3 ms·

They might dislike the low participation in the meeting (camera off) because people just tune out and do work when they're supposed to be paying attention. I m

by jayd16 5y ago

They might dislike the low participation in the meeting (camera off) because people just tune out and do work when they're supposed to be paying attention. I much preferred when people were clearly in or out of a meeting (myself included).

jen20 5y ago
The idea that people don't do that in in person meetings is pretty fantastical.
- jayd16 5y ago
  What's your point exactly? You see it way more now and, at least to me, the culture accepted quietly excusing yourself more than silently dropping out of a call.
  - jen20 5y ago
    The point is that low participation is a symptom of pointless poorly organized meetings (often that should have been emails), not lack of engagement. The rudeness of it is on the part of the organizer not the attendee.
    - jayd16 5y ago
      Agreed. My point is it seems worse now.
pc86 5y ago
I'm an EM and I would say 30-40% of the meetings I'm in I have to be there in case I'm needed for something, but do not need to actively participate day to day. Some I just need to know for my reporting, but I'm definitely not asking anyone to take notes for me, so I just listen. Some I might be needed every third or fourth time and it's easier to just be there rather than have someone get me if something comes up. The rest I'm actively contributing to (at least somewhat regularly). If it were in person I'd still have to be there, except I'd only really be able to check email or maybe take half-assed notes rather than actually get work done.
everdrive 5y ago
Well conversely I dislike being scheduled to attend meetings which are a waste of my time. And I dislike even less the idea that my participation at meetings is important for my career, even if participating in the meeting does not actually produce anything of value. A common retort might be that "this is the reality of the world." And this may be true, but I shouldn't just acquiesce and accept the reality of the world when I actually have some options.

by jayd16 5y ago

jen20 5y ago

The idea that people don't do that in in person meetings is pretty fantastical.

jayd16 5y ago
What's your point exactly? You see it way more now and, at least to me, the culture accepted quietly excusing yourself more than silently dropping out of a call.
- jen20 5y ago
  The point is that low participation is a symptom of pointless poorly organized meetings (often that should have been emails), not lack of engagement. The rudeness of it is on the part of the organizer not the attendee.
  - jayd16 5y ago
    Agreed. My point is it seems worse now.

pc86 5y ago

I'm an EM and I would say 30-40% of the meetings I'm in I have to be there in case I'm needed for something, but do not need to actively participate day to day. Some I just need to know for my reporting, but I'm definitely not asking anyone to take notes for me, so I just listen. Some I might be needed every third or fourth time and it's easier to just be there rather than have someone get me if something comes up. The rest I'm actively contributing to (at least somewhat regularly). If it were in person I'd still have to be there, except I'd only really be able to check email or maybe take half-assed notes rather than actually get work done.

everdrive 5y ago

Well conversely I dislike being scheduled to attend meetings which are a waste of my time. And I dislike even less the idea that my participation at meetings is important for my career, even if participating in the meeting does not actually produce anything of value. A common retort might be that "this is the reality of the world." And this may be true, but I shouldn't just acquiesce and accept the reality of the world when I actually have some options.