Hacker News Reader

Wow I hope we never work together. A mature team trusts one another and assumes the best. If I got that feedback from a manager in a one-on-one I would put in notice that day. What a horrible attitude to bring to your work interactions.

If you had a private conversation with your manager, and they asked you to "be more present" at telemeetings via unmuting your video stream, your response would be to QUIT? Maybe before that point you should talk through the topic with your manager. Surely the best result for everyone is to have a shared understanding, rather than making what seems like a minor communication "difference of opinion" a dealbreaker.

This is not a simple communication breakdown, it's assuming bad faith without any evidence. That is a red flag of a toxic work environment. Don't let your manager gaslight you.

You seem to assuming as much bad faith as you believe the OP is assuming. Is this (edit: your preference re: muting) a generational thing? Because I definitely see it as a reasonable expectation that somebody at a telemeeting would be visible-by-default, and only muted in specific circumstances such as large meetings, or after citing some abnormal local situation (e.g. not "presentable"). I believe body language is important and generally find communication still has "dimensional" improvements in efficiency, moving from text chat to voice to video+voice.

However, I can also see that my expectations are not shared by you, based on your strong response. My gut tells me this is related to different communication norms with "digital natives." I think your assumptions of malice and inability to learn on the part of the manager are misplaced.

You seem to be assuming both my preference and age.

I'll allow that some of it may be generational; many of my younger colleagues have never called in to a conference call.

But I challenge your claim that I'm assuming bad faith. At no point did I question the motives of the OP, only their actions.

Edit: I should clarify, because my original comment could reasonably be read as assuming details about the internal motivations of the OP. Allow me to rephrase: if a mangers' default response to an individual not having a camera on is to dress down the person for not "being present", that manager is making a toxic workplace environment.

Yeah I suppose I'm assuming your age. I don't understand where you're coming from when you feel that the immediate response from the situation is to quit, and my "maximum likelihood estimate" is that it is millenial vs gen-x office culture, hence the leading question. Apologies if that has offended you.

Your preference seems... clear enough to me? given that you said you would quit that day. What am I misunderstanding?

I believe your response of leaving rather than attempting to reconcile the difference in expectations is an indication of assumption of bad faith. As in, you seem to believe the manager would not be responsive to a discussion.

I've never gained anything from watching "body language" during a video call. A key component to body language is what the other person is looking at. But – you can't tell in a video call! I can't tell who's looking at whom or what – everyone is just blankly staring at "me". And half the time, I'm looking at relevant documents in another tab, so (a) I can't see anyone else's face anyway, and (b) the fact that I'm looking away from the speaker isn't reflected in the video feed.

Growing up pre-internet blessed me with the ability to communicate effectively without body language, thanks to the telephone. I find that translates perfectly well to video-less conference calls.

Yeah, all this looking each other in the eye and such seem very much like a boomer/MBA thing.

This is butts-in-seats mentality, but for remote workers:

> most of the time when people are video muting it's because they are hiding their distraction and lack of attention

The OP assumes that those who have their camera off are wasting time, because they can't see them to prove that they're not.

I get that, but... butts-in-seats as an expectation for the work day (which is typically where the policy/work culture is called out), is quite different from a butts-in-seats expectation for meetings where one has a "real role".

Can you clarify your position here? What do you see as the main issue with butts-in-literal-seats, and what about this hypothetical remote meeting is "quite different"?

GP cited "butts in seats mentality" in a way that I interpret as pejorative, referring to office cultures where physical presence during working hours is more important than output.

A meeting is specifically about communication. A participant at the meeting that is inattentive is either wasting others' time, or should probably politely step out, or at least should not have been asked to attend. Being present is a priority for a good meeting, hence the pejorative "butts in seats" comment doesn't make sense to me.

The output of an interactive meeting is the interactivity, not the appearance of interactivity.

I don't disagree with this; I just think dropping the video feed can impact the interactivity of a meeting.

" I feel strongly you should have your video on and be engaged, and most of the time when people are video muting it's because they are hiding their distraction and lack of attention, "

You shouldn't be projecting your personal opinion on others. Even if people don't pay attention maybe you should consider that it's because the conference is not that important to them. Happens to me all the time. If I paid full attention in every meeting and call I am supposed to attend I would get nothing done.

Others have called out the extremity of this position, so I'll leave that alone, but do consider the practical/technical limitations here. Whenever there's a call with more than one or two speakers with a going video feed, the quality of the stream degrades precipitously. Depending on the quality of the teleconferencing software, either the whole call will become entirely unworkable and audio will get mangled, or the video streams will degrade into mush anyway.

Because of this, unless I'm expecting to be the primary presenter in a meeting or unless it's a 1:1, I'll usually "mute" the video feed. If I don't start video-muted, I'll frequently do it mid-call as people complain about lag, choppy audio, or inability to make out the primary presenter's screen. There's no reason to put the extra technical tax on the call just so people can see what I look like when I'm staring at a screen.

Please consider this as an alternative motivation, rather than assuming that anyone who isn't making themselves visible is slacking off.

This is a very distrustful, almost adversarial, position to take. If you don't trust that your employees are paying attention just because their cameras are off, then you must not think very highly of them. Regardless of whether that's true, that's how that stance comes across.

I would not enjoy working for someone who thought like that.