Study: https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2024-19786-001.html. It doesn't say "we're doing them wrong", it just says they are very boring and tend to make people less engaged than in-person meetings. There are no suggestions for how to do meetings differently.
One suggestion that was indirectly mentioned in the article is to do some highly automated tasks in parallel, like walking. By that you make sure that you don't start a task that is not automated and therefor will get all your attention.
From my personal experience I can confirm that participating in virtual meetings while walking is very productive. As long as mainly audio is used to communicate.
Yes. I have taken to keeping my camera on (because people seem to expect that) but covering it up with a window in which I can put some "doodle" one of those youtube videos of somebody making something complex. This seems to keep some part of my brain occupied while the other part can engage in the meeting enough for it not to get boring.
Do people really use camera for meetings everyday? Is it an American thing? Unless you're interviewing for a job or otherwise introducing someone I don't see the benefit.
Not letting you see my face is actually about respect: I don't want people to embarrass themselves trying to read my mind based on what my face is doing while ignoring what I'm actually saying with my words. I've found it's usually people with a need to see a face (or worse, eye contact) when talking who refuse to trust my words in favor of what they assume based on "body language" (at best a weak signal often given too much weight), so it's better for everyone.
Just like in real life, it's not about body language OR audio, it's about the combination of both.
Apart from scientific reasons...I also just like to talk and see my colleagues from time to time when we are already not in the same office, but I know that varies from person to person.
Other comments in this thread suggest that one should turn their camera off and do something else. This, I believe, is the default experience: that behind every participant without camera there's someone ignoring your talk.
It's the same as presenting to a room where half the attendees are on their phone - while it's conceivable that some of them are using it to (say) find a detail that the presenter missed, the more likely explanation is that they're checking their emails and/or Instagram.
On the other hand, just because someone is looking at you while you speak, not doing anything else, and giving appropriate nods, etc., doesn't actually mean they're paying attention to you.
When concentrating on a task, Me and one of my daughters both get asked constantly why we are so angry.
Apparently it’s so bad that we both get lots of interruptions from people that are greatly concerned.
Not sure if it’s an ADHD hyper-focus thing or what.
American here. I have my camera on when speaking/presenting, but off when consuming the meeting so that I can focus cognitive load on the meeting agenda at hand. This allows me to take written paper notes and think during the meeting vs spending cycles on what people may infer socially from my process in doing so on video (hard to take the lizard brain out of the human). Thinking takes effort.
I tell my team (remote infosec team) video is optional: on if you'd like, but no concerns if off. Respect and output is distinct from whether your camera is on, and I want those I work with (directs and peers) to be most comfortable during our work sessions, including consideration to introverts, those who might show signs of being on the spectrum and adverse to full time video, and so on. There will be no written test, but it will show if you are consistently not paying attention in these forums (assuming you are properly measuring output).
I admit this is culture and org dependent. I encourage those with the authority and aptitude to build good culture whenever within their control.
(my learnings for this topic come from several years at a fully remote startup, a variety of larger enterprises, and my own interactions with my children who are on the spectrum, have ADHD like myself, etc; TLDR give grace, its cheap)
I do this too but have been called out for “not being on camera” by a man that deserves no authority. Some people like to see themselves talk. Some like to hear themselves talk. I’d rather code than talk. When I run meetings, my camera is off, everyone else’s is off, and we have good candor and understanding during the meeting. I think by setting my bar low (just attend) I get better scores than those that require “face time”.
Working and talking with people is more than the words they use. It's also facial expressions, gestures, and general body language. It helps smooth conversations that may be confusing.
I also agree with the OP - turn off self-view. The tumblr post is now, and will always be accurate:
>I am Narcissus and my little zoom square is my lake. --@somfeelingood
This only applies when discussing difficult topics. Performance Review? Probably on camera. Meeting about upcoming sprint work, probably not. The severity of the meeting agenda dictates I think. I also agree that turning off self-view helps a lot. Being “on camera” is awkward for people not used to it. I’m going to draw the line at “but how will I know what your expression is”? Easy, I’ll tell you. I’ll use my words to effectively communicate. Emotionless, without expression. Having my camera on won’t change that. Staring at my avatar face is about the same expression you are going to get live. Slight courtesy smile and that’s it. I won’t get angry, upset, loose my temper, scowl while others are talking, raise eyebrows, or other facial expressions that communicate in a way that requires sequencing imaging technology. Not everyone is photogenic. Not everyone is put together at 8am for your all-hands. Some of us live alone and have to juggle your meeting with doing dishes, or the dog, or getting that last git commit in before deployment. You can’t see body language on camera other than facial expressions. Facial expressions aren’t a great way to communicate on this medium.
So I challenge your notion that we are more than just the words we use. I would say we are entirely the words we use. A lack of vocabulary or mispronouncing words but a good facial expression or body language isn’t going to go very far with me. Effective communication requires words, more than anything. Entire businesses are run via email.
Oh man I spend a lot of time studying peoples' expressions as they hear stuff in virtual meetings. They let on a lot more than they think. I probably do too, but I leave my camera on anyway because I can also use what it shows to consciously express myself w/out having to talk.
These days in-office meetings are worse because 90% of the time somebody's calling in and so everybody's pointed at the screen. It's like watching people watch TV. You lose out on the face to face-ness of virtual meetings and a lot the body language of live meetings.
But man one tiring thing about virtual meetings is that if you say something like "Uh-huh" or "Yeah!" in a virtual meeting the person stops and says, "Did you want to say something?" For some reason that doesn't happen as much in live meetings.
> Do people really use camera for meetings everyday? Is it an American thing? Unless you're interviewing for a job or otherwise introducing someone I don't see the benefit.
I bet it's a company culture thing.
I'm an American, and no one where I work ever has their camera on, except by accident. It's almost a faux pas, like not being on mute: if someone has their camera, someone will mention it so they can turn it off.
Early in the pandemic, we had capacity issues with our then on-prem VPN, which I think prevented any pressure to have your camera on in a meeting. No one would want it anyway: very few even had profile pictures uploaded until some VP mandated it.
The only exception is higher-level managers giving large presentations.
I usually have the camera on during the first few minutes then turn it off.
I usually do something else until it's my turn to speak at daily meeting so there is no reason to look like I'm not listening. I am .. just while doing something else.
True. But from my personal and peer experience, the majority of companies/teams have meetingitis. There is a nice idea to put a price tag on every meeting by multiplying hourly salary of every participant by the count of participants plus some coefficient. Then, everyone, including management, would be self-conscious and had to justify the time spent. Especially if you put it into a budget of every department.
Just because it’s an email/message doesn’t mean it’s not a meeting. The number of hours I’ve wasted having intricate discussions on Slack or Email instead of jumping in a call for 5 minutes is too damn high.
But everyone’s busy so finding those 5min of high bandwidth time is hard. Let’s smear it through a whole 2 hours of low bandwidth communication instead. Make sure everyone’s maximally distracted the whole time trying to juggle 3 things. Perfect.
That’s okay, a conversation log is no substitute for documentation. And we all know this, which is why we complain that discord is bad as a community support/documentation replacement.
If they're a waste of time, why did you join in the first place? If it's not obvious why I'm invited or what the agenda is, I'll do a tentative accept and tell them to message me if they need me to join for something specific.
You shouldn't even turn in if the Meeting do not have a clear agenda alongside anu additionnal information that is desired to be brought in and what is the desired outcome.
Had a job during pandemic that they insisted on 3-6 hours of meetings a day. No breaks between. We were not supposed to turn off microphone at any point.
We got company to agree that meetings would be 25 or 55 minutes so we could have short breaks. Managers constantly ignored.
Was extremely awkward and stressful. Finally people just started ignoring all the rules. They had to sell the company because they couldn’t keep anyone that was actually good at the job.
I can't stand seeing myself during a call. Call me egotistical, but I find myself spending all my time checking on my appearance. (Gotta look good for the co-workers, eh?)
Yup it's a great idea. I have a great camera setup and use self view to make sure I look good on the other hand, but other than that, I hate self view.
I find virtual meetings to sometimes be more tiring because often at least one participant will have a poor mic setup, making it hard to listen to them.
It's also easier to multitask, like if support asks for help, which is a much more demanding.
I am always confused when someone calls a "stand-up meeting" where everyone is sitting down in their own home. Usually starting with personal updates from everyone and catching up.
The whole point of a "stand-up meeting" is to keep it as short as possible (because standing up is uncomfortable). If you remove that it inevitably stretches into those hour-long meetings where no one can stay focused while everybody else gives super long updates and people find something else to do (not hard in your own environment) while waiting their turn.
The fix is to have a clear agenda and someone actively running the meeting to keep it on track, keep it moving, and push conversations that don't interest the larger group to subsequent smaller meetings or email.
You have to adjust for the lack of discomfort and social clues.
Why do you think standing up is uncomfortable? I'm asking cause I'm at the hospital waiting for someone and they told me I can sit down in the waiting area. They didn't see to understand I am perfectly fine waiting while standing up. As soon as I obliged I read your comment. Now I'm curious.
I don't know, it's where "stand-up meeting" comes from though. At the minimum, as the manager you'd probably feel uncomfortable that you're forcing everybody to stand up, which might be the key point.
I wonder why many use a generalistic argument that standing is uncomfortable. It surprises me because it is comfortable as long as your body is used to it. Many people can easily stand for hours. There are even people who don't find sitting comfortable.
I spend a lot of time in meetings and work remotely 99% of the time. We spend so much time in meetings without giving them much thought to designing them for each purpose. Is the meeting a 1:1? Is it a 1:N status shareout? Maybe it should be an email. Is it an N:N status standup? Is it a group brainstorming session? There are best practices for brainstorming (and research shows that brainstorming individually produces more and better results than as a group).
I highly recommend the book "The Surprising Science of Meetings: How You Can Lead Your Team to Peak Performance" [1] or, for a quick summary, the author's webinar "The Surprising Science of Meetings: Evidence-Based Insights Leaders Need to Gain a Competitive Advantage" [2].
This is terribly written. I have a lot of useful virtual meetings, they are usually me and one or two people and it has a specific task to be done that is known beforehand where people have things prepared and we either join things or have to come to an agreement or decision. It's not useful to classify all meetings the same. And I feel that virtual or in person meetings are vaguely similar, the issue is the cost of human hours in virtual meetings may appear hidden or they be too easy to schedule, so people may schedule more meetings that may be unnecessary in virtual settings when they don't few the need to check with each party if they will be available at the specific place, which is required when meeting in person.
Walking and other automated activities can boost your energy levels and help you to concentrate on the meeting. But if you're trying to focus on two things that require cognitive attention simultaneously, you can't hear if something important is happening in the meeting. Alternatively, you have to constantly switch between tasks. It's really taxing for the brain, Nurmi says.
I agree virtual meetings are tiresome, but aren't in person meetings tiresome too? I honestly don't feel like there's that much different between an in person meeting and virtual meeting in terms of mental strain.
Especially getting to and from them. I was always exhausted and stressed out and angry by the time I commuted to work. My blood pressure legitimately went down when I stopped having to commute into an office every day.
I think the big difference is that with virtual meetings you're essentially spending an hour staring into a fixed-distance lightbulb, which is more fatiguing than having a variety of distances and things to look at.
