So much nuance and personal interaction lost in TEAMs meetings?

[mids2019]

So at work so many meetings are now done remotely a lot of the time for efficiency.

I find the lack of being physically present in a room with someone means communication loses a lot personally. I don't think you can pick up on body language or subtle verbal queues which to my mind are important for communication. I find contentious meetings can really be challenging if you have someone making a point and there is an in internet disruption and you can have a huge amount of anxiety dealing with connection issues when a meeting is important. The fact that meetings can easily be recorded makes many people guarded and light quips can call really flat. We then come to the etiquette of having a camera off and whether that is acceptable .

Remote meetings have vastly increased efficiency in the work place but at a cost of missing out of a lot of the nuance of humans meeting e.g. side conversations, ability to immediately address points personally after a meeting etc.

What do you think?

That you couldn’t be arsed to write your own thread so used AI

What is a verbal queue?

I tend to agree - for some meetings, in person is better. However, the way my organisation and job is, hardly anyone I work with is in the same location as me so even in the office I end up on teams. It wouldn't be practical to make every meeting (or even most meetings) in person

When you're all waiting to speak in a teams meeting with your hands up 😁

Prior to Teams meetings, I spent a lot of time on conference calls. Online meetings are infinitely preferable to those!

I basically agree with you OP that face to face is generally better, but Teams is very useful in some cases (eg a meeting with people who are geographically far apart, a quick catch up between two people etc).

I mean yeah it's true. Nothing you say is inaccurate, and we all know and feel it. The more interesting conversation is how to maintain connection at work and take advantage of the positives of these tech things, while minimising these problems. The cultural and practical changes happen more outside the zoom calls.

The irony given how impersonal your OP is!

I feel like businesses have decided they prefer the efficiency of a teams meeting over f2f (despite wanting people back in the office), and the workload has gone up accordingly.

So I will carry on dialling into meetings whilst working on my other monitor as that's the only way to deliver at the speed that is now expected.

And yes, f2f meetings are socially much nicer. But I'd rather finish work early enough to go to the gym and spend time with my kids in the evening

they are amazing that you can book meetings and so many more people can be available.
otoh the etiquette of camera on and hand up to speak takes a while to get used to although it should cut back on interruptions, the recording and transcription is great for taking minutes

What annoys me is when people are quite obviously carrying on with other emails and only partly paying attention . It's such a waste of everyone's time

I have sent e mails during TEAMs meetings and I think you can get away with it.

Personally love meeting people and I think people can come across a lot differently in person than on TEAMs. There are peers who I have talked to for ages on TEAMs and they have appeared quite offhand but in real life suddenly demonstrated real warmth.

Of course you can "get away with it" but it totally changed the dynamic of the meeting as people aren't fully engaging with the meeting

I think remote works fine when information is being delivered such as in receiving training or updates. Where I think it doesn't work is in discussions or more creative sessions when people are sharing ideas. It's too stilted and I think hampers creativity.

I agree with you OP. For quick, regular meetings with a set agenda and one speaker, they're absolutely fine. But for anything where discussion is required between many people, they're not fit for purpose.

Yes. Being a meeting room without any outside distractions is going to be more productive than everyone being in their own homes.

There is a thread on the work board about someone’s employee who refuses to turn on her camera and has refused to come into the workplace to meet colleagues face to face. It’s not really on is it.

I don't recognise this at all.

I think a lot of communication is lost when people have cameras off, but I get as much from a cameras-on Teams as from being in person.

I agree OP - I am quiet so find it hard to join in and am often spoken over even on smaller Teams meetings. I much prefer in person.

For every person that prefers in person communication there is another who communicates better virtually. You can’t please all the people all the time

we've been habitually meeting this way for 5 or more years now. I think most of us have got the hang of it.

Face to face meetings are useful if everyone is in the same place, which at least in my organisation happens like twice a year.
Hybrid is the worst of both worlds, so fully virtual all the way for me!

I think if you already know people face to face, Teams is fine. I completely agree with you about its limitations for large groups and those who haven’t met much if at all in person. My work is all remote and we meet a few times a year at conferences, some people are very similar on Teams and in person while others have a completely different energy. My company has ended up with a two tier dynamic where some people never talk or go on camera and others go on camera and dominate the discussion. It’s one of those things companies did to save money, love the saved money, now are very resistant to ever spending money on meetings. But it impacts everything - morale, our services, collaboration, everything.

I agree with @itsabeautifuldayjuly that hybrid is worse than fully online!

Why are you louder in person?

Really? Queues should be cues for a start. Surely AI would know that?

I’m not, but it’s easier for people to see when others are speaking in real life. The delay on Teams is also a big factor.