I had one of those annoying IT days recently with Microsoft Teams not showing me the video feeds of others, although they could all see me. I was surprised how much I rely on seeing everybody in virtual meetings, to pick up non-verbal cues.

I say ‘surprised’, because for the greater part of my career, conference calls were only audio. You could silently communicate with colleagues in the room using your own sign language of gesticulations to encourage them to answer the question being asked, or show your dissatisfaction or amusement with what is being said by the other party on the call.  Now the video conference is the de facto format when we are not in the room together. We even use video for short one-to-one discussions, rather than just a phone call.

There are good reasons and benefits to seeing those you are talking with. It feels much more personal and is arguably a better replication of the probable preferred option of meeting in person. And, consciously or unconsciously, we do perceive much information from non-verbal cues such as facial expressions. For these reasons, I am an advocate for people always having their cameras on in a virtual meeting. Not doing so, without a suitable explanation, in my view feels a bit rude, or suggests disengagement. However, this enforced scenario made me consider this position further.

So, what are some of the arguments for and against having cameras on?

Firstly, let’s consider the reasons for doing so:
Improved engagement and communication: studies confirm that seeing facial expressions and body language enhances understanding and engagement.

These types of non-verbal cues can be more important depending on the culture of those participating. High-context cultures (such as China, Japan or Brazil) often exhibit less-direct verbal and non-verbal communication, utilising small communication gestures and reading more meaning into these less direct messages, making having the camera on very important.

Focus: it is understandably argued that with cameras on, focus and productivity are improved as it is harder to multitask or zone out without others seeing.

Trust development: seeing those we are speaking with provides a sense of connection and teamwork, making interactions more personal and helping build trust.

The counter points of view, however, are equally valid:
Camera fatigue: being on camera means always being on show. This can be distracting for some individuals who are constantly concerned how they look. Of course, in an in-person meeting the same is true, but you do not have a mirror in front of you all the time. Maintaining eye contact with the camera can also add to physical fatigue.

Environment considerations: with home working, there can be concerns about how professional a working environment may look. However, this reason is mostly negated by the ubiquitous availability of virtual backgrounds. And interventions by children or pets are more often treated with amusement, rather than derision.

The limitations of the internet: in some geographies, having the camera off may be due to issues of internet stability and therefore is a practical necessity, rather than choice. For employees/colleagues, we would probably be keen that they find a way to achieve better connectivity; however, for a customer this may be something we just have to accept.

Meeting type can also be a factor. The above is relevant for small group/team meetings, roundtable meetings, client/agency interactions, training and similar. For larger or longer meetings, the format may dictate the appropriateness of cameras being on for everybody.  And if somebody is only listening in for a certain section, and therefore is multitasking, having them on screen may be distracting and it is not pleasant for those speaking to feel they are being ignored. The virtual platforms have options to allow for more webinar-style events where, by default, all delegates don’t have the camera option.

Taking all this into consideration, I remain of the mindset that having cameras on remains the preferred option when the audience is there to participate in the meeting. But perhaps we also need to consider sometimes just picking up the phone for a quick chat, providing a break for all parties from screen fatigue. Similarly, incorporating significant breaks in longer meetings or training allow people time to step away from the camera. We should probably be more proactive in guiding others on what is expected by stating up front, or even better in the invite, the camera etiquette for a meeting. We can also support others in utilising the technology available to overcome their reticence to have cameras on – encouraging virtual background use, showing team members how to avoid having to view themselves on screen, and perhaps even providing training to instil more confidence on presenting via camera.

That’s my conclusion – what do you think?