised your organisation doesn’t make you have one! In every place I’ve worked, this would definitely be a situation where we are expected to prioritise the customer’s wishes.

      To be honest, when I’m a customer or a stakeholder, I definitely prefer to have conversations on camera, and all other things being equal, it could even swing my business.

      I wouldn’t demand it or get testy but I would let them know that I find it so, so much easier to communicate, understand the person I’m speaking with, and build a relationship, if I can see their face.

      I guess it depends on the nature of the business, presumably in your field it doesn’t matter. But do you know why so many of your customers care so much? If it comes up more than once or twice, maybe they have reasons.

      Reply ↓
      1. Tradd*

        The customers who bellyache about it are generally extremely demanding with totally unrealistic expectations. They are also extremely allergic to phone calls.

        Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      …because the same people have the same types of follow up questions and I think it would be solved if everyone used video.
      It would not. It would create new and different problems.

      Reply ↓
      1. Archi-detect*

        are they tuned out? maybe

        would they just stare at their video feed if they had to have it on? quite possibly

        Reply ↓
        2. Falling Diphthong*

          It’s not like “Hmm, excellent point Roxana” and “Hmm, what is a seven-letter word for an orange fruit?” look markedly different, if you have stuck the crossword puzzle up over the Zoom screen where Roxana is speaking.

          Reply ↓
    3. Her name was Lola*

      I totally agree. In a zoom meeting, I’m much more aware of how I look (which is generally awful on camera anyway). Wondering what my face and expression looks like is really distracting to me.

      Reply ↓
    1. Charlotte Lucas*

      We all have our cameras on in team meetings. But they are terribly run, and our manager is not good at explaining things. Or listening.

      But at least we all get to see each other looking bored and/or confused.

      Reply ↓
    2. Peanut Hamper*

      This! I’ve sat through plenty of in-person meetings over the past few decades where people just naturally tune out.

      If 75% is about projects I’m not working on or involved with in some way, then yep, I’m going to tune out, and it can be difficult to tune back in. Plus, I’ve just lost a lot of time listening to someone blather on about stuff that has no impact on me.

      Have one meeting per project with just the people involved and see if that works better. It means more meetings for the manager involved, but less time wasted for people that aren’t working on those projects.

      Reply ↓
      1. Marion Coatesworth-Haye*

        I don’t think having 3-5 meetings instead of 1 is a good solution to this problem — maybe I’m biased because of my personal experience, but the manager is likely juggling many items and cannot find time for that many meetings (and may, in fact, find value in seeing the whole board in one meeting). Insisting the manager spend more time in meetings vs. expecting folks to be adults and either pay attention or come up with other solutions for ensuring they get the info they need from the meeting (asking colleagues for notes, transcription, etc.) seems like the wrong balance to strike.

        Reply ↓
        1. Peanut Hamper*

          I’m not insisting that the manager spend more time in meetings. Quite the contrast.

          My point is that these meetings would be shorter. It’s generally easier to schedule several 10-15 minute meetings with 3-5 people than to schedule one meeting with 15 people. (Although these could both be standing meetings, so other things could be planned around them.)

          Also, if I am the report, I am only in a meeting for 10-15 minutes, which frees up the rest of the meeting when I am just sitting there listening to people talk about things that aren’t related to me.

          If people were finding value in seeing the entire board, OP probably wouldn’t be having this problem. Again, that’s a meeting issue, not a cameras issue. (And could be solved by a quick 10 minute follow-up meeting with all parties involved.)

          In general, most meetings are entirely too long anyway, and people try to cram too many things into them.

          Reply ↓
          1. Marion Coatesworth-Haye*

            I’m not unsympathetic to the desire for fewer or shorter meetings, but LW says there are major projects where it is important that the entire team hear the updates, so I think we need to take their word that the whole group needs to be on, even if that means she needs to keep the meeting more tightly organized or put other checks in place–notes shared afterwards with the group, etc.–to head off the issue LW is having. TBC, I think the cameras are a red herring, but scheduling more short meetings with only some of the folks who need the information doesn’t seem like an apt solution either.

            Reply ↓
    3. Generic Name*

      To put it another way, I’ve learned that when communicating to staff, it simply isn’t enough to say something once. Or even twice. If information is important, like the deadline for open enrollment, for example, it should be communicated as much as five times, in different forms. Email, meetings, sharepoint posting, signs in breakrooms, etc.

      Reply ↓
      1. fhqwhgads*

        Oy. I have learned over time that, yes, this is generally true of WAY too many humans and that’s why it’s become a norm, but gee golly does it frustrate me as a person who feels like “I know, why are you telling me 5 different times in five different ways? Can’t we spend our time not repeating the same info over and over?”
        Alas, no, we cannot.

        Reply ↓
        1. Selina Luna*

          This doesn’t have to take you, the purveyor of information, 5x the time. I’m in charge of a significant portion of how my school communicates information to parents and students, and one thing that I do is create one flyer that has all the relevant information in an easy-to-read format (I check this every time with the dumbest person I know, though I don’t tell them they’re the dumbest person I know), and then I place this flyer in the school newsletter, the school email systems, the school website, and the school’s social media pages. Then, my school voicemail liaison (the attendance secretary) does an auto-dialer, where she reads the information from the flyer. The flyer also gets posted around the school by the office aides. The sum of time that all of this takes me is about 20 minutes more than the time to create the flyer, and no flyer has ever taken me longer than 1 hour.
          If I also have to give that information in a meeting, add another 5 minutes per item, but usually my conscientiousness in disseminating information means that fewer items must be included in meetings.

          Reply ↓
    4. Person from the Resume*

      The problem is your employees not paying attention in meetings not whether or not video is on during meeting.

      Reply ↓
      1. Flor*

        And/or that the meeting is not a good way to convey the information. Given that this is about sharing updates on a project, written updates that people can refer back to may be better than a meeting, particularly if there are no minutes.

        Reply ↓
    5. Cinnamon Stick*

      Yes! Meetings should be engaging and everyone there should be relevant. That’s on the person running it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Saturday*

        I don’t hold the person running the meetings responsible for my engagement. I’m really not going to feel especially engaged by the topic of most of the meetings I attend. I still feel like I need to pay attention though – it’s just part of my job. Definitely agree about keeping them relevant to the people in attendance.

        Reply ↓
    1. WellRed*

      We have a weekly team meeting. Cameras not required and nobody turns them in except one person who always done., have no idea why.

      Reply ↓
      1. Unkempt Flatware*

        Could be their own way of staying accountable. Which I totally support. But all I do is stare at myself and try not to look slack-jawed.

        Reply ↓
      2. ferrina*

        I usually like keeping my camera on if I know I’m going to be speaking. I tend to talk with my hands and my face is very expressive, so it can help me communicate better to have the camera.
        I don’t really care if anyone else has their camera on/off.

        Reply ↓
    2. Kes*

      I think it’s good to occasionally have meetings that are cameras on. It’s good to see the faces of your coworkers once in a while and be reminded of them as people, and I think it helps a bit with relationship building. But overall I prefer not requiring video on. It’s not needed and can be distracting – seeing yourself, knowing that others are seeing you in a way that is somehow different from in person, and seeing everyone else.

      Reply ↓
  7. A large cage of birds*

    I wouldn’t require video, but we had someone (now gone) who would join all our team meetings early, camera off and on mute. She never said or contributed anything, but a few times she ended up off mute, she was clearly watching/listening to something. She clearly just logged in sometime before the meeting time, turned her stuff off and didn’t pay any attention.

    Address the behavior, not the video

    Reply ↓
  8. duinath*

    I would be mortified. The fact it wasn’t my choice wouldn’t change the fact it was *my* face out there with clown makeup photoshopped on.

    Appalling.

    Reply ↓
    3. Ellis Bell*

      I think that if this happened to me, I would be moved enough to use words like “appalling”, even with very senior people. There are times when you just want to ask for an outcome while ruffling the least amount of feathers and be more “Excuse me, but I need the makeup added to my photograph removed urgently etc” but in this case I’d actually want people to feel somewhat ruffled for allowing this to happen. I actually think it’s too serious for any one person to voice their opinion, because singling out women’s appearances in this way goes beyond individual opinion. I’d be pushing back as a group for “reassurance that these cartoonish images that we didn’t consent to will not publicly represent us”. I wouldn’t have a problem pointing out “the sexism implied by only changing women’s appearances en masse is hopefully not intentional”. What were they thinking?! It sounds like the women would be totally unrecognisable.

      Reply ↓
    4. WillowSunstar*

      Not only is this sexist, there are people with religious restrictions against wearing makeup. If someone from their religious organization found the photo, they might have to awkwardly explain that it was Photoshopped, and shouldn’t have to.

      There are also people with allergies to makeup, and they shouldn’t be forced to wear it or have it Photoshopped on unnaturally.

      Reply ↓
    1. ScruffyInternHerder*

      That…definitely colors my response but doesn’t change it.

      Answer: no. Address the behavior.

      In June of 2020? Oh hell no. Distracted? Seriously? I’m going to suppress my rage on this one. Someone was NOT reading the room with this question. Reasons why not in 2020? Might have other family working or schooling in the same small room. Might not have dedicated space. Might literally be working from bed. Might be trying to cope with all things early-pandemic. So, hell no.

      Reply ↓
  10. Peanut Hamper*

    If OP prefers cameras on, there may be selection bias in here in noticing who is reaching out to them later to ask questions.

    Reply ↓
    1. Best Coke Ever*

      Not sure what you mean – are you saying that even though LW thinks only the people with cameras off are asking questions, it’s actually everyone and LW just doesn’t realize it?

      That’s a weird bit of speculation and also counter to what LW said

      Reply ↓
      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Yes, that is what I am saying, and no it’s not a weird bit of speculation. That is literally what selection bias is. Notice that I start with saying “If OP prefers cameras on….”

        Selection bias is ever-present in our world and we should look out for it. It’s not just some weird thing that’s limited to statistical studies.

        It’s like the whole “full moon” myth. Repeated studies have shown that crimes rates and hospital admissions do not go up during the full moon, but people who work in those professions often say that they do. It’s just they are primed to notice more because it’s the full moon and they expect to see those things.

        Reply ↓
        1. Guacamole Bob*

          I think what you’re describing is confirmation bias, not selection bias. Still something to be on the lookout for!

          Reply ↓
        2. Ellis Bell*

          Yeah it’s confirmation bias, but I think you possibly could be onto something. When smiling Ed, who was centre screen for the whole meeting asks a follow up question about Llama grooming, OP thinks: “I know Ed was present! He wore blue! That Llama grooming technique must be trickier to understand than I thought”. When cameras-off Candace asks about Llama purchasing, OP thinks”Did she not hear about the new purchasing policy? Was she even there? How would I even know?!” There’s an argument here for whether basic optics are more important than properly measuring people’s productivity and understanding.

          Reply ↓
          1. Best Coke Ever*

            It *might* be confirmation bias, but really you could say that about any letter where an LW pointed out someone doing something they didn’t agree with. It’s also disbelieving the LW which is sometimes against the site rules.

            Reply ↓
  11. tabloidtainted*

    It’s always videos on during internal meetings at our small company (fewer than 15 people). It was never a discussion—everyone just turned their videos on when we went remote for COVID. It is by far my preference to see faces when the meeting is 2+ people.

    Reply ↓
  12. Eeeek*

    When people repeatedly email me about things that are no longer my issue, I won’t forward their emails to the correct person. I reply and tell them who they need to talk to, and make it clear that they will have to do that themselves.

    It’s not a negative thing, just “I’m sorry, you’ll have to contact X about that as I haven’t worked in that area for 6 months now and I wouldn’t want to misdirect your email. Thanks.”

    Some people won’t stop following the easy path until you make them.

    Reply ↓
    1. Person from the Resume*

      I was going to say that for any repeat offenders. You reply back to them with a message like you describe.

      Make them do the work of forwarding every single time. It will be easier for them to leave you out of it on the next one.

      Reply ↓
    2. Anon for This*

      I reply and cc: the person who replaced me. After I’ve done that a couple of times it usually stops as they now have the correct contact info. In any case, after the second or third time I stop forwarding. It’s now on them to use the address I cc:’d.

      Reply ↓
  13. RabbitRabbit*

    I was in a cameras-expected-on meeting this morning and half the team just didn’t turn them on, which I fully support my coworkers on. The manager started with a pro forma “How is everyone?” and got silence punctuated by an “Exhausted.”

    Reply ↓
    1. Selina Luna*

      That was a bad question for this morning anyway, at least in the US. No matter what the outcome of the election was, there were going to be some people who felt angry about that outcome.

      Reply ↓
      1. WillowSunstar*

        Agreed, and you don’t people discussing politics at a work meeting if it’s not within the government.

        Reply ↓
  14. Best Coke Ever*

    Our default is cameras on, but if someone doesn’t turn it on for one reason or another nobody cares or says anything

    Reply ↓
  15. ecnaseener*

    The other thing to keep in mind is that having your camera on can be actively distracting for some people — thinking about what your face looks like takes up some bandwidth, more so on video than in person because you can’t tell whether anyone’s looking at you.

    For the last question – I would at some point switch from forwarding to just replying back telling the person who to contact. They’re much more likely to stop emailing you if it stops working.

    Reply ↓
  16. blueberrygoneplaid*

    Frankly, there is something about video meetings that I find facially tiring in a way that I don’t experience in-person meetings. This may be part of the pressure for women to always appear “on” and smiling or at least looking generally positive. Looking at everyone else’s faces makes me very conscious of my own – can’t fall into a relaxed/neutral face without risking coming across as angry, detached, or hostile. It takes up energy I’d rather be using to listen to the meeting. I’ll also add that as someone with ADHD, when cameras are off, I can doodle or do other fidgety things that allow me to listen far more closely and in a way that will allow me to retain the information.

    Reply ↓
    1. Always Tired*

      Because in person you can sit in the back and know people aren’t looking at you most of the time. In a video call your face is next to the deck the whole time, or at least directly in front of everyone. It’s exhausting. I am also a fidgeter as a part of my active listening. Or staring at the dogs in the park. Which, again, I can doodle in the back of the meeting and no one notices. But when I keep looking at not the camera, it gets notices and commented on.

      Reply ↓
    2. run mad; don't faint*

      In any camera on video call or video meeting, I feel much more pressure to make almost constant eye contact than I do in person. This makes the meeting much more stressful for me. I think it’s because feel that I need to prove I’m paying attention in a way I don’t when I’m in person (or have the camera off, obviously!).

      Reply ↓
    3. new laptop who dis*

      100% this! I am SO exhausted after video meetings in a way that I am not after calls or in person. Looking at my face all day takes up a huge amount of mental bandwidth, I’m constantly monitoring myself. I hate it!!

      I totally understand (and generally support) the reasons for video-on meetings but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cinnamon Stick*

        Yes, this. When you’re on camera, you have to perform paying attention, partly because there are people out there who don’t trust you’re working when you’re not under their eye.

        It’s tiring.

        Reply ↓
    4. philmar*

      I also get very distracted looking at my own face rather than anyone else’s. It’s unfortunate I’m so beautiful.

      Reply ↓
  17. Cacofonix*

    On getting emails after you left a position with the same company. I did what the LW did to notify everyone and then forwarded with a note to the sender a couple of times. I tried thinking through email auto responses but it would have been reasonable to receive emails from some people and companies relevant to my new role. I called a couple of really relentless offenders.

    After a month I did what Alison suggested by creating a form response to make it *look* like it was automatically sent. When an errant email came in, I’d paste it in only to the sender and it said something like… subject: auto response re:. Body: thank you for contacting [company]. Your email is important to us, however, it appears to have been misdirected. To have your email seen by the appropriate person, please resend it to newperson@compay.com and update your records.

    Every single time, no change, and did this even if someone replied.

    Cleared up most common contacts within a couple of weeks and the volume went way way down then trickled right out. Copying my replacement for long only taught people to keep sending emails to me knowing it would get handled.

    Reply ↓
  18. Hyaline*

    “I’m starting to think that the ones with the video off are leaving the area, muting the team…”

    If LW specifically suspects that they’re turning off their cameras and leaving. I have to wonder if there are other reasons for that suspicion, like not participating in the meeting at all, and honestly–that is a problem and it’s wasting LW’s time to respond to questions that should have been adequately covered already.

    Aren’t there other ways you could “test” for engagement/presence without requiring video on? Ask for thumbs up if everyone heard, use the polling feature for feedback throughout the meeting, ask that everyone put an update in comments…if people consistently don’t do these things, you could then address with them that they are not participating in meetings. It’s hard to do when your only “evidence” is asking questions later, but if they frequently stay silent when you specifically ask for engagement, you have better standing to address “I’m not sure that you are appropriately engaged during meetings.” Bonus points if inviting feedback/input can make these meetings more productive by providing structure for needed input.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      That was the most interesting part of the letter for me, because it suggests that there’s no requirement for these participants to respond or be present audibly. If they knew they might be needed to type into the chat, or use their mic then they couldn’t possibly leave the area. That then begs the question; why do they need to be in the meeting? If they’re just being lectured at, and expected do nothing but to take notes, can’t they just be sent those notes by people who need to be part of the meeting? I agree that actually requiring participation is much better evidence than visuals (I take part in meetings where parents have the camera zeroed in on their face, but who never never unmute because the kids are so noisy and distracting), but more than that it means they’re being thought of as actual participants in the meeting whose feedback is important.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hyaline*

        Yeah, and I’m assuming these meetings are necessary but if they should just be weekly memos…make them emailed memos.

        Reply ↓
    2. Selina Luna*

      Honestly, this is what all of the “teachery” meetings I go to do: have people use the poll features or reply to something in the chat box. Teachers often use other tools as well, so things like Peardeck with “audience participation” features are common in teacher meetings over video. I’m going to one this afternoon, and they’ll ask for cameras to be on, and I will if I can, but even if I don’t, they’ll know if I’m engaged because I’ll be participating in the questions in the slide deck as they go along.

      Reply ↓
  19. Deuceofgears*

    I’m in a remote master’s program that suggests cameras-on as a norm but does not require it (and instructors have been very understanding of people having them off without requiring explanations). However, the program is for media composition (film/TV/videogame scoring, commercials, that kind of thing) and soft skills in talking to clients are core to the program/industry, so there’s a rationale for the request.

    I personally hate giving talks or presentations if I can’t see how people are reacting so I can adjust my delivery, but I’ve never required cameras-on! Too many people have great reasons for wanting theirs off. In practice, this means that I’ve simply stopped giving online talks/classes or doing online panels in most situations; problem solved! (I’m a freelancer; these are side gigs to what I actually do for a living, which is writing novels.)

    Reply ↓
  20. Otters 37*

    I’m going to have to side with the “cameras on” minority on this. For meetings where discussion is expected/required, cameras off excludes the huge portion of our communication that is non-verbal. I work in an area that interacts with internal “clients” on a regular basis and often have to deliver unwelcome news or have other difficult conversations. Staring at a black zoom screen makes that task so much harder – they can’t pick up on my visual cues nor me on theirs.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dinwar*

      “Staring at a black zoom screen makes that task so much harder…”

      Well there’s your problem. Most of the time I’ve had to deliver bad news I’ve put the reason on-screen. It’s a map, or a spreadsheet, or SOMETHING. That way I’m providing the justification for my bad news as well as an opportunity to figure out how to fix it. It cuts down on non-verbal communication, but I work with geologists and engineers who aren’t exactly subtle when they say things. It’s usually only an issue when two or three of us have information to contribute and we can’t figure out who should speak when.

      Reply ↓
    2. Frosty*

      My work doesn’t have zoom meetings but I just finished a remote master’s program that was 100% on zoom and I agree. I changed the settings so that I wouldn’t see my own camera on the screen, which helped a ton.

      There was a lot of collaborative work and discussion in the class. Knowing I was on camera helped me stay engaged, which, in turn, helped me be a better teammate to my cohort. It made a difference to see their facial expressions when I was presenting or speaking – not quite the same as “in person” but you could tell if a quip landed, or if my idea was interesting to them.

      We occasionally had cameras off for specific reasons (eating, low bandwidth, illness etc.) but we were expected to be on camera otherwise.

      Reply ↓
  21. HigherEd Boundaries*

    LW 3 – When I changed roles at my current organization, I created a “signature” in outlook that I could use to respond to those who needed to contact my replacement. It included that basic, “as of [date] I have transitioned to a new position. Please contact X for communications regarding [old department].” It also included the name, email and phone number of my replacement, my former supervisee within the department, and the departmental email for the unit.

    Depending on the urgency of the situation, I may have copied my replacement on it, but after about 3 months my mantra was, if you can’t figure out to not email me anymore (and you’ve been emailing me several times since my transition), it’s a you problem not a me problem. The only time I made an exception was when my replacement had been let go and a vendor sent me an invoice because they received a bounce-back and took a shot in the dark to see if my email was still active.

    Reply ↓
  22. Dinwar*

    What we do is have the meeting minutes on-screen, unless there’s a compelling reason to put something else up (like a chart or a map). This allows us to complete the meeting minutes efficiently, while also allowing everyone an opportunity to ask questions/add clarifying information to the minutes. Then the minutes get sent to everyone on the call.

    I’ve never seen a compelling reason to have someone’s face on a meeting. The idea that it improves focus simply doesn’t agree with the experiences I’ve had; it FEELS LIKE they are paying attention, but that’s the monkey-brain “See face, they see me” reaction. Further, NOT seeing someone’s face doesn’t mean they weren’t paying attention. I remember one training course where it looked like we were all looking away from the course, because it was about where to find information and we were following along on a second monitor so we knew where to find it.

    If someone is consistently missing information from meetings it’s one of two things. First, it could be that you are not presenting the information as clearly as you could. I run into this all the time–folks with 10+ years of experience forget what new folks don’t know, and we don’t explain as thoroughly as we should. “Wait for the Level 4 EDD, then upload it and update the maps” sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to me, but if you don’t know what an EDD is, much less what the levels are, and you don’t know where to upload it, and you have 20 maps to choose from, it’s really easy to get confused. Second, it could be a “Them” thing–the individual isn’t paying attention or isn’t focusing on the correct things. This is, hopefully, something that improves with coaching. What we do is make that person take the minutes–which, remember, are on-screen, so everyone can see them. It creates immediate feedback and social pressure to pay attention. (It’s also a good task for junior staff just getting into the “be at meetings” phase, because it shows them what’s important.)

    Reply ↓
  23. Frosty*

    For the letter about photographs – I had something similar happen a few years ago where a sports team I was on got team headshots done. They came back heavily airbrushed – I looked like a contestant on Toddlers and Tiaras! No skin texture, heavy makeup (I was already wearing makeup!) It was so upsetting

    Reply ↓
  24. Nicki Name*

    My team recently went to cameras-on for all meetings, and I can testify that it did not make people pay any more attention. Not even my boss, who was very in favor of the change.

    Reply ↓
  25. Adam*

    For the forwarding emails, I think they key thing is you should stop forwarding emails, but you should definitely keep responding. You don’t want anything to just get missed, but if you don’t forward things, then mailing you is worse than mailing the correct person, and people will quickly figure out the right person to send it to.

    Reply ↓
  26. Educator*

    Yes, this may be an unpopular opinion, but I am glad to be at a fully cameras-on organization. It was one thing in 2020, when many people were new to remote work and not set up for it. And it still might be different if you are hybrid. But for fully remote organizations, cameras are literally the only way you can see your colleagues and clients! They make us humans working together rather than disembodied voices and icons of our initials speaking into the void.

    And the objections I am hearing all seem to me to have pretty easy solutions.
    -Don’t like looking at yourself? Adjust your settings so you don’t have that window or put a post-it over it.
    -Video glitchy? Anyone who is fully remote should be required by their company to have adequate bandwidth (ideally at the company’s expense).
    -Don’t want to be eating on camera? Don’t eat during meetings and schedule yourself a lunch hour.
    -Distracting things or other people in the background? Get a cheap folding screen, turn on a virtual background, or rotate your desk.
    -Need to doodle or play with a fidget toy? Adjust your camera so it only shows your face, not your arms and desk.
    -Worried that people are looking at you or tired of looking engaged? Kindly, looking like you care in meetings where you really don’t is a requirement of most jobs, virtual or in person, and no one else cares about your appearance half as much as you do.

    Video puts so much humanity back into remote work; I find it really alienating when people don’t use it. Video shows that you are present, professional, and engaged. I think it is totally reasonable for clients and managers to expect.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dinwar*

      “-Video glitchy? Anyone who is fully remote should be required by their company to have adequate bandwidth (ideally at the company’s expense).”

      You and I have very different definitions of “remote”. Hard to get bandwidth 30 miles from the nearest road, and it can be fairly dangerous for me to be focusing on a camera. Plus, on many jobsites even the “safe” areas require a certain amount of vigilance. When I was on the conference call on the flight line whoever wasn’t speaking was keeping an eye out for incoming hazards, because even though we were in an area designated for such calls things do happen.

      Reply ↓
      1. Educator*

        I meant remote as in not in an office, not remote as in the middle of nowhere. Sounds like you mean from a worksite.

        Reply ↓
        1. Dinwar*

          For a surprising number of careers the two are the same. My intent is to demonstrate that your expectations are not universally applicable. They work for where you work, but not all of us work where you do.

          Reply ↓
    2. Peanut Hamper*

      You may find it alienating, but a lot of other people find it irritating and distracting.

      If you don’t like cameras off, just get a job where everybody is in person all the time. Problem solved.

      Reply ↓
  27. 1-800-BrownCow*

    If I don’t have to, I don’t use my camera during online meetings.

    As for questions that come up later, it could be a personality thing. I’m the type who listens and absorbs as much as I can during the meeting. And then later when I have more time to think in silence, that’s when I internalize things and begin to think of questions. Additionally, I’m not a verbal learner, I’m better hands on. So I may hear something in a meeting but when applying it to my direct work, I may realize I didn’t fully understand/grasp what was verbally shared earlier and go back later with questions which may have already been answered but I need to hear again to fully understand.

    So maybe some people are doing other stuff and not engaging but maybe they just need time to internalize and come back later with questions for better understanding.

    Additionally, I know people who may be very engaging in meetings but seem to hyper focus on one or two things and will ask questions that were literally answered 5 minutes earlier.

    Unless one has good evidence that people are leaving the meeting or completely zoning out when they don’t use their camera, I would not make assumptions or demands to keep the camera on. Just remember, we all learn and listen in different ways.

    Reply ↓
  28. An Australian in London*

    I can’t now put my hands on it – I read an article that made the point that mandatory camera on when people are working from home is a justice and equity issue.

    An open window into someone’s home is an instant assessment of their wealth and class. I don’t just mean things like what artwork or furniture is visible but as simple as are they working from quiet dedicated private office space, or are they in a corner of common space or in their garage. There are so many ways forced cameras from home are to the disadvantage of those with the least.

    And in before “just turn on virtual or blurred background” because those are CPU- and graphics-intensive features not available on cheaper computers. If people are using their own equipment then this also outs the have-nots vs. the haves.

    Mandatory cameras in the home should be treated like mandatory physical meetings in the home: an invasion of privacy and a social justice issue.

    Reply ↓
    2. Head Sheep Counter*

      One assumes this is for work vs schooling. If you have a colleague who is WFH or requesting remote work… it shouldn’t be a surprise that cameras would be required, at least sometimes. The social justice issues really apply for schooling and public meetings. There are situations where it might apply at work of course but… perhaps those are situations that aren’t actually ideal for WFH? WFH isn’t a solution for everyone.

      Reply ↓
  29. RVMan*

    “I manage a team of 15…”
    There’s your problem. That is too many white collar professionals for one person to manage. 10 to 1 as a max. 15 is ok when they all do the same thing, but not when they are individual contributors doing their own work. I’m guessing 90% of the meeting is over stuff that is irrelevant to any given person. You (or more precisely, your leaders) need to break your team up into two teams.

    As a start, figure out what your ‘teams’ are, and have team meetings. (I.e. instead of having a staff meeting every day/week whatever, meet with the ‘server’ team and separately with the ‘database’ team, or whatever makes sense for your group.)

    Reply ↓
  30. LadyAmalthea*

    For the question about forwarding emails – depending on the organisation 5 months is nothing. my go-to response (since May, when due to a reorganisation I changed teams) is “I have changed teams, and am no longer working in this area. can you please remove me from your list and ensure my colleagues (cc’d) are added instead.

    Takes less than a minute and I don’t have to worry about people missing anything.

    Reply ↓
  31. blink14*

    I have had a hard stance on keeping my camera off during meetings, and I continue it. I do not feel that is necessary, unless in very specific situations (like, if you need to verify someone’s identity). In some respect, it is also for my own privacy.

    I also find having my camera on distracting, and in a meeting with more than a few people, having everyone’s cameras on are also distracting. I treat it like a conference call – I’m paying attention, but I don’t need the visuals unless someone is presenting something.

    Additionally … treat adults like adults. If someone is meeting all their job requirements and doing it well, let them be. If someone is legitimately having trouble, AND consistently keeps their camera off, it may still have nothing to do with camera on/off. Address the issue of missing something from the meeting, or whatever the case may be. If it doesn’t resolve, then that’s something to address to that specific person.

    I can tell you that the most difficult co-worker I have had since Zoom meetings became a norm was someone who also kept their camera on all the time. And this person was simply terrible at their job. There was zero correlation.

    Reply ↓
  32. DinoZebra*

    I’m sympathetic to the people who don’t want to have cameras on either all or some of the time for a whole variety of reasons – but do please be aware that if your meeting includes anyone who lipreads. A lot of people with mild hearing loss or who have auditory processing disorder (like me) use lipreading to supplement audio input – so don’t assume that it’s only people who are obviously D/deaf.
    (Yes, auto captioning is a thing and it’s better than it was – but it’s often still pretty rubbish, particularly for speakers who don’t have the tech companies’ idea of a standard (US) accent (I’m in the UK and it’s terrible with most of our regional accents))

    Reply ↓
  33. Dasein9 (he/him)*

    You know what would help me keep engaged in meetings? Not having a camera on, but having some kind of fidget I can use with my mouse that’s also part of the meeting software. (So the meeting window is always on top but I can be doing something with my mouse, like putting shapes together or stacking blocks.) Having to find an analog fidget is where distraction comes in.

    Reply ↓
    1. PlainJane*

      I get you, but if you know you need a fidget, why not just automatically bring a stress ball or a clicker or something?

      (But now that I’m thinking about it, I’d kind of love to stack blocks with my mouse during a meeting. Or open paint and make big loopy swirls. Or do one of those color by numbers games. Yeah. Squirrel.)

      Reply ↓
  34. PlainJane*

    It’s meeting, not a presentation. Why not directly include the people you suspect aren’t really there. “Percy, do you think it’s feasible, with your work, to redesign the spout of our most popular teapot?” “Annabeth, in terms of the budget you’ve been working on, should we outsource whistle tunes or do it in house?”

    Reply ↓
    1. PlainJane*

      (Remind them ahead of time that meetings are participatory events, of course. Don’t just try to ambush and embarrass them. Maybe even a private note?)

      Reply ↓
  35. MemyselfandI*

    I think the expectation should be that the cameras be on AT LEAST in the beginning of the meeting to say hello and view faces. There is a reason why in person conversation is better than the phone and that is because of nonverbal communication.

    Reply ↓
  36. Jessen*

    Ugh the makeup one. This would be a BIG deal for me as well and I’m not even sure where I’d start to address it. I’m transmasc and use he/they pronouns and generally masculine presentation, but I’m still often gendered female based on physical characteristics. This sort of thing for me would be someone essentially overriding my actual chosen gender presentation in order to slap on a bad idea of how they think a woman should look.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS