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:
{ 204 comments }

{ 204 comments… read them below }

  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.

    1. FunkyMunky*

      same, same! I don’t care for people’s faces and don’t care to be distracted with mine, especially if there’s screen sharing that’s the important thing to look at

  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.

    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.

      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.

        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.

          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.

            1. Yadah*

              The benefit is the non-verbal communication that gets lost when everyone is cameras off.
              Personally, I find that non-verbal communication really adds a lot to understanding the tone and response to what’s being said in a conversation.

              1. Dawbs*

                hmmm, his non verbal communicating thing is one of the reasons that camera-off zooms have really leveled the playing field for neurodivergent folks.

                1. Nicole Maria*

                  I was the original person who said I prefer cameras on — I’m neurodivergent myself and it can really difficult for me to process speech when I only hear someone’s voice rather than seeing them speak. Having a visual also helps me focus. I know everyone is different, but as a supervisor I find that cameras on is helpful to a lot of people.

                  If someone needed the accommodation of having their camera off, I would be more than happy to oblige of course.

            2. Tiger Snake*

              So that you can see how people are doing, that they’re actually paying attention, whether there’s any non-verbal response to what you’re telling them that suggests they’re worried, upset or confused, because it’s just dang easier to speak to people when you can see their faces.

              And it’s not just for your benefit as the person who’s being talked at, it’s for the benefit of the person who’s leading and doing the talking. I would actually go so far as to say that its terribly rube to only focus on the argument of “I don’t get much benefit” and put no consideration onto how it benefits other people.

              1. Bruce*

                I started doing long conference calls in the early 90s talking to people who did not speak English as their first language. Video only became a common option for most people around 4 years ago. At least these days we can display those live and use a pointer, in the old days we had to email files in advance and tell the other person what page we were on… and we walked barefoot in the snow, too! Anyhow, for the technical calls I’m on most people don’t turn on video.

      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.

        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.

        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.

        3. Gatomon*

          Yes, I really can’t pay attention to what’s being said when there are 15 different faces floating on the screen. Plus there’s the little screen of my own face. In a face-to-face meeting, you’re not looking at all 15 attendees at the same, and they’re not as close to you as they appear via video.

          1. SpaceySteph*

            Yes the insert of my own face is super distracting! I find my eyes drawn to it constantly. Watching yourself give a presentation is like hearing your own voice.. uncomfortable and weird and I do not like it.

            1. Inkognyto*

              if it’s zoom, there’s an option to turn it off in the settings.

              Go in there and turn it off.

              I turn speaker only on.

              This is a thing people don’t realize. I can literally stop seeing everyone’s face if I want by stopping (on zoom) video for that person or any of them.

              I turn on speaker in large meetings and only see that.

              We’re technically required to have video on. That lasted maybe 2 weeks. No one says anything, and I doubt anyone is going to complain to anyone else.

              The host will turn it on and typically if you are speaking to like Directors and above it gets turns on. Sometimes in small meetings.

              But once you are in 4+ meetings a day, it’s draining.
              I report to a director, and I asked if he wants it on and he’s like, no please. I have it on so much I’d just to just talk, and we do just fine.

              1. Lenora Rose*

                Turning off my own image has been a lifesaver. I generally check it at the start to make sure I’m relatively centred and visible, and nothing looks weird, and my background is blurred so S, who sits behind me, doesn’t end up accidentally guest-starring, and wave at folks and smile, then switch it off.

                For other folks, I often appreciate being able to see people I’ve mostly otherwise emailed or talked to on the phone, and yes, even during note-taking I find myself checking the faces of the person most likely to need to know the info to see if they’re responding, and how. But mostly these are:
                A: Relatively small meetings, where I’m looking at at most 12 other people, and usually more like 4-5. I can see everyone who needs to be seen.
                B: Once a month or so. I’m in about one meeting a week, or less. I totally see how the fatigue would build up if you signed into 3 in a day.
                C: I’ve noticed that people who are engaged but in a non-ideal set-up often have the video off UNTIL they have a reason to talk at any length. Then they switch it off again when done. They won’t do that for asking a single easy question, though — unless they so when they “raised their hand” as a further indication of desire to speak. It seems to be treated in a similar way to mute-unmute.

                One thing I have to note is how much extra grace is involved in these meetings. So many people having to sign in from a phone propped against something because the computer had Issues (Or in one case while walking which is a great way to take a meeting unless you’re doing the notes – hi! – but a terrible one for video and views), or an office set up that’s probably comfortable for other purposes, but isn’t necessarily flattering. Or shared space – I don’t think I’ve been in a meeting this school year with more than 3 people that didn’t have two of them in one room on one connection.

      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.

        1. Mutually supportive*

          this is true if you only have one screen, but for multiple screen users there is plenty of space

          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.

      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.

        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.

          1. Inkognyto*

            and nonverbal queues is body language. Not just head nods and facial expressions.

            Seeing the head and shoulders is okay, but you’re trying to actually read the full posture of the person etc, and you cannot as most of the time you don’t see enough of them to make a good assessment. Which means you focus on it, and then now your so intent on trying to see that your not listening to what they are saying.

            I get called out for scowling, and people go “you furrow your eyebrows” and I’m like, that’s my thinking, sorry it bothers you. I’m not made your just reading it all wrong.

      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.

      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.

        1. obleighvious*

          I guess it depends on your culture. I work with many people that, even though we’ve worked together for years, and are absolutely fine asking questions in person, will hesitate to ask a question they have over Zoom, but because I know them, I can tell by their face that they have a concern, or that I haven’t explained something in a way that is fully understandable. That means when I can, on-the-fly, try to reframe something, and then see nodding or smiles and think “OK, I did get the point across”… and if not, I can at least call on people – “Joy, did you have a comment?” and they’re likely to respond favorably. Without that nonverbal cue, I can only assume everything is fine.

          Now, they are all comfortable enough that Joy would come to me privately, after the meeting, with questions, but then no one else benefits from hearing the answer or follow up discussion, either.

          that said, I do agree that seeing 10 faces in small boxes while sharing a screen to present can be a challenge – but I can also deputize my co-presenter to watch faces when necessary.

      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.

          1. I Have RBF*

            Or lived in a crowded city where even “good” cable had your bandwidth crimped by an oversubscribed provider network. (Both Comcast and AT&T have this problem.)

        3. Banana Pyjamas*

          Even business Comcast goes out for hours and sometimes days. One of my workplaces regularly didn’t have internet for days at a time because Comcast is truly terrible.

          1. Global Cat Herder*

            I actually had a recurring “Meeting” every Thursday from 1-3 because my Comcast Business internet went down every Thursday at 1:02pm on the dot, and stayed off until multiple escalations got them to reset my account. It usually took an hour and a half. Literally every week, for over 2 years.

            It was the only way in which Comcast internet was reliable.

      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.

        1. SpaceySteph*

          Also I can look really engaged in reading Ask A Manager on my other screen and not at the meeting at all. Or nod along at your comment. Video doesn’t actually solve OP’s problem at all, it just gives her a warm fuzzy feeling.

      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.

        1. Banana Pyjamas*

          I agree that we shouldn’t force people to be on camera.

          I think it’s also important to flag that it’s a common enough expectation that it’s being formally taught, not just have your camera on either, but here’s how to engage with the camera on.

          I don’t think visibility is much of an issue for a team of 15. For a business communications class of 16, so 17 total people on camera, I keep Zoom half-size in the tile view. I can see everyone, but we’re graded on eye-contact. So when someone’s square turns green, I move it to the top right under the camera. Then I am watching them speak, but it looks like I’m making eye-contact. I should also note I’m working on a 16″ screen.

          I do see how presenting or watching a presentation could be an issue though. At half-size the presentation is hard to see, and I can only view 4-5 people. However, I only work in half-size so I can work in the course packets.

      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.

      12. JMC*

        Not everyone can afford higher level internet. And no having cameras on is just insane, there is no need for it.

      13. ehhhh*

        With respect, do you want everyone to feel comfortable in the meeting so that they can take the information in, or do you want people to feel the need to ‘perform’ the whole time, meaning they waste precious energy masking and often take in little to nothing of what’s being said?

        I’m sorry, but I am so, so tired of the insistence from neurotypical people that everyone conforms to their wishes. As a woman, I’m sick of it, too, and as a woman of colour, even more so.

    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.

    4. allathian*

      In my org we generally start our weekly team meetings (10 people) and departmental meetings (20+ people) with cameras on. Most people shut them off when there’s a presentation. Our presenters are generally used to speaking to the void and on our team people are quick to interrupt the speaker/raise their hand if we don’t understand something. When I’m presenting, I find faces distracting and turn the incoming video off. I trust people to tell me if they don’t understand what I’m saying.

      That said, there’s no requirement to look at the camera, people can do what they need to do to focus on the meeting.

      In smaller meetings, we always keep cameras on, and especially in 1:1s. My manager works at another office and I see her in person maybe 3 or 4 times a year. I find cameras on meetings useful, especially with good internet connections, because my mild hearing loss means that reading lips to confirm what I’ve just heard helps me understand what the other person is saying. My manager has cochlear implants and would be deaf without them.

    5. Cheshire Cat*

      I moved to a semi-rural area during the pandemic. My internet is good enough for everything I need to do at work, but video meetings where several people have cameras on often cause it to crash.

      Plus, I went through cancer treatment last year, and was very glad I didn’t have to disclose it to my colleagues.

  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).

    1. CR*

      It’s fine if you like not having a camera, but it is a norm in most places to be on camera for meetings.

      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.

        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.

            1. Space Needlepoint*

              The only time when I have issues with bandwidth is when I’m presenting with my camera on.

      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.

      3. TeamCamerasOff*

        No it isn’t. It’s a norm in the places you work, maybe, but not in many, many other places. In fact, I’ve worked in quite a few places that forbid turning cameras on because it’s a bandwidth hog.

      4. Bruce*

        The norm in some places, but not my big group in a big company with big customers who don’t turn their cameras on either. I’m not saying your norm is wrong for your company, just that it is not universal. Instead of turning on cameras, we are screen sharing spreadsheets and presentations. In the case of Tradd, if their customers are grumpy about it they should be thinking about it, no one wants a contentious customer meeting!

        1. Bruce*

          To be clear, we also make in person visits once or twice a year, so we do get to meet people and connect a face to a voice.

      5. CdnAcct*

        I’m not sure why you feel confident in stating that, I’m not convinced at all that it’s a norm. And anecdotal articles in business magazines or LinkedIn don’t make it true either.

        In my workplace cameras off is normal, and we’re a huge corporation. Some managers feel strongly about it and make their teams do camera on but it’s the exception.

    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.

      1. Tradd*

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

    3. amoeba*

      I would also find that pretty weird – I’m not a fan of camera on at all times, at all, but having the option of showing your face for, like, introductions or one on one meetings is really great/important in my world. I don’t need to see your face all the time, but if I’ve literally never seen it, that makes working together really weird!

      (For us, it’s usually like that – we turn on the camera for a few minutes to say hi, then most people turn it off for the rest of the meeting once somebody shared their screen or whatever. Speaker usually leaves it on. One on ones it’s also often on, although it’s not a problem to leave it off with people you know – if you meet somebody for the first time, it’s usually on though!)

    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.

      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

        1. Space Needlepoint*

          If people are tuning out, that’s on the person running the meeting, nothing to do with camera on.

          1. Rory*

            I’m surprised so many people are ok with doing fully off camera meetings – maybe because most of my work experience has been after Covid so I don’t know what it was like before, but I find it kind of odd to just talk to an empty screen. It feels very impersonal. I’d prefer if people at least turn them on when they’re going to speak

            1. Grenelda Thurber*

              None of my meetings are on camera, but the screen is never empty. We all have profile pictures associated with our Teams accounts, and that’s what is displayed. The person talking has a red box around their profile picture.

            2. I Have RBF*

              My company has cameras off. We all have avatars that are cartoons, headshots, or other symbolic items.

            3. I take tea*

              I also dislike talking to a bunch of black boxes in Zoom or a ball with initials in Teams. (Half the time I don’t even know who people are in Teams, because Bethany happens to have another first name and will appear as TL.) So please, people, could you put in a picture? It doesn’t even have to be you, I’m happy to speak to your cute cat or a colourful leaf instead of a black box. Pictures or avatars make me feel as I’m addressing people and not just talking to the void. Of course, it means that you have to sign in to Zoom or Teams, but it’s a small bother, I think.

          2. Zoe Karvounopsina*

            No, I think that’s also to do with the attendees. It isn’t most of them, just a few notable repeaters. It is up to them to attend the meeting where this information is given out, and not to zone out. Maybe they need to knit. Maybe they need to take notes. But that’s on them.

        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.

        3. Dahlia*

          I’m not gonna lie sometimes the time I look like I’m paying the most attention* is when I have a split screen and I’m reading something in the other tab. Tends to be right about where my camera is.

          *in class, I know basic grammar and can zone out a little during the part of the lecture about that.

    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.

    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.

    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.

      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.

        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.

          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.

    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.

      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.

        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.

          1. fhqwhgads*

            I think you may have missed my point, which was mostly about me personally being peeved by being told the same thing multiple times. For example, I dislike spending 20 minutes in a meeting being told the thing on Monday, indicating Director of Something will follow up with more details in an email later, Tuesday someone reiterates all of it in a slack channel, Thursday the Director sends the promised email which says exactly what we were already told and nothing more (but ya gotta read it to find that out), and then Friday yet another someone says the exact same dang thing in another meeting – even though the attendees of said meeting is 90% the same people as the Monday meeting, including the person now repeating the info.
            Like I said, I understand that a significant portion of the population needs to have this directed at them four times for it to stick. But I don’t, which is why it annoys me.

            1. Lenora Rose*

              I tend to have an excellent memory, so 90% of the time I am in the same position as you describe, of being annoyed that there are so many reminders about a thing I already know … and the other 10%, it turns out *I’m* the one who needed that 5th reminder for something to stick.

              I’ve been humbled just often enough I won’t complain about it anymore.

        2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          Indeed we cannot.

          This week I’ve had to be diplomatic to someone who replied to a very basic flyer asking for information that’s in the flyer. Like … ma’am there’s less than twenty words in total and the information you require is four of them.

    4. Person from the Resume*

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

      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.

    5. Cinnamon Stick*

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

      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.

    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.

      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.

      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.

    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.

  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

  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.

    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.

    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.

    6. restingbutchface*

      I would be livid. I don’t wear makeup because it’s not part of my look. Shockingly, I look like I do on purpose, because I like it, certain other people do too and I don’t care about other people thinking I look good or not.

      I would be straight on the phone to HR, asking them to explain why there is a photo of me in drag and if women who don’t wear makeup aren’t welcome here.

      I am grinding my teeth and this didn’t even happen to me!

      Oh and my camera isn’t on because I find it distracting. I’m old enough to remember when there were no videos on conference calls and shockingly, we managed to get the job done then.

      1. Pointy's in the North Tower*

        Same. I don’t wear make up for several reasons and haven’t in over a decade. I’m also gender nonconforming (which is a whole other bucket of fun!).

        I want to be known for my quality of work, not for my face.

        1. restingbutchface*

          Yes, this.

          Except I am also very shallow. I wish a small, select group people to enjoy my face and general look. But there is no overlap between that target audience and people I work with.

    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.

  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.

    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

      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.

        1. Guacamole Bob*

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

        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.

          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.

            1. Peanut Hamper*

              It’s not disbelieving the LW. Alison herself often says “but are you sure what you’re describing is actually what’s going on?” Bias is a real thing and managers need to be aware that they have it.

              As we’ve seen often here, bad managers often have a lot of bias, whether they realize it or not.

        3. Lenora Rose*

          Yesterday, I had a Really Weird Cluster of incidents at work**, and I was definitely heard to yelp, “But it’s the New moon*, not the Full!” So… can attest both that the perception lingers and that it’s often wrong.

          *It’s technically the waxing crescent… but the point was, the moon was a SLIVER.

          ** And in Canada, and in ways that are in no tiniest way related to the stress caused even here by the US election.

  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.

  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.

    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.

    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.

    3. Lenora Rose*

      I reply to them with the correction — but I cc the person they’re supposed to be talking to, because why not facilitate a little bit? But I don’t think I’ve had any serious repeat offenders.

      I used to forward without comment figuring the new person would explain, but this resulted in me getting follow up emails if that person was at all slow in responding; replying to the original with the correction, but including the CC, seems to be the best of both worlds; it’s a tiny extra effort that both makes the communication go where it needs and lets me out of the rest of it with lingering goodwill.

  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.”

    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.

      1. WillowSunstar*

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

  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

  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.

  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.

    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.

    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!).

    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.

      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.

      2. I take tea*

        In Zoom you can hide your own face. I check that I look ok, and then turn on the “hide self view” and it frees up a lot of mental space.

    4. philmar*

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

  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.

  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.

    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.

      1. Hyaline*

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

    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.

  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.)

  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.

    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.

    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.

  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.

  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.)

  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

    1. CV*

      I would consider raising a ruckus. Really rude behavior, to change someone radically and then imply it was their choice.

  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.

  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.

  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.

    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.

      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.

        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.

          1. Educator*

            We are talking about a letter where the writer says “and I know they’re set up for video because it’ll be on at the start of the meeting.” So I think their scenario is like mine, not yours. Obviously no advice is universally applicable. What an odd point.

    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.

      1. Educator*

        Or I could…stay at my current job where everyone always has cameras on, like I said in my original comment?

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          Sorry, this wasn’t meant to be mean-spirited toward Educator. But if I’m applying for a remote job, I definitely want to know what the camera culture is. If it’s “cameras on all the time” then I am likely going to pass.

    3. Twenty Points for the Copier*

      I’m with you for the most part. We’re a remote team and it’s very helpful to have cameras on to help build connections. We were mostly remote pre-2020 and did things by phone. It took a lot longer and was much harder to build relationships and gauge people’s reactions when everyone was just a disembodied voice.

      That said, a lot of home internet is fine most of the time but occasionally glitchy. And sometimes people are in meetings all day and the team meeting is their only time to eat. I don’t think our org needs to be 100% video on 100% of the time, but it’s helpful for it to be the general practice.

      1. Freya*

        Yeah, when I lived at one place ~25 minutes drive from the centre of Australia’s capital city, satellite was the only internet available – and that was only made available in 2015, before that it was extremely slow mobile phone internet. Living at another place less than a block from the biggest university in town, I would walk over and use the awful public wifi at the uni, because it was better than the internet I could afford to get at my house. When I bought my house, good reliable internet capability was a must-have, because it is so very often dodgy AF in this city!

    4. Good Enough For Government Work*

      _Don’t eat during meetings and schedule yourself a lunch hour._

      HAH. This is extremely sweet, but completely unrealistic.

        1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

          And yet taking time off to eat and relax is very important. If you think someone is precious for saying its possible, that says a lot about your workplace, the adjective inhuman seems appropriate

          1. Wolf*

            Also, in many parts of the world, labour laws require getting a break. It’s not some flowery extravagance.

      2. Educator*

        I am in a meeting-heavy role with people in lots of time zones. I literally schedule a meeting with myself for a quick lunch at a time that is not perfectly midday but less likely to get big group meetings. No one should be in meetings for eight hours straight, but you have to advocate for your needs! (Also, where I am, a meal break is a legal requirement in an 8+ hour day. So less “sweet” and more legally mandated.)

    5. Katie Impact*

      What you see as alienating, I see as a freeing layer of anonymity, and in fact it’s one of the reasons I’ve chosen 100% remote work. When my race, gender, and age aren’t constantly on display to the people I work with, I find that I’m more likely to be judged fairly on the quality of my work itself. This is obviously something that’s only possible at a fully remote organization, so I’m very glad that there are remote organizations that embrace the ways they’re different from in-person work rather than trying to be as much like in-person work as possible.

  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.

  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.

    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.

    3. ASD always*

      A blanket cameras-always-off policy is also an equity issue. I have a few hard-of-hearing coworkers and have audio processing difficulties myself as a symptom of a diagnosed disability. Cutting off that visual avenue of communication disadvantages all of us.

      Automated audio transcription is not an adequate replacement, especially when it clearly wasn’t trained on the speaker’s accent.

      1. An Australian in London*

        Firstly thank you for pointing this out as I wasn’t considering that issue. You’re right to bring it up.

        I’m outside my swim lane here and have no lived experience. I am told by a deaf friend that lip reading works poorly over video calls. I already knew that transcription tech is not yet reliable enough.

        I don’t have good answers. I acknowledge the problem is more complex than I first realised.

  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.)

    1. linger*

      If a meeting does contain information relevant to 15 different projects, then it also exceeds the baseline limit on independent items of information that people can keep track of (cited as 7±2 in the title of one famous psychology paper; dealing with more than that requires repetition, and explicit structuring to reduce the number of “independent” items).
      So there is reason for the LW to assess how much of the information is truly relevant to all participants, and how much to distinct subsets.
      The solution may be a series of shorter, more focussed meetings, possibly including a (shorter and less frequent) all-hands meeting.
      It must be admitted it’s more convenient (for LW, and possibly for some employees) to schedule one meeting at one time.
      Though it’s an open question whether LW needs to be in all meetings for all projects, rather than receiving minutes from separate team meetings.

      2. linger*

        As a real-life example of the tradeoffs involved in a more distributed meeting structure:
        One project I was involved with finally got to the point where the members could not be scheduled together for long enough to discuss every relevant detail as a single group.
        The solution implemented was to devolve as much work as possible to 4 smaller subcommittees, each independently assembling part of the project output and then passing it to a 5th similarly small compilation/editing subcommittee; the compiled output was then sent back to all groups for comment, with necessary revisions then performed by the editing group in response to those comments.
        Pros:
        Total meeting time was greatly reduced (from 1600 to 360 person-hours per year).
        The day-to-day work was much more focussed and efficient, and was experienced as easier by almost all members. The output quality also improved on every relevant metric.
        Cons:
        More active management and longer-term planning was required. There was a real risk of developing information silos and communication gaps, so a lot of extra work was needed to define and document guidelines and standard procedures (and the reasons behind them). We also needed to develop some proactive contingency plans, as it was harder/slower to adapt the output in response if external requirements changed.

        So a “video on” requirement is a distraction which does not address the more fundamental question of how LW can manage distribution of information necessary to each employee — which (sorry to say, judging from this example) may require LW doing more actual management work.

  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.

    1. SmallStrangeThing*

      Having a template email is a great idea, however, forwarding the missent emails is just encouraging the repeat offenders to continue doing so. The template should say something along the lines of, “Effective DATE, I have moved out of this position and into a new team. Please send your request directly to boss@email.com.” End of the email chain.

      There obviously can be exceptions to this depending on the sender and message, but put that burden of contacting your old boss back to the sender!

  31. access specialist*

    No. It’s an accessibility issue. A couple of people have alluded to how it doesn’t work with their ADHD, etc, but no one has out right said it.

    I am deaf and need other communication cues more than anyone, but I still don’t think anyone ever should require cameras being on. Some people just need them off, and that needs to be okay and accepted.

  32. 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.

  33. 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))

    1. Selina Luna*

      Can you lipread people on screens? I’ve never mastered it, and I’m curious about your secret. I was hard-of-hearing as a kid, so I learned to lipread then, and I’m still fair at it in person, but on camera, I never mastered it.

      1. DinoZebra*

        I’m not as good as it as I am IRL! It obviously helps for them and you to have a good signal and a decent quality of camera (and lighting) and it’s obviously impossible if the video is laggy or randomly freezes. I try to have speaker view (not gallery view) as big as possible and it is only supporting what I’m getting from the audio (I assume it’s more obviously inferior to IRL interaction for someone who gets the majority of their communication through lipreading) but it definitely does help me.

  34. 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.

    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.)

  35. 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?”

    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?)

  36. 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.

    1. Xhausted*

      That only applies if the in-person conversation is between people speaking the same non-verbal language. Different cultural backgrounds, different neurotypes, even different generations – nope.

  37. 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.

  38. Raida*

    Do these meetings have notes taken?
    As each subject changes, is there a quick summary like two or three bullet points, confirming the facts?

    At the end does anyone run through those bullet points, give everyone a chance to rectify any misunderstandings, then email them or save them in the meeting?

    I’m not saying they are or aren’t paying attention or that you shouldn’t address it.

    But I’m saying – this is a great opportunity to have useful structure to your meetings.

  39. Peanut Hamper*

    I’m honestly curious how all these pro-camera people handled conference calls on telephones in the days before zoom and teams.

    1. Educator*

      I’m about 40 and have always had calling software in the offices where I’ve worked. It was Skype and Webex back in the day! Conference calls sound like something out of the 1990s. But also…we met in person before the surge in remote work, so it was less of a thing.

      1. I Have RBF*

        I was on regular conference calls in 2012. We’d all get the agenda and we’d just do the work. No one had cameras. I still remember meeting one guy in person after spending 6 months in weekly conference calls with him. He was shorter than his voice. (Deep bass voice, only 5’6″) But he had the best phone voice I’ve heard in a long time.

    2. Cat Lady*

      Not well!! I had a truly horrible time trying to be able to take in information when doing these calls even when taking them in a conference room with other folks (a bygone era!)

      There seems to be an assumption that everyone can function equally well with cameras off while some can’t function well with cameras on. I would volunteer that some of us do not do as well with cameras off. That doesn’t mean we should “win” this debate, but it’s worth realizing we aren’t pro cameras on just to disadvantage others or for meaningless butts-in-seats checks.

  40. Wolf*

    I’d suggest only using the camera when you’re in a place that is suitable. Virtual backgrounds drive me nuts – seeing the person’s hair and hands constantly clip in an out of the background is terribly distracting.

  41. Cyrus*

    Re: cameras, is recording an option? (My office uses Teams for meetings and that makes it easy for end users to record meetings, at least with our setup, but I’m less familiar with Zoom.) If meetings aren’t recorded, you might want to start, because it’ll probably solve the problem. If meetings are recorded and people are still asking questions that were covered in the meetings, that’s definitely on them.

    Also, what does “covered in the meeting” mean? I can imagine a situation where in a meeting someone asks “Will X be done by December?” and the answer in the meeting is “yes” and someone follows up afterwards to ask “Will X be done by December?” That’s a problem but very minor and more on the person asking after the meeting than anyone else. On the other hand I can imagine a situation where in a meeting someone asks “Who will do X?” and the answer in the meeting is “we don’t know”, and then someone follows up afterwards to say “I can” or “Wakeen said he can but he has to finish Y first.” That kind of exchange sounds like a much bigger problem, and it’s probably on the person following up, but there might also be issues with how the meeting is organized or run.

Comments are closed.