Chapter 4
New Insights: A Recalibration of Video Use
Our soapbox was relatively short in stature, maybe an inch and half when resting flat but growing to over nine inches when standing on end. Still, we hoped the message delivered in our book Suddenly Virtual: Making Remote Meetings Work would penetrate the collective psyche of the corporate world. In Chapter 7 of the book, we even put it in bold print just in case:
The Case for Making Every Virtual Meeting a Video Meeting
Presumably it did have impact; at least it caught the attention of folks at prestigious places like McKinsey & Company, who featured it on their best‐selling business books list and even talked to Karin about the importance of effectively using a webcam during a virtual meeting (McKinsey & Company 2021). So the title of this chapter might seem very confusing to you. What do we mean by “A Recalibration of Video Use”? Wasn't the data presented in Suddenly Virtual all about how video is as good as face‐to‐face and better than telephone? Wasn't that what we were evangelizing about even before the pandemic? While we recognize and understand your disorientation, we also have to acknowledge and explain how our original advice was applied within the context of our “suddenly virtual” world. When we strongly asserted the need for using video in addition to audio alone in virtual meetings, we had no idea that we were about to experience an explosion of meetings. Who knew that in addition to being suddenly virtual, we'd also double the number of meetings on people's calendars (see Chapter 3). The “meetingization” of our work lives meant that if you followed our advice to the letter, you were spending your entire day on a webcam, spending hours and hours watching yourself along with your colleagues and customers on a screen.
The ensuing exhaustion from that experience became commonly known as “Zoom fatigue,” even though the drain was felt by those using any and all of the video collaboration platforms. Video call fatigue is real (Fosslien and Duffy 2020), but the explanation for why it is happening is where we humbly diverge from the opinions put forth by a bevy of scientists, technologists, and business folks. We feel strongly enough about it that we will give it the same treatment as we did our headline about video in our previous book:
Video Call Fatigue Is Not the Fault of the Technology; It's Due to Operator Error
You may be wondering why we are spending so much time focusing on a major issue in virtual meetings in a book about hybrid meetings. Consider this: a hybrid meeting by design will include virtual participants and they will likely be joining via video. (Yes, some people may still insist on dialing in, but hopefully the data from Chapter 2 will dissuade them.) Concerns over video call fatigue will not disappear in a hybrid environment; they will remain an issue that will require mitigation. Thankfully, our time spent battling the fatigue during our fully virtual work life can better inform how we handle it when we are hybrid, so first, we look back at the root causes and then look forward to solutions.
In this chapter, we will explore:
- How an overreliance on live video calls leads to video call exhaustion
- Strategies to combat video call fatigue
- When using video is imperative in a virtual or hybrid meeting and when it is not
Let's Hop on Zoom
You might be tempted to feel badly for Zoom seeing that their company name has been linked with what became one of the most bemoaned by‐products of the pandemic, but, as Kleenex is to tissues and Band‐Aids are to bandages, Zoom is to videoconferencing platforms. The company found substantial product/market fit as a result of COVID‐19 and it shows in their user numbers. In December 2019, they reported a total of 10 million daily meeting participants. By April 2020, just a month into the global lockdown, they had 300 million daily users (Zoom 2020). At the time of this writing, Microsoft Teams was in second place with 75 million active users every day, but Zoom was clearly the giant in the room, dominating the market in 44 countries, where it garners more than 50% of the market share (Brandl 2021). In fact, Zoom leads the way in critical countries like the United States, the UK, and Japan. So, don't feel too bad for Zoom, even if many people will continue to disparage their name with “Zoom fatigue” complaints. They'll take the market saturation that comes with it. Other platforms also saw meteoric rises in their user numbers with one exception: Skype, which used to be synonymous with video calling, actually lost nearly 26% of its market share.
Figure 4.1 was put together by Email ToolTester, which studied the global usage of 16 of the most popular videoconferencing platforms across 122 countries (Brandl 2021).
The rapid adoption of video collaboration and conferencing tools during the global lockdowns was not surprising, considering how they seemed to be as close an approximation of the face‐to‐face interactions as you could get at that time (Reed and Allen 2021). However, what was not anticipated was how nearly every human touchpoint became a video call. All of the usual in‐person meetings became video meetings (or at least held the possibility of being video meetings if people agreed to turn on their webcams). However, lower‐level interactions also went digital. A quick phone call was often replaced with a video chat that likely went longer than the phone call ever would have. Heck, even our happy hours with our colleagues, designed to build team cohesion, were hosted on Zoom. In a world where we felt isolated and starved for human connection, video calls became a panacea of a sort to soothe those cravings for simply seeing people's faces. Humans are social creatures and video calls became our source for social connection.
“The main change that I've seen and in talking with IT leaders around the world is that I think most people before the pandemic said, ‘Aah, video … I don't really need it.’ The conventional wisdom was, ‘Maybe I'll use it in an executive meeting,’” observed Scott Wharton, the vice president and general manager of the Video Collaboration Group at Logitech. “Most people now will say that's not true. Video is better. It works. We all know empirically it allowed us to keep being productive, so I think the whole notion that video doesn't work or is not helpful is just gone.”
But every virtue has the potential to be a vice. Too much of good thing can be bad … ergo, video call fatigue. What did we expect, though, from a work style that meant staying rooted in one spot for hours on end? Here's Scott Wharton again: “I guarantee if you were sitting in a conference room and you didn't move all day, you would be fatigued. It's just tiring, thinking all day and being in meetings. I think what's happening is we are just working more because you can stack up 10 meetings together.” When meetings are back to back for hours at a time, and they are video meetings, when do you go to the restroom? When can you grab lunch without being under the uncomfortable eye of colleagues? And we wonder what's causing the fatigue? Yes, being on camera all the time plays a big part, and we'll get into that. But ignoring basic human needs, like going to the restroom and taking lunch breaks, is also a key contributor that made the “always‐on” workstyle unsustainable.
Figure 4.1 Email ToolTester 2021
Source: Robert Brandl 2021 / Tooltester Network
The Splash of the Stanford Article
In February 2021, an article published in the journal Technology, Mind and Behavior by Dr. Jeremy Bailenson, founding director of the Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab, purported to have answers as to why nonstop video calls lead to fatigue (Bailenson 2021). Professor Bailenson said his article “systematically deconstructs Zoom fatigue from a psychological perspective” and identified four consequences of our hours spent on video chats (Ramachandran 2021). He also made suggestions for interface changes as well as adjustments users can make on how they are using the platforms to help combat Zoom fatigue. While we can wholeheartedly endorse many of the recommendations, there's a real concern that many people in the general population will cite this article as an excuse to turn their video off for good. This would be a costly mistake. Allow us to share the suggested causes of Zoom fatigue mentioned in the article and offer our own take on how best to respond to them.
Stanford Reason 1: Seeing Yourself Constantly During Video Chats in Real Time Is Fatiguing
On this suggested reason for video call fatigue, we couldn't agree more. Video collaboration platforms put us in a highly unusual communication scenario. For the first time, many of us were seeing ourselves communicate in real time. Seeing our image on the screen was fascinating and perhaps frightening, distracting and possibly disconcerting. Is that really how I look when I speak? Do I always tilt my head to the side like that? And what is up with my hands flitting around my face?
Video meetings made us hyperaware of something we are never aware of when we are speaking in person with someone … how we look when we talk to other people. After all, it's not as if we walk around with a mirror held up to our faces – but on a video chat platform, that in essence is what we are doing. Seeing ourselves on‐screen allowed us to monitor our performance by watching ourselves converse, but this threw our communication focus completely off.
Typically, we focus much of our attention on our conversation partner in an attempt to read their responses to what we are saying. Are they nodding, a sign of approval or agreement? Are they frowning, an overt display of just the opposite? Are they not making eye contact, an indication they are uncomfortable with your message? During video meetings, though, the gravitational pull of gazing at ourselves was incredibly strong. This fixation on our own faces was likely more pronounced at the beginning of the pandemic when our visage on the screen was relatively new. However, as someone who trains thousands of people in proper eye contact during a virtual meeting or presentation, Karin still sees many people who can't stop looking at themselves. That disruption in the typical conversation dynamic puts everyone at a disadvantage. The speaker who can't avert their eyes from their own image can easily miss out on nonverbal cues from their conversation partner (or partners). Plus, the very act of monitoring your own performance automatically undercuts your authenticity. In other words, you lose part of your genuine self simply by watching yourself “perform.” The result is a lack of authenticity that is exaggerated by the camera lens and will come across as fake to those receiving your message.
Stanford Proposed Solution 1
Bailenson proposes a tweak to the Zoom interface that other platforms should also heed: don't make people see their own images by default. Zoom does allow you to take yourself off the screen. The simplest way to do so is by hovering over your own video box, clicking on the three dots in the upper right‐hand corner, and selecting “Hide Self View” from the menu. You will immediately disappear from the screen and will just see the other people on your call, which puts you into a more natural conversation dynamic. Unfortunately, many other platforms do not have that feature, tempting you to sneak a peek or even stare at yourself during a call because you cannot hide that view.
Our Proposed Solution 1
We would also recommend hiding your own image on the screen when possible, but if that's not an option, follow these best practices for eye contact:
- In order to speak with impact, you want to primarily look at the camera lens, not at the people on the screen. This will go against all of your natural human impulses because you will want to look people in the eye, and your people are staring out from the boxes on the screen. However, because the camera lens is not embedded into the screen, it will look to your conversation partner(s) like you are not looking at them at all but rather somewhere else.
For example, if you are using the webcam embedded in your laptop, typically the camera lens is in the bezel at the top of the screen. If you look at the faces on the gallery view while you speak, you will appear to be looking down.
By looking at the lens while you are speaking, you can't see your conversation partners as well, but you also can't see your image, either. Therefore, you won't be fixated on monitoring your performance, a performance that will be much more authentic than if you were watching yourself deliver in real time.
Before you start to complain about how it's fundamentally necessary to be able to read the nonverbals of your audience, allow us to underscore the word “primarily.” When speaking, you want to interact with the camera the way you would with someone face to face. We naturally look away all the time when speaking to someone in person because staring at someone's face without breaking our gaze makes them feel uncomfortable. The same holds true when speaking through a webcam. Don't stare at the camera lens. Quick glances away from the webcam can allow you to not only come across as more genuine but also allow you to read the body language of your conversation partner(s). It takes less than a second to see if someone is nodding … or nodding off.
- If you are not speaking, feel free to look at the person who is. It will allow you to focus on reading their body language. So much of how we convey a message is through our facial expressions and other nonverbals. By watching the speaker on‐screen, you will be able to better understand the intent of their message.
Stanford Reason 2: Excessive Amounts of Close‐Up Eye Contact Is Highly Intense
Professor Bailenson astutely observes that video calls often violate societal norms related to eye contact and interpersonal proximity. When interacting with colleagues or others not in our inner circle of close friends or family, we typically maintain a comfortable distance from them to avoid invading their personal space. However, Bailenson notes, “On Zoom, behavior ordinarily reserved for close relationships – such as long stretches of direct eye gaze and faces seen close up – has suddenly become the way we interact with casual acquaintances, coworkers, and even strangers” (Bailenson 2021). He draws a parallel to behavior on an elevator. People are forced to stand close together (pre‐COVID‐19, of course) and as a result, usually avert their gaze from each other. (If you really want to freak people out, enter an elevator and don't turn around to face the door. Simply stare at the people who are along with you for the ride.)
The conversation space created on a video call is very intimate. You are as close to your conversation partner as your eyes are to your webcam and their screen is to their eyes, and sometimes that distance feels inappropriate for the people you are meeting with. Have you ever encountered a “close talker” in person? As they were inching ever nearer, you likely felt a strong urge to push them away. We can be close talkers on video calls too but we don't have those in‐person social cues from our conversation partner to indicate we've crossed a boundary for personal proximity.
Bailenson also points out a problem with the gallery view on the screen, where all the attendees appear to be staring straight ahead and almost at you for a prolonged period of time, which simulates eye contact. He cited research showing that being stared at while speaking causes physiological arousal, even when the faces are virtual, and being on video calls with a slew of participants creates significant stress for the speaker.
Stanford Proposed Solution 2
To deal with the intense eye contact issue, Bailenson recommends taking the video call window out of full‐screen mode and reducing it to minimize face size. He also suggests using an external keyboard “to allow an increase in the personal space bubble between oneself and the grid” (Ramachandran 2021). We at least partially agree with his advice.
Our Proposed Solution 2
Before we present our proposed solution, let's take a closer look at Bailenson's suggestion. No doubt, when you are on a video call, you can feel like you are under the microscope if you have a whole screen full of faces staring back at you. However, there are benefits of having those heads appearing on‐screen, too.
One of the biggest complaints we often hear is that when presenting virtually, it can feel like you are talking to no one. There's no laughter after you crack a joke because people are told to keep themselves on mute, lest an errant dog bark interrupt the audio for everyone. If people have kept their cameras off, there's not even a head nod or smile to offer encouragement to the speaker as they are moving through their presentation. Perhaps all of those eyeballs looking out from the boxes can be a bit unnerving, but they also remind you that you are indeed speaking to an audience, and they provide critical feedback to help you deliver at your best.
Professional speakers and comics refer to responding to the nonverbal communication of the audience as “reading the room” or “playing to the room.” The best speakers and stand‐up comedians are more adept at it than typical people. This is because they likely have innate ability and have developed skills around situational awareness and impression management (Leary and Kowalski 1990; Abrahams 2016), which allows them to react to the feedback they are receiving from their audience and adjust their delivery accordingly. Every person has a level of both situational awareness and impression management, and in a virtual or hybrid meeting when an audience is visible, we use these abilities and skills to help us communicate more effectively. If cameras are off, there is a reduction in the feedback system needed to play to the room.
Bailenson's suggestion to minimize the size of the faces on the screen has a similar effect to turning cameras off: it minimizes the size of the nonverbals you as a speaker can use to help you present well. We are already at a disadvantage in reading the room because we are limited by the size of the boxes and the way people are situated in them. Making those boxes even smaller seems counterintuitive.
Although Bailenson doesn't address this in his work, it's worth noting that the issue with minimizing opportunities to read nonverbal cues becomes even more pronounced when you are sharing content like slides. Most platforms prioritize showing the slides and show only a limited number of participants or no attendees at all. Gauging the way your message is resonating is nearly impossible without any nonverbal cues.
Instead of minimizing the entire window, try these techniques instead:
- Leverage the faces but limit them. If you are presenting to a larger group (beyond, say, 10 people), consider asking a few people to be designated “camera‐on” people. You can use their body language to assess how well you are communicating your message and adjust your delivery accordingly. That representative sample allows you to present with more confidence and get a better sense of your impact while minimizing the number of eyes staring at you.
Try rotating the role around the group to ensure that the attention burden is equally shared. When you are a “camera‐on” person, you may find you get more out of the presentation anyway because it forces you to stay tuned in.
Use those faces on the screen as a way to connect and even personalize the experience. If you see someone offer an approving nod after you make a comment, acknowledge that by saying, “I see, Bob, that you're in agreement with me on that.” That helps to create a communal experience where it's not you presenting to an endless sea of faces but rather to individuals who are part of a larger conversation.
- Pick the proper framing. The way you frame yourself, meaning how much of you can be seen on‐screen, establishes the distance between you and your conversation partner. The less they can see of you, the closer you will seem to the people on the other side. For example, if they can only see you from the neck up, that's emulating a very close conversation that most would consider inappropriate. With that in mind, be aware of how framing will impact how you are perceived. There are two options that work well:
- A medium shot, where you are seen from approximately the waist up, which creates a conversation space with several feet between you and the attendee.
- A tight shot, where you are seen from about mid‐chest up, which simulates a close but still appropriate professional conversation space. If you appear from just the neck up, it will feel too close, as if you are invading the personal space of the person on the other side.
No matter which you choose, aim to have a few inches between the top of your head and the top of the screen and an equal amount of space from each shoulder to the edge of the frame. If you need a point of reference, try stacking three fingers on top of your head. That's the amount of distance you should have between your crown and the top of the frame.
Source: Courtesy of Karin M. Reed.
An additional layer of flexibility for framing can be provided by Bailenson's idea of using an external keyboard. Sometimes it can be difficult to achieve a shot that provides enough distance because you need to reach your keyboard on your laptop. An external keyboard or wireless mouse offers you the freedom to create the proper spacing while manipulating the content on the screen.
The problem of being too close for comfort when appearing on the screen is an easy one to fix as long as you are aware of what framing works best.
Stanford Reason 3: The Cognitive Load Is Much Higher in Video Chats
When having a conversation face to face, the interaction's complexity is solely dependent on the complexity of the topic being discussed. A discussion a boss has with a subordinate over poor performance requires a higher level of brain power than a chat with a friend about what you had for dinner last night. But take either of these scenarios and put them on a videoconferencing platform and it becomes infinitely more complicated. Bailenson supposes that the energy and effort required for any conversation via video is much higher given the challenges of interpreting and emitting nonverbal cues as well as navigating the technology itself.
Take, for example, the exaggerated hand wave that many of us have adopted as a greeting and as an official sign‐off. We wouldn't do this in face‐to‐face conversation, especially one that is as close as the one we are emulating on video calls, but we somehow feel it's necessary to go above and beyond with our body language to clearly communicate the beginning and end of our conversation. This is one example of what Bailenson would consider our propensity to send extra cues when on video calls. Not only do we try to amplify our body language, we also amplify our voice. Research shows we speak 15% louder on video calls than we do when meeting face to face (Croes, Antheunis, Schouten, and Krahmer 2018).
Bailenson also notes the possibility of misreading nonverbal cues and jumping to wrong conclusions. The cognitive load is increased by our efforts to interpret the extra nonverbal cues. He speaks of the way a sidelong glance in an in‐person meeting might be read accurately when those in the room look in the same direction and see someone walk through the doorway. That same glance committed by someone in a Zoom box might be misinterpreted as boredom or inattention when it might be a reaction to a child entering someone's office.
Stanford Proposed Solution 3
Bailenson offers this suggestion: “Make ‘audio only’ Zoom meetings the default.” He also praises the merits of “audio only” breaks, where body language isn't available to be delivered or received. He elaborates by saying, “This is not simply you turning off your camera to take a break from having to be nonverbally active, but also turning your body away from the screen.” In fact, he says the nonverbals, while limited in nature on video, are what he calls “perceptually realistic but socially meaningless.” Here is where we must disagree.
Our Proposed Solution 3
Can you imagine going back to the days of the spider phone on the conference room table as the default way of meeting? Why would you use only half of the capabilities of a videoconferencing platform by default?
The value of video has been proven time and time again, and is largely based in “media richness theory.” The richer the medium used to deliver the message, the more easily you can convey it in full. The more complex the message, the richer the medium required. The data we presented in Suddenly Virtual showed this to be true as teleconference meetings – the most lean medium (besides text‐only) – were rated the worst. Meanwhile, video was perceived to be just as effective as face to face. Therefore, when doing a hybrid meeting, it's important to match the richness of the medium with the optimal potential effectiveness of the meeting. In other words, using video and face‐to‐face for your hybrid meeting will generally be better than using face‐to‐face with virtual attendees using audio only. The reason media richness matters is that it levels the “communication cue” playing field. Video and face‐to‐face attendees have the potential to deliver all the verbal and nonverbal cues, whereas audio‐only attendees offer just what you can hear.
Rather than defaulting to an audio‐only version of a video call, a version of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, consider doing this instead:
- Ask yourself whether that meeting needs to be a meeting at all. If it's only information sharing, think about recording the presentation and posting it on a Microsoft Teams or Slack channel.
- If it is a meeting that calls for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue, by all means turn those cameras on so you can communicate in full. We speak not just with our words and our tone of voice; we speak with our whole bodies. If video is off, that body language is silent. To us, that black hole of nuance is more dangerous than an overload of nonverbals.
- Do give yourself some “audio only” breaks during a meeting if the need for your active participation is not imminent. Say there are three agenda items for the meeting and item two only tangentially relates to you. Allow yourself to turn off your video during this discussion as a cognitive break, but let your fellow attendees know what you are doing. Your sudden disappearance from the screen might be interpreted as you ducking out of the meeting. Instead, put in chat that you've been on video calls nonstop, and you need a bit of break from being on‐screen. However, as soon as the attendees start talking about something where your input is not just valued but expected, turn your camera back on.
A client of Karin's learned how our body language on camera can be misinterpreted when she was interviewing for a job during the pandemic. The hiring process was totally virtual, with all interviews conducted over Zoom. During the final interview, the hiring manager spent the entire time looking down and to the side. He barely even glanced at the camera. Karin's client assumed that she was totally bombing the interview. Lo and behold, she actually landed the job, and a few months later, she told her now boss about her impression of how her final interview went. Her boss was shocked. He explained that he wasn't looking at the camera because he was too busy writing down all of the fantastic answers she was giving. Same meeting – two very different versions of how that meeting went.
Context is everything and too often when we are virtual, context is what we lack. That does require you to be more aware of the signals you might be sending with your body language or even your actions on camera. You might be turning off your camera so you can eat your lunch without grossing out your colleagues, but your teammates might assume you are simply not all that invested. If you explain what they're seeing on their screens, you remove all doubt.
Stanford Reason 4: Video Chats Dramatically Reduce Our Usual Mobility
Have you ever been on a video call with someone who decides to change location right in the middle of the meeting? They pick up their laptop and take you on what feels like an amusement park simulator ride. There's the ceiling. Whoa, we almost hit the wall. Spin, spin, spin. Stop.
Video meetings are inherently stationary and as we just illustrated, really should be. Movement on camera should be limited to gestures, not laps around a track. But staying within the conical view of the webcam can hurt our performance, according to Professor Bailenson, who says, “There's growing research now that says when people are moving, they're performing better cognitively.”
Bailenson points out that being stuck in one place doesn't happen as much during an in‐person meeting where people can get up to stretch, grab a glass of water, or write on a whiteboard. Sure, you can leave your chair when on a video call, but your absence will be noticed. It is up to you to explain the reason why you left your post.
Stanford Proposed Solution 4
To combat this reduction or even loss of mobility, Bailenson reiterates the possibility of reducing the number of meetings and/or opting for a different way of interacting when possible, optimizing the use of asynchronous forms of communication like recorded videos. Once again, he endorses the audio‐only option but this time in the form of good, old‐fashioned phone calls, which he says, “have driven productivity and social connection for many decades, and only a minority of calls require staring at another person's face to successfully communicate.”
We were with you all the way, Professor Bailenson, until that last part about the minority of calls requiring video, which takes us to our suggestions on this topic.
Our Proposed Solution 4
We are true video evangelists and believe that for many meetings it is indeed essential for effective communication, but it is worth taking some time to discuss when it is imperative to have video on and when it is not.
Some companies have mandated that employees show up on camera for every single meeting that is held. While we might have initially applauded that move, we acknowledge that video call fatigue and the explosion of meetings in this last year call for a more nuanced approach and, therefore, we recommend setting up some guidelines for video usage. Here are our suggestions for video use on the enterprise level:
- For team meetings that are discussion‐based (i.e. decisions will be made) and involve only a handful of participants, turn your video on. The benefits of body language go both ways. When speaking, your body language will allow you to better communicate the intent of your message. As a listener, your nonverbals provide valuable clues for the speaker, who will be able to better gauge the impact of their message on you.
- For larger meetings involving more than 10 people, it is less essential that everyone be on camera. In general, for more collaborative meetings, five to seven people is the ideal size (Littlepage and Silbiger 1992). In larger, more presentation‐oriented meetings, allow those who are not directly participating to keep their cameras off. Designate a few people to be “camera on” attendees who can provide nonverbal feedback to the speakers. Rotate that role throughout the organization.
- For meetings with external stakeholders, consider the purpose of the interaction. Ask yourself if you would normally be meeting with them face to face for this particular kind of meeting (an introductory call or a negotiation). If the answer is yes, turn your video on. If it's a quick check‐in, feel free to keep the video off. A phone call might even suffice unless you would like to share content from your screen.
- Consider how well you know the people you are about to meet with. If this is a team of folks you have worked with for years or have met with many times before, you probably know how they react to your jokes, what they look like when they agree, and what they sound like when they disagree. In other words, you do not need the richer medium to understand what is happening. In that case, consider turning off the cameras and giving yourselves a video break.
To help with people in their decision making about whether to use video in their meetings, we've provided a checklist at the end of this chapter to help you assess when video is essential and when it is not. Specifically, read each question and indicate yes or no. If you answer “yes” to two or more of the questions, the camera probably needs to be on.
A Few Words of Support for Telephone Meetings
Please understand that we are not implying that a telephone meeting is never an appropriate choice – only that there are often better choices because of its limitations. A one‐on‐one conversation, particularly with someone you know well, can work quite effectively. The reason is that you can fill in the visual gaps based on past experience. You know that if you make a joke about a colleague’s alma mater getting destroyed on the football field by their archrival, that colleague will likely roll their eyes. You don't need to see that gesture. You know it's happening based upon the umpteen times you've seen it in person. But if you are on a call with a new person on the team, they can't put a name with a face and you are doing them a disservice. They can't fill in the gaps and instead may feel isolated and disconnected. The fact that we often say “so good to connect the face with the name” speaks to humanity's evolutionary desire to see the faces of our fellow human beings (Burke and Sulikowski 2013).
Even Scott Wharton of Logitech, the world's leading vendor of video collaboration tools, is an advocate for holding some meetings over the phone, but he says they serve a different purpose.
“Some meetings, you just need to walk during the day,” says Wharton. “My meeting purpose is totally different when I do a phone call. I call them wandering agendas. It almost gives you freedom to meander from topic to topic. When I'm on video, it is purpose‐driven. You're looking at someone. You're taking in all the information. You want to convince someone or impart some information. When I'm on a phone call, I deliberately don't have an agenda. I let the conversation go where it goes.”
Wandering agendas can breed creativity and solutioning that might not be as forthcoming in a video meeting which, when used to best effect, tend to be targeted toward a goal. However, for getting stuff done, video still provides focus, requires our attention, and holds everyone accountable much more than audio alone.
Conclusion
The rampant spread of video call fatigue is not a reason to retreat from one of the most powerful tools you have in your meeting arsenal, but it does require you to be thoughtful in how you use video to prevent digital exhaustion. That lesson was learned during the pandemic but can certainly be applied in the hybrid world in which we now live. Hybrid by its very nature means that at least some attendees will be joining virtually. This chapter offers some suggestions on when to turn your camera on to establish your presence in a meeting room regardless of your physical location.
Up to this point, we've focused on the dizzying disruption of meeting paradigms since the beginning of 2020 and offered our take on what worked and what did not as we all tried to make sense of the changes. In Part Two, we'll turn our attention to specific strategies that can be used by those who will play a pivotal role in the second major meeting disruption – the leaders of hybrid meetings.
Chapter Takeaways
- Video collaboration platforms have become widely accepted as a primary way of communicating both internally and externally, with Zoom leading the way.
- An overreliance on video meetings coupled with the “meetingization” of our work lives resulted in a phenomenon commonly called “Zoom fatigue.”
- A popular article written by a Stanford professor of communication suggested four reasons for the fatigue:
- Seeing yourself on screen is exhausting.
- Constant close eye contact with fellow attendees is intense.
- The cognitive load is higher on a video chat than it is in person.
- Video meetings force us to stay in one spot for too long.
- Ways to combat video call fatigue include:
- Hiding self‐view on the screen.
- Looking at the lens, rather than at yourself, when speaking.
- Using an external keyboard to allow for proper framing with appropriate distance between you and the camera lens.
- Evaluating whether a meeting needs to be a meeting at all.
- Opting for “video‐off” time when participation is not expected or required.
- Designating “camera‐on” attendees during large meetings to provide nonverbal feedback to help the speaker adjust their delivery accordingly.
Checklist: Questions to Consider When Deciding Camera On or Off
| Ask yourself these questions when choosing whether to use video: | Yes or No |
|---|---|
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No |
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No |
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No |
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No |
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No |
|
[ ] Yes [ ] No |
| TOTAL YES | ___________ |
| If you answered “yes” to two or more questions, opt to use video. |
References
- Abrahams, M. 2016. Speaking Up Without Freaking Out: 50 Techniques for Confident and Compelling Presenting, third edition. Kendall Hunt.
- Bailenson, J. N. 2021. “Nonverbal overload: A theoretical argument for the causes of Zoom fatigue.” Technology, Mind, and Behavior 2 (1).
- Burke, D., and D. Sulikowski. 2013. “The evolution of holistic processing of faces.” Frontiers in Psychology 4, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00011
- Brandl, R. 2021. “Video Call Victories: Map reveals the most popular video conferencing platforms worldwide.” EmailToolTester.com, March 24. https://www.emailtooltester.com/en/blog/video-conferencing-market-share/
- Croes, E. A., M. L. Antheunis, A. P. Schouten, and E. J. Krahmer. 2018. “Social attraction in video‐mediated communication: The role of nonverbal affiliative behavior.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 36 (4): 1210–1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518757382
- Fosslien, L., and M. W. Duffy. 2020. “How to combat Zoom fatigue.” Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue.
- Leary, M. R., and M. R. Kowalski. 1990. “Impression management: A literature review and two‐component model.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (1): 34.
- Littlepage, G. E., and H. Silbiger. 1992. “Recognition of expertise in decision‐making groups: Effects of group size and participation patterns.” Small Group Research 23 (3): 344–355.
- McKinsey & Company. 2021. “Author Talks: Karin M. Reed on virtual meetings.” McKinsey & Company, April 20. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-on-books/author-talks-karin-m-reed-on-virtual-meetings?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hdpid=b1799535-ebc6-437f-8372-026cb4146d7f&hctky=9683162&hlkid=f4e2c71b1ac4423980304e0d3cbf9f3b
- Ramachandran, V. 2021. “Four causes for ‘Zoom fatigue’ and their solutions.” Stanford News, February 23. https://news.stanford.edu/2021/02/23/four-causes-zoom-fatigue-solutions/.
- Reed, K. M., and J. A. Allen. 2021. Suddenly Virtual: Making Remote Meetings Work. Wiley.
- Zoom. 2020. “90‐day security plan progress report: April 22.” Zoom (blog). https://blog.zoom.us/90-day-security-plan-progress-report-april-22/