Hacker News Reader

Comment by bonniemuffin | Hacker News Reader

I totally disagree-- having video on a conference call is really helpful to me. When you can see the people you're talking to, you can tell if they're nodding along or if you're boring them, or if they want to jump in and say something, and so on. If you're only talking over audio, it's much harder to use those nonverbal cues to guide the conversation.

We also use whiteboards while on calls pretty frequently, which wouldn't be possible if we were audio-only.

View on HN

Agree with those thoughts and would add that especially for things like 1 on 1s, you need to see someone's reaction to questions you ask.

For instance, I talk about feedback from a team member for you...are you defensive? are you surprised? upset? It's hard to tell all that just from someone's voice or the silence on the other end of the phone line.

As for appearance, that really isn't that important:

1) Skype is now giving you the option to blur the background when on video, which hopefully becomes a common feature in the market

2) Zoom and Google both have "visual correction" which makes everyone look better on the call

3) Most important, as a manager I don't care if you look like a model or Gary Busey...it's just about reading your reactions and being able to create a connection. I'm sorry if you've had bad managers who treat that like an inquisition, but for good managers, those that care (and read 6,000 word essays so they get better) really benefit from this because they use it from a position of trying to help.

Other than the background (which apparently can be blurred in some software) this is another main reason for audio-only calls. I should be able to be judged by my words and actions not by what you think my reaction is. That's a huge advantage of working remotely. Most meetings are boring/unnecessary and don't even pertain to most participants. I should be able to work through those or do other things without being negatively judged. Just because some manage decided I should be in a 30-45 minute meeting daily where I participate in about 1-2 minutes max doesn't mean I should have to feign attention the rest of the time. I should be able to take the meeting in bed without lights. Because that is all you're going to get from participants: feigning the emotions that they think they should be having. If you think otherwise, you don't understand human nature and the nature of the master/slave relationship involved in employment. When you as a manager hold someone's livelihood in their hand, thinking that you know what they think about you or about a project or situation based on body language or even speech is naive. My point is to do away with this charade. Employees shouldn't have to act for their managers as they do on-site. That's one of the advantages of being remote. You get the work done and that's all that matters. There are no drinks after work and little non-work bullshit chit chat. People who are into that can save that for their meetup gatherings, actual friends, and maybe a few times a year when the company meets in person (if ever). No wonder there are so many terrible managers if managers think their employees are their friends and that they will get honest reactions out of them. That's so ridiculous.

As for whiteboards, there are plenty of better tools than an actual physical whiteboard and in over half a decade of working remotely, I've never had to or had anyone else in the company use an actual physical, primitive whiteboard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com