Remote working

[SueEllen]

That's a figure that gets thrown around a lot, but I've never seen a decent source for it. Personally, I think it depends on context. </snip>

On the other hand, suppose that someone filmed a daily Scrum meeting. I've never attended one, but as I understand it each person will stand up in turn and say 3 things:
1. What I achieved yesterday.
2. What I intend to achieve today.
3. Any obstacles.


Do you really think that you'd get 60-80% of the information by watching that video on mute?

Then you don't know what you are talking about.

Normally you can see other 4-6 people on your screen. You can often see more.

The only reasons to turn your camera off in meetings is:
1. Someone in your household walks into the room behind you, or,
2. There are bandwidth problems, or,
3. You are eating, or,
4. You are in a meeting with over 10 other people. Even then you need to turn your camera on when you are speaking.

I had a similar conversation with a trainer a few years ago, and they suggested that "not every 10% is equal", but I didn't find that very convincing!

You're welcome to set that policy, but it feels a bit draconian. I don't mind using my camera, it's just a bit of a faff. It's built into the laptop lid, and I normally have my laptop closed (connected to external monitors); when I open the laptop, that will block part of the monitor behind it, so I wind up peering over the top. Also, I'll need to close my curtains and turn on the lights, otherwise the daylight from the window will give too much glare.

Having loads of glare is preferable to not having your camera on. Oddly you can actually get away with a bad set up as you are showing you are willing to be social. Also if it upsets someone they will ask you to turn your camera off and you just oblige.

[SueEllen]

hobnob made some fair points, but in my experience most clients prefer "prayer meeting" participants to have their video on, and my current client actually canned an Indian team because their members were reluctant to appear on video, for some unfathomable reason, and replaced them with a team from the Czech Republic, who weren't so camera shy!

One obvious reason for havng video is that it means you get to know remote team members better, so in a sense they are more than just a name.

People forget this.

It may be a newer form of communication but people still need to connect with you as a human being.

Some of the hybrid roles I've done I could have easily got away with never going into the office.

I did to meet the people I spent months talking to via Zoom/Teams/whatever even if it was near to the end of the contract.

[hobnob]

Then you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm happy to defer to your expertise here. Consider these 2 scenarios:
* You can watch the video of a scrum meeting with no audio.
* You can listen to the audio of a scrum meeting with no video.

Which would give you more information? I.e. is one of them above 50% and the other below, or are they both equal?

NB I'm not saying that video is useless, I'm just questioning the "60-80%" claim.

[vetran]

I won't have anyone (other than me) , however good they think they are, being an @rse on my team ... just plain bad manners mate.

FTFY

[vetran]

That's a figure that gets thrown around a lot, but I've never seen a decent source for it. Personally, I think it depends on context. E.g. suppose that you watched an episode of Eastenders on mute. I agree that you could probably follow most of the plot, e.g. "those two were kissing but now her boyfriend's found out and he's not happy about it".

On the other hand, suppose that someone filmed a daily Scrum meeting. I've never attended one, but as I understand it each person will stand up in turn and say 3 things:
1. What I achieved yesterday.
2. What I intend to achieve today.
3. Any obstacles.

Do you really think that you'd get 60-80% of the information by watching that video on mute?

Interesting the multi billion internationals I used to work for were quite big on non verbal they trained their managers to look for it.

My wife can say the exact same words in the same order many different ways only one of them may be showing approval.

Well Pschology today is probably not anywhere as good as the Daily fail but here we go they quote the study.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...n-numbers-game

References

Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal Communication. New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.

You are totally missing the point that the non verbal cues are not equally weighted to the verbal ones depending on context and tone.

"Ah Mr Poirot I didn't kill the colonel" tends to fade when the little grey cells spot the non verbal tics that indicate he is lying.

With the scrum meeting video you almost certainly know when one of the team is having problems without audio and who you need to have a quiet chat with them. Does that have more value than Mike saying I did 2000 lines of code yesterday? Of course the audio will have tone that may partially help.


From the expert in the above article ...

Well, when I mention the 55/38/7 numbers, I clearly state that this applies to certain situations and, more importantly, should not be used as a deciding factor to try and understand the situation. A proper analysis needs to occur to fully grasp what the person's current emotions are at that moment.

PT does a whole series of articles, a few look good.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/beyond-words

[Whorty]

FTFY

My team, my rules

[hobnob]

Well Pschology today is probably not anywhere as good as the Daily fail but here we go they quote the study.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/b...n-numbers-game

Thanks, that's interesting, particularly the 55%/38%/7% split. I definitely agree that tone of voice is valuable, but as you say that's already present in a voice-only call, so in this context it's 55% (video) vs 45% (tone + words).

"The problem with this, as with the general study of nonverbal communication, is that it is inaccurate to claim that a formula is absolute and applies to every situation."

That's what I was going for with the Eastenders vs scrum comparison, although in hindsight it looks like the scrum was a poor example to choose.

[d000hg]

People forget this.

It may be a newer form of communication but people still need to connect with you as a human being.

Some of the hybrid roles I've done I could have easily got away with never going into the office.

I did to meet the people I spent months talking to via Zoom/Teams/whatever even if it was near to the end of the contract.

Yeah, my point would be that a video meeting is not a conference call. It's a fall-back for an in-person meeting. Business is people. Relationships and rapport don't stop being important in the digital age.

There's a reason people turned en masse to Zoom during the pandemic rather than faceless phone calls - even on a screen being able to see each other is important to how humans interact.

[eek]

Who said they are permie?

If a team member who is a permie then I will deal with it via correct HR procedures. It's good manners to have cameras on and I'm not having a prima donna in the team who think they are better than everyone else. And yes I probably am classed as middle management but I'm also a PM, and I have to deliver a project, and there are certain behaviours I expect. Don't like it, go find another contract.

Given that I know someone who lives in Greenwich who cannot do a video call because his internet connectivity is so bad - you are being a prima donna on the basis thatr you have made an assumption that may not in all places be possible.

For a second example I have a bug in teams on the dev desktop that means if I use Video and then need to share my screen the call disconnects. Again the fix is simple, I don't use video if I know I'm going to have to share my screen.

[Whorty]

Given that I know someone who lives in Greenwich who cannot do a video call because his internet connectivity is so bad - you are being a prima donna on the basis thatr you have made an assumption that may not in all places be possible.

For a second example I have a bug in teams on the dev desktop that means if I use Video and then need to share my screen the call disconnects. Again the fix is simple, I don't use video if I know I'm going to have to share my screen.

Or, you could try reading above where I say there will be exceptions. I'm fine with valid reasons, but not ... "I'm too important to put my video on, so there!".

One of my team lives between the UK and France. Her internet can be ropey in France and she sometimes needs to dial in via her phone so valid reason not to have screen on as I know she does every time that she can.

These are own team rules/terms of ref, agreed by all of us, and not imposed by me. The team has agreed that this is how we should work so I ensure that all team members play ball.

Like I say, don't like the team game, go play solo