I'm not sure why this is. I think it's not helped that subconsciously, video feels one way. A participant can be looking right at me but I can't know that, because I don't know where my face is relative to their camera. So, I assume that all participants are watching me all the time, even if that's an irrational assumption, and even though 99% of them won't care if I scratch my nose or something.
I personally get annoyed when people video mute by default, and when I was a manager it was something I would bring up in 1:1s. Lurking on meetings is fine, but if you have a real role in the meeting and you aren't multitasking a meal or something, I feel strongly you should have your video on and be engaged, and most of the time when people are video muting it's because they are hiding their distraction and lack of attention, or else it's reached a critical mass where people are muting just to fit in.
Now that I'm an IC again generally the best I can do to encourage people to unmute is just name them: "hey Joe, are you there?" even though I know full well they are connected. It's admittedly a bit passive aggressive, but it's also a way of gently telling the person they aren't being present, and it's unlikely I'm the only person who notices.
I also mute myself for the wrong reasons, so I'm not trying to make this an indictment of individuals. But it's so easy for people to drift away from their work, especially when you are remote, and we need to look out for each other and not just accept dysfunctional behavior.
> most of the time when people are video muting it's because they are hiding their distraction and lack of attention
The OP assumes that those who have their camera off are wasting time, because they can't see them to prove that they're not.
A meeting is specifically about communication. A participant at the meeting that is inattentive is either wasting others' time, or should probably politely step out, or at least should not have been asked to attend. Being present is a priority for a good meeting, hence the pejorative "butts in seats" comment doesn't make sense to me.
However, I can also see that my expectations are not shared by you, based on your strong response. My gut tells me this is related to different communication norms with "digital natives." I think your assumptions of malice and inability to learn on the part of the manager are misplaced.
Growing up pre-internet blessed me with the ability to communicate effectively without body language, thanks to the telephone. I find that translates perfectly well to video-less conference calls.
I'll allow that some of it may be generational; many of my younger colleagues have never called in to a conference call.
But I challenge your claim that I'm assuming bad faith. At no point did I question the motives of the OP, only their actions.
Edit: I should clarify, because my original comment could reasonably be read as assuming details about the internal motivations of the OP. Allow me to rephrase: if a mangers' default response to an individual not having a camera on is to dress down the person for not "being present", that manager is making a toxic workplace environment.
Your preference seems... clear enough to me? given that you said you would quit that day. What am I misunderstanding?
I believe your response of leaving rather than attempting to reconcile the difference in expectations is an indication of assumption of bad faith. As in, you seem to believe the manager would not be responsive to a discussion.
You shouldn't be projecting your personal opinion on others. Even if people don't pay attention maybe you should consider that it's because the conference is not that important to them. Happens to me all the time. If I paid full attention in every meeting and call I am supposed to attend I would get nothing done.
Because of this, unless I'm expecting to be the primary presenter in a meeting or unless it's a 1:1, I'll usually "mute" the video feed. If I don't start video-muted, I'll frequently do it mid-call as people complain about lag, choppy audio, or inability to make out the primary presenter's screen. There's no reason to put the extra technical tax on the call just so people can see what I look like when I'm staring at a screen.
Please consider this as an alternative motivation, rather than assuming that anyone who isn't making themselves visible is slacking off.
I would not enjoy working for someone who thought like that.
I do this. My camera is always broken.
I’m fine with audio, don’t like cheapening face-to-face meetings with video, and don’t see the reason to get ready for a remote meeting to which a video of my face adds zero value. It’s a preference which costs nothing, so I exercise it.
(If it’s a negotiation, why would I give my facial expressions away for free?)
If is a team call or a small group trying to solve a problem, the chances to have the camera on are higher.
In essence, the camera gives you a more intimate feeling, and depending on the situation people are more or less inclined to it.
Shouldn't the verb be "blinding" in this case?
I'm as insecure about my appearance as anyone else- what's the deal? I keep my camera on until it's obvious that nobody else is going to show their face. Then I have to be the awkward one to turn off.