Trouble For Workers Who Turn Cameras Off (axios.com) 96
92% of executives at medium to large firms think workers who turn cameras off during meetings don't have long-term futures at the company, according to a new survey from Vyopta, a software company. From a report: The data adds grist to the worry that hybrid and remote employees have expressed about the post-pandemic world -- that those who choose to work from home some, most or all of the time will be out-of-sight, out-of-mind for bosses.
In a separate finding from Vyopta, 93% of execs said that people who frequently turn off their cameras probably aren't paying attention. Those employees are perceived as less engaged with their work overall. The majority of companies around the world are moving to a hybrid working model, which means more video meetings in the future. But the casual, camera-off and microphone-muted way of taking a meeting might be harming employees' career prospects.
In a separate finding from Vyopta, 93% of execs said that people who frequently turn off their cameras probably aren't paying attention. Those employees are perceived as less engaged with their work overall. The majority of companies around the world are moving to a hybrid working model, which means more video meetings in the future. But the casual, camera-off and microphone-muted way of taking a meeting might be harming employees' career prospects.
Or is this (Score:5, Interesting)
Just one of the articles CEO's drum up to scare the populace?
Re:Or is this (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost NO one turns a camera on, at many places, security measures on the company computers has the cameras disabled.
I mean, hell, most everyone is working in t-shirts and boxer shorts....who wants to see that in a meeting?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That actually makes sense.
For small meetings it makes sense to have the camera on, but for large meetings it's just wasting bandwidth.
I have been in many meetings where the behavior was crap until everyone turned off their video feed just because the video stream took too much bandwidth.
If your manager considers that having the video on especially on meetings larger than 4 to 5 persons is important then that manager has a problem, not you. For all that matters the video off means that you can pick your nose
Re: Or is this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or naked. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Dangerous. Canada had one Member of Parliament who ended up naked on camera twice [globalnews.ca]
Re:Or is this (Score:5, Interesting)
Just one of the articles CEO's drum up to scare the populace?
To be honest, I don't think so. I think they are just that incredibly stupidly out of touch that they assume that everyone working for them has a separate office with a good visual set up and enough sound separation from the rest of their household that they can afford to sit with the sound and microphone on all through the day. The idea that some of their workers might be in a shared apartment and working from their own bedroom, possibly shared with someone else doesn't occur to them even though they are paying just over minimum wage so that what I've described is probably pretty good accommodation for some of their employees.
There are great managers out there, some few people who understand that their job is to identify their teams problems and make them magically go away (even if that just means making sure that the team doesn't see the problem). For the most part, though, if you have a "manager" they will be screwing around with their employees lives.
Re: (Score:3)
I have some friends in the real estate business. They say lots of home-buyers are asking about home offices.
Home offices are the wave of the future. Builders should consider them for new housing.
A home office is not the same as a spare bedroom. An office can be half the size of a bedroom, is often on the ground floor, and has no need for an en suite bathroom or closet.
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself ;)
I hate that my home office doesn't have a en-suite bathroom, and wish it was the size of a bedroom. Granted, I have my desk and work/lab bench and an improvized network rack, but still. My ideal home office would also have a fold-out couch-- fold-out for guests and couch for me to take some of my meetings.
My hom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or is this (Score:5, Interesting)
A home office is not the same as a spare bedroom. An office can be half the size of a bedroom, is often on the ground floor, and has no need for an en suite bathroom or closet.
I've worked from home for decades before covid, mostly as secondary to an office but now it's full time, I learned a bit along the way.
I've used bedrooms before and whilst you can do it I've found that a little too cramped (for me) because sometimes I spend a lot of time in my office. It took me a while to work up to the configuration I have now. I selected the house based a lot on what sort of home office I could have knowing I would spend a bit of time there.
It's neat and masculine space that is a presentable zoom background so I'm happy to turn the camera on. I take a picture of my home office, when it's neat, to use as a background for when it is not, which is also handy when I'm away. I turn the camera on to chat with my manager or when I'm having a chat with a colleague. I also choose roles that are comfortable with remote.
Handiest features I've found: A front door to outside, if anyone has to come to my home office for collaboration, they don't have access to the main house, which is via a second internal door, that I can lock. I've got a nice view and I can see people pulling up. I'm extremely productive in this space, more so than a smaller room. It makes for a great tax deduction too, which is much easier to justify to auditors. The size of the room contributes to improved sound quality of the room, which is better than some conference rooms in the office - so I can be heard clearly.
I found there is a clear delineation between work and relaxing. I can close the door, go upstairs, chill out and really let work go because it is separate, I could not get that sensation from using a bedroom, it was just, there. When we have friends over, I can lock my office and be at ease that it can't be accessed. Now, it's some other space I go to.
Improvements for next time would be an ensuite toilet and shower which will probably be the goal for the next house, along with thicker, more sound proof, windows.
The biggest thing I noticed was that I'm not trying to shoehorn myself into a space, the home office grew organically into a kind of reflection of the things I do. Colleagues see that (in the zoom call) and get some insights about me, oddly enough, that friends do not see.
In a way, with the camera on into your home office, your colleagues are seeing more insights about who you are than they see in the office. Which is kind of counter intuitive. Of course, you've always got the blank white wall option.
Always a work in progress though. Have a great day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the more you can blow the actual face up the better, added bonus, no one else can se your possibly messy background
true, however I think that is what is going on here - they *want* to see into your space to judge your character. If you are messy and disorganized that will permeate through your work product.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of homes already have this, we usually call it a "den". It's advertised as such, like "2 bedroom with den". The den is suitable for mul
Headline is bullshit, as it typically is (Score:4, Informative)
Top executive la (VP or higher) were asked:
How strongly do you agree with the following statement?
Employees who are less engaged, either frequently on mute or donâ(TM)t turn on their camera during virtual meetings, probably donâ(TM)t have a long-term future at their company.
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly agree
92% of VP and CEOs agrees that employees who are less engaged (during meetings with the VP or CEO) ...
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like the question was about "Employees who are less engaged", not employees who turn of cameras or mute their mics.
In a one-on-one meeting, I can see wanting to have the camera on, and needing to have the mic on. In our daily "check-in" meetings, with at m
Re: (Score:3)
92% of VP and CEOs agrees
Any survey is likely to be fake if it finds more than 90% agree on anything. There are contrarian people who will disagree just to be argumentative. Every group seems to have at least one of these people.
No, it's FUD as slashvertisement... (Score:5, Informative)
The "survey" mentioned in the summary is by a company [vyopta.com] whose daily bread is software for analytics and monitoring of quality of conference calls.
I.e. If you use their solutions, your zoom calls won't cut out and therefore, according to a survey they just happened to have lying around - you will be less replaceable. Instead you'll be more... perceived as engaged with the work overall.
Remember that scene in The Wolf of Wall Street? No, not that one. This one. [youtu.be]
Their software is probably garbage for PHBs with OCD.
Or they wouldn't be playing such shitty games to generate FUD, for which their product just happens to be a very graph-heavy solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting that you don't turn off your camera to do other things?
I 100% prefer conference calls because nobody knows when I'm actually paying complete attention.
Re: Or is this (Score:2)
More better (Score:5, Insightful)
I do my best to not engage in any double-plus-ungood activities.
Oh wait I'm a human and I will do whatever I please. Leave companies like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave companies like this.
Leave companies where the CxOs have opinions? Who are you going to work for? Not yourself obviously because you clearly have an opinion on this matter too.
Sometimes you have to let your employees work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with your thoughts about 100% monitoring, but that's not what the article is about, it's about video being on during meetings.
I think that it's perfectly acceptable to expect that if a meeting were to be held in a small conference room where everyone can see everyone else if everyone was there in person to have the expectation that cameras be left turned on in the same type of meeting with all remote attendees.
Of course, "all hands" type meetings are different.
Re: (Score:3)
When the teleconference software can provide at least minimal VR capability to allow you to look around the "room" to see different people, that might work. But an over-crowded brady bunch screen isn't that helpful, especially when it starts stuttering due to bandwidth.
As for muted mics, the person who never contributes when they should is a problem. The people who are mostly there so they can know what is happening probably SHOULD stay on mute. Especially if someone wlse from their department is already co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't let your employees work without constantly looking over their shoulder, you're not doing your job as a boss. If your employees can't do the job without you looking over their shoulder, it might be work that you need to do, not them.
It's more about hiring. If you find that your employees wont do what they've been hired to do without someone constantly looking over their shoulder, you've hired wrong (read: you tried to be cheap). Good, reliable employees are out there but aren't working for far less than the going rate. As the old saying goes, pay peanuts, get monkeys.
What about ye old conf. calls? (Score:2)
We had these things called conf. CALLS where folks shuffled into a conf room with a speakerphone and those who couldn't attend... dialed in. Just how were those folks judged? How would someone know what that remote worker was doing? They couldn't. This cam on comment is just stupid bullshit to scare folks.
Re:What about ye old conf. calls? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps. But remote workers are more likely to be laid-off, less likely to be promoted, and receive smaller raises than in-office workers at the same company.
If you want to be successful, make sure your boss sees your face occasionally.
I turn my camera on for most meetings. I have a goose-neck mount so I can position it so my eyes appear to look directly into the camera when I am actually looking at the browser behind it with the latest Slashdot article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Measuring an employees "worth to the business" is usually very difficult unless there's in the top or bottom 10%. Hence human beings almost inevitably use proxies.
And like it or not, one of those proxies is engagement. And one bit of evidence of engagement is that you can *see* a person paying attention.
We can complain, but it's simply humans being human.
Re: (Score:2)
They're right. (Score:3)
In a separate finding from Vyopta, 93% of execs said that people who frequently turn off their cameras probably aren't paying attention.
As someone who keeps my camera turned off, they are probably correct about this. Of course, that is because it frees me up to, you know, get actual work done.
Except when I'm posting on Slashdot during a meeting, I suppose.
Re: They're right. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah... I don't really want my boss to see the jerk off motions I'm making off camera when he goes on a brag fest about how awesome he thinks he is.
The sticker over my camera is job security!
Re: (Score:2)
Alternative Headline: (Score:5, Insightful)
"92% Of Executives at Medium to Large Firms are Out of Touch and Can't Relate to Their Employees"
Simple solution (Score:2)
Career prospects are the carrot we wont catch (Score:3)
The typical blather from management is IF you accept our offer and IF you exceed expectations over a period of time THEN we will reward you with more responsibility. Thats execuspeak for we will give you more work without significantly more pay. Employees are expected to arrive and do a job. They may get 2 to 3 percent raise annually but nothing more. One person out of thousands will get more. How do you like the odds?
Meanwhile in reality... (Score:2)
... the rest of the population has widely recognized these types of intimidation tactics as toxic, and the middle-management culture that promotes it as obsolete.
Re: (Score:3)
Remote work and collaboration tools are removing most of the need for middle managers, so they're running terrified.
Probably 4/5ths can get pink slips which, ideally, will leave the effective ones who advocate for their employees.
Probably doesn't bode well either (Score:1)
If you join a meeting with your cam on and you've still got that Lovense tip menu plugin enabled in OBS.
"Uh, hey Tim, I know times are tough with the high gas prices and all, but if you could turn off your connected sex toy tip menu that would be great, m-kay?"
Re: (Score:1)
OK works for me (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the employee who attends a meeting with camera off is bad, but the manager who attends a meeting from their phone in their car is just fine.
Judge others by your standards (Score:2)
It is probably the executive themselves that would not pay attention if they had their cameras turned off. They assume that everyone else would do likewise. Most on-line meetings that I participate in we switch cameras off but still pay attention.
Of course they don't! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, thanks to a profit-at-all-cost mentality, most employees don't have a long term future at any company. Job switching is now an accepted cultural norm for upwardly mobile career employees. And how many employers have any sense of loyalty to their employees?
Secondly, these employees don't have a long term future with your company because they're already on their way to a company that will treat them better, and understands the difference between "appearing to be engaged" and actually getting work done. And they're polite enough to avoid transmitting noise over the audio channel, or chewing up your company's bandwidth with useless video.
I'm not paying attention (Score:5, Funny)
It's true, I'm not paying attention to yet another meeting that should have been an email. I'm trying to get actual work done, not worrying about my TMT (Total Meeting Time).
Almost nobody except the managers turn their cameras on at my company.
- Necron69
Re: I'm not paying attention (Score:2)
The only time I've seen cameras on at my company are:
1) large announcements where the person/panel making the announcement/answering questions have their cameras on
2) my first day where I met the direct team I'd be working with and 2/3 had cameras on
3) a meeting with the larger team was discussing return to office with our boss. The boss said "why don't we turn on cameras if you're in a situation that you can" and about half did.
My 1-2 daily meetings have 0 cameras and I appreciate it.
My girlfriend's compa
Re: (Score:3)
Almost nobody except the managers turn their cameras on at my company.
And there you have the entire foundation for this article. The manager has been left behind and alone, superfluous and a joke to all. Hence this article trying to turn it around and blame it on the workers.
Re: (Score:3)
I have noticed that companies that are doing well tend to grow broad at the top, hiring more execs than they really have a use for. I'm not sure why. Does it look good in magazine articles?
Re: (Score:2)
Going public seems like a poison pill for focused companies in that way.
100% will not work for you (Score:3)
> 92% of executives at medium to large firms think workers who turn cameras off during meetings don't have long-term futures at the company
I will not work for 100% of those executives, 100% of the time. Their loss.
I think this is bullshit. (Score:2)
I work at a Fortune 50 company and am on remote meetings 6+ hours / day, including many executives.
Executives turn their cameras off in meetings *ALL THE TIME*. I would say optimistically they are on 75% of the time at the most. And some executives, like some employees, never turn them on at all.
Interesting. (Score:2)
Nobody turns cameras on at my company except:
1) When interviewing someone. At least I do, I feel it's polite to put a face to a voice.
2) During all-hands, but only the presenter(s)
Otherwise it's recognized that our telco monopolies do not provide either fast enough, nor reliable enough internet connections that N people can have full motion video running without at least one person on the call being affected. It's just a stupid idea. I'm always fully dressed and presentable, and my home office is shaped tha
The point of that is? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't match experience (Score:3)
I can't count the number of times someone has said "everyone please mute your microphones" in zoom calls. From kids to dogs to birds to outside traffic, the signal/noise ratio can be pretty grim.
For slightly different reasons, nobody wants to see their co-worker's at-home appearance.
So yeah, this whole thing seems really unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I DO have 6 jobs. with 4 overlapping meets (Score:1)
Let’s see
I could be making $150,000, max, for one company, and being bored 90% of the time (Old Model).
Or I could work for SIX companies at an average rate of $130,000 and make $780,000....
Hmm I wonder.
Nope. The cameras will remain off!
If 1 or more wnat to fire me, I’m fine, it happens. About once every 4 months I slip up on coordinating the muting of microphones and one or both companies hear the meetings or me talking on another meeting. All but once, it led to instant termination, the other o
Or... (Score:2)
Maybe because I don't have to actually get up, go anywhere, etc... I don't always shower and shave every morning. If it's just me sitting around in my home office, I'm the only one who's going to care if I smell a little. So, because maybe I literally just rolled out of bed and logged into work, I look more than a little disheveled and don't really feel like having others see me that way.
Control group? (Score:2)
92% of executives at medium to large firms think workers who turn cameras off during meetings don't have long-term futures at the company
But...how many executives who leave their cameras ON have long term futures at the company? Is 92% higher, or lower, than average?
Turnover is a thing in corporate America. Jobs in general aren't considered long-term for most people, cameras or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Performance-based metric (Score:2)
Just introduce a performance-based metric and use it to grade your employees instead of using obsolete and highly subjective performance perception methods from the 80s.
I'm pretty sure ... (Score:5, Funny)
What % of Employees? (Score:2)
What percentage of employees think their VP or higher is showing signs of losing it because they can't play "butts in seats" dominance games with the employees?
Management like this can shove it.
I don't have that problem... (Score:3, Interesting)
Public Servant here. After attending a workshop during which it was explained people are used to seeing faces and being isolated/not seeing as many faces isn't good for us and has a negative impact on our mental health, I started turning on my camera during meetings. I was one of the only ones with the camera turned on, but I was ok with that: for one thing, I wanted people to know who I am (I've been hired during the pandemic). For another, I figured it might encourage others to turn on their cameras. I was approached (messaged) privately and told to stop turning on my camera, to leave it off unless someone else turns it on because I was making them uncomfortable.
Yeah, fucking trouble... (Score:2)
trouble for those who aren't neurotypical, are self-conscious about their appearance on camera, and don't like "making eye contact." Trouble for those with neck/postural issues for whom it may actually be painful to assume the position to stay in camera frame. Trouble for those with ADHD who like to fidget like gidget and get antsy and irritable when they can't. Frankly, it's a disability issue.
I'd much rather have meetings in person, and I'm happy that I have a job that basically dropped all COVID rest
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather have meetings in person....
You have my sympathies for your disability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Office space is cheap, not at a premium
(2) Saving energy costs just pawns them off on homestuck workers.
(3) Commuting supports clean, electric public transit. We don't want to kill off public transit -- electric cars for everyone require envirotoxic batteries and thus aren't a great solution. Save the trains, back to the office!
(4) You don't want the office to become a place for people "not good enough" to WFH ... what about people who actually WANT to work from an office without being stigmatized
Pay attention to what I am saying (Score:1)
>> execs said that people who frequently turn off their cameras probably aren't paying attention
I say people who want cameras turned ON probably aren't listening to what I am saying.
That's funny (Score:2)
At my company cameras are used by execs when speaking in all-staff meetings, but apart from that they're only used for special occasions. We used them more for ordinary meetings early in the pandemic but that got old pretty quickly.
Are you, Mr Exec, a social science researcher? (Score:3)
Plenty of people just don't like seeing their faces on a screen where everyone is looking. Other people want to eat and drink during a meeting. And yet other people just need to scratch their face. There are many reasons. And what kind of psychopath don't mute themselves during meetings? There's nothing more annoying than people in meetings breathing loudly into the microphone. No one wants to hear other people coughing. No one wants to hear the background noise of other people's home offices. You unmute yourself when you want to speaking. That's just being courteous, Mr clueless exec.
And if people are disengaged from meetings, maybe ask yourself if you are the one making meetings unproductive in the first place. Do you have a meeting for every unnecessary thing? Do you make a lot of shit plans that force people to work overtime, and your pointless meeting is just getting in the way of your employees fixing your shit? Do you making meetings all about yourself and disregard input from people who try to tell you what's actually going on?
The fact that 93% of execs think their employees are disengaged tells me what I've just said is true. It stands to reason that only 7% of execs are actually liked and/or respected by their employees. Those 93% of execs who see disengaged employees are right - those employees don't have a future at their company because their company is made shit by those execs. Why would people stick around on a sinking ship?
It's like programming job interviewers thinking they're the Sherlock Holmes of psychology, as if their whiteboard tests can tell them anything about employee performance. You studied programming and other computer technologies. You didn't study psychology, your fauxtistic understanding of how humans behave comes from reading pop-psych articles, and plain guessing.
Better to let my boss think I'm ignoring him... (Score:1)
...than to show up in-person and prove it!
middle management about to take a massive job cut (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more I'm getting the feeling that post-pandemic, middle management across all sectors is going to suffer a severe slashing. And they're feeling it already and trying to fight back.
A lot of people are conscious of their home "office" surroundings and prefer to not show it to the world because it was never intended to be. A lof of people also don't necessarily sit in the same chair the whole day if they have the option to move. I personally like to stroll around with my bluetooth headsets on my head to walk & talk. I'm paying MORE attention this way than if I were sitting still.
Any manager who doesn't get that people have adapted how they work should lose his job.
I think a lot of industries will figure out that the hierarchy that evolved from an industrial age is no longer needed. About half of middle management can be removed and it will be a positive impact on productivity.
And they're scared shitless, hence all these bullshit articles all hinting that more micro-management is needed and how it's all workers' fault.
Many don't pay attention with their cameras on (Score:2)
These executives... (Score:2)
... not all of them have a long term future with their company either. And as the article points out, not all people who WFH have a quiet study. Pushing them to show their faces as sort of tribute may well have adverse consequences.
Also, the survey is by company that sells a video/audio conferencing management platform. So there is a degree of selection bias here. Maybe even conflict of interest.
Well, f**k executives (Score:2)
More Involved in Work, not Less (Score:2)
Depending on the meeting, if I don't have to participate, I turn off camera and mic and continue to get work done while the presenter drones on in my ear. The funny thing is, upper management recently scheduled a required-attendance meeting to tell us all to stop having unnecessary meetings!
(sigh)
TANJ! ("There aint no Justice." -- Larry Niven)
Not everyone is rational (Score:2)
I work naked and wear onesies when it's cold (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:1)
At the beginning of the pandemic the executives at my company told us that having our cameras on in meetings AND having a photo of ourselves in our MS Teams profile was mandatory. I'm not photogenic and like to clean my guns during these all-hands meetings, so, I didn't bother. I was "reminded" of the rule several times by management. During one particular meeting I was in I discovered a couple of the execs were violating said rule themselves. I took a screen shot and presented it to my manager during our n
Re: (Score:1)