> Not to mention the fact that it is indeed much harder to have collaborative discussions that are spontaneous and unplanned in a WFH setting, compared to the office.

This is a culture thing that is easily fixed by mandating cameras on, buying everyone good microphones, and a consensus that you can ping someone with a question, go back and forth, and know that you aren't imposing by throwing a /zoom into the Slack DM and saying "let's just meet about this".

My team is small, sure, but we are cameras on 100%, we know to pause a sec after someone stops talking for latency, and have a spoken agreement "fuck slack just open a room i'll hop in". We have met in person numerous times and each time it feels identical to work in person as we do remote.

When I meet with other teams, people are in their fucking cars driving, cameras off the whole time (but chewing into the mic), can't figure out how to share their screen (still!), like, no shit that isn't productive, you're putting no effort into it!

▲

LtWorf 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

So bring all the constant interruptions and inability to focus that is in the office at home as well?

The fact that you think is good tells me you're probably some kind of middle manager with too little actual work to do.

	▲	wpm 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Nope, just an IC. I have plenty of work to do.

▲

dml2135 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow I’m surprised at the heavy downvoted here.

I don’t think mandating cameras on and insisting on 100% is the right move, but I definitely think you want to aim for a team culture where camera-on is a default and most people have them on 80-90% of the time.

Otherwise, yea participation and engagement seems to take a major hit.

	▲	wpm 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I think some people are misinterpreting 100% as "even when you aren't on a call/Zoom/huddle" which is batshit. Some people are just unhappy they're being called out for taking meetings while they take a dump. The latter is precisely why attempting for 100% cameras on during meetings is a good idea. If you're uncomfortable being on camera in a meeting doing it, its a good sign you shouldn't be doing it.

▲

chii 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> cameras on 100%

i hate the idea of camera on 100% of the time.

I am not presentable when WFH. That's the point.

I might also be on the toilet - which otherwise is dead time!

▲

yepitwas 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Screw presentability, having a camera pointed at you and on all the time is creepy and awful. It’s not the same as being in a room with actual people, it’s way worse.

Just meetings with 100% camera-on, even, are awkward and draining in ways that meeting in person or just having a call are not. Having a camera on you is like having a person making hard eye contact without blinking or looking somewhere else, ever. It’s bizarre and it sucks.

▲

yepitwas 4 days ago | parent [-]

I can't edit this more but to temper this: I don't mind camera-on for 1-on-1 conversations, I don't mind camera-on while actively participating in larger meetings, that kind of thing, that's fine.

Camera on all the time so someone could just pop in and start watching at any moment, even not during a call? Terrible, absolutely terrible. Camera on for larger meetings the entire time, even when I'm not participating? Tolerable for very short meetings, but brutal and distracting for even a half-hour meeting.

Again, it's like being stared at. If the context of how I'm participating wouldn't naturally have people looking at me more or less uninterrupted if this were an in-person conversation, having the camera on is really unpleasant. So, when I'm talking, fine, being directly addressed by someone, sure, camera on is OK, but in a group setting when I'm not the (or a) current center of attention? Bad.

FWIW I did some work with McKinsey way into the Zoom era, though long enough ago that I can't vouch for their still doing this, but: they culturally favored just using group phone calls, complete with the phone number option being a common way to connect (Teams and such have this, too, but it's more of a back-up that IME doesn't get used unless absolutely necessary—they'd actually dial-a-phone-number call in as a routine way of operating). Even when everyone involved could have used video, they usually just did the call-in audio only thing. I was like "that's weird and old-fashioned" at first, but what I found it to actually be once I got used to it was flexible, robust, and entirely sufficient most of the time. I think people really overrate the importance of (everyone having) a camera for most calls.

▲

wpm 4 days ago | parent [-]

>Camera on all the time so someone could just pop in and start watching at any moment, even not during a call?

That's not at all what I meant. I don't think it was how I typed it, I grant it could be, but you might want to read my original comment again. I am not advocating for just sitting there in your Zoom Personal Room, camera on, all day every day. That would be insane. But for synchronous work with others, a camera on that lets me know you're there, listening, providing feedback with body language? Thats why shit just gets done faster in person. Remote teleconferencing is low bitrate on the human communication spectrum. At least, lower bitrate than being in the same room. Cameras increase that bitrate.

In my meetings in Zoom, (scheduled, 1 hour, normal), everyone on my team has cameras on almost all of the time. I don't even turn mine off if I step away to grab the coffee pot from the kitchen, it lets people know immediately I'm not able to speak but can hear them fine.

▲

yepitwas 4 days ago | parent [-]

One hour with a camera pointing at my face is like one hour of someone staring into my eyes. It’s exhausting and feels gross.

	▲	wpm 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's weird. Sorry.

▲

thedevilslawyer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Cameras off is a drain for collaboration. Frankly, I think your productivity would benefit from RTO. Professionalism does help in collaboration.

▲

lucketone 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

When I solve problems, I need text, I need diagrams, I need demos (i.e. screen sharing).

I don’t need faces, unless I’m interrogating somebody.

▲

thedevilslawyer 4 days ago | parent [-]

> I .. I .. I.. I.. I..

In all seriousness: you've outlined what you need. Perhaps you should reflect on what any collaborator needs.

▲

lucketone 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Our team is doing just fine, thanks for taking interest.

I will not convince you, but there are a lot of people like me, who can operate productively without observing faces.

▲

Aeolun 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Since they’re not collaborating with you, and are presumably a well paid professional, maybe their collaborators are perfectly happy with how they work?

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

cebert 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why does anyone need to see my face. Work is transactional. Few if any coworkers are actually your friend. We’re getting paid to get a job done.

	▲	wpm 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Because I need to see if how I'm explaining something is hitting. I need to see if you are listening. I need to know you're actually there and not distracted. It's a job. Not a confessional booth.

▲

anon7725 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m going to be nowhere near as productive on the toilet at work as I am on the toilet at home.

▲

4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

wiseowise 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hahahaha, my sides. Jesus. That’s the funniest I’ve heard in this thread.

▲

ecshafer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I have found the same with remote. Cameras ON is a huge improvement in how much people are in on the game. Constant communication, frequent ad hoc meetings, screen sharing. Its totally doable, but most people don't do it. There is no feeling worse than presenting an idea to a meeting room of 10 people with all cameras off, and when you ask a question you get crickets. Too many people are phoning it in.