Why turning your camera on matters in remote software teams
Remote work is no longer an experiment in software development — it’s the default. Yet one debate keeps resurfacing in remote teams:
Should we turn our cameras on during meetings?
Some see cameras as unnecessary, intrusive, or exhausting. Others view them as essential for collaboration. The truth, like most things in engineering, is nuanced — but used intentionally, cameras are a powerful tool for better software teams.
This post explains why camera usage matters, when it adds real value, and how to apply it without burning people out.
Software development is a social activity (even if the output is code)
We like to think of software development as a purely logical activity. It’s not.
Design discussions, code reviews, incident debriefs, and planning sessions are human conversations, not just information exchanges. These conversations rely heavily on non-verbal signals: confusion, agreement, hesitation, discomfort, engagement
With cameras off, all of that disappears.
You may still hear the words, but you lose context, emotional feedback, and shared understanding. The result is familiar:
- Longer meetings
- More follow-ups
- Decisions that seem aligned but aren’t
Video doesn’t replace good communication — but it restores part of what remote work removes by default.
Communication has bandwidth (and we often ignore it)
Decades of research in organizational psychology describe this idea under Media Richness Theory.
The core idea is simple:
Communication channels differ in how much information they can carry. The more complex, ambiguous, or emotionally loaded a topic is, the richer the communication medium needs to be.
A “rich” medium allows:
- Immediate feedback
- Multiple cues (facial expressions, tone, posture)
- Natural back-and-forth
- Personal focus
This maps perfectly to modern software teams.
The communication bandwidth pyramid (remote team edition)
Not all communication channels are equal. Here’s a practical hierarchy, from richest to poorest:
The higher you go:
- The more nuance you transmit
- The faster misunderstandings are resolved
- The easier it is to build trust
The lower you go:
- The more ambiguity increases
- The more context is lost
- The higher the risk of misalignment
Why cameras matter in this pyramid
Turning cameras on isn’t about etiquette or surveillance. It’s about bandwidth.
Enabling video:
- Increases signal density
- Restores non-verbal cues
- Shortens feedback loops
- Improves shared understanding
In pyramid terms:
Camera ON moves a conversation up one full level of richness.
That’s a meaningful upgrade for discussions where coordination matters: planning, retrospectives, design reviews, onboarding, and (in many teams) stand-ups.
From bandwidth to engagement to trust
Bandwidth affects understanding first — engagement second — and trust over time.
With cameras off, meetings often drift toward:
- Multitasking
- Half-listening
- Reading updates aloud
Turning cameras on subtly changes behavior:
- People are more present
- Speakers get visual feedback
- Silence becomes intentional, not accidental
This isn’t about control. It’s about shared attention.
Over time, that shared attention compounds into trust and psychological safety — things co-located teams get for free, and remote teams must build deliberately.
The Slack problem
Here’s an uncomfortable truth:
Most communication problems in software teams aren’t people problems — they’re bandwidth mismatches.
We routinely try to:
- Debate architecture in Slack threads
- Resolve disagreement via text
- Express nuance with emojis
- “Align” asynchronously
Slack is lossy compression for human communication.
You wouldn’t debug a race condition via screenshots. You wouldn’t review a complex PR through commit messages alone.
Yet we constantly try to make trade-offs and reach alignment using the lowest-bandwidth channel available.
Then we’re surprised when:
- Decisions get reopened
- People feel unheard
- Trust erodes
- Meetings multiply
A simple rule of thumb
You can summarize everything above with one rule:
The higher the ambiguity, the richer the channel.
Or more bluntly:
If a topic needs more than three Slack messages, it probably deserves a call. If it deserves a call, it probably deserves cameras.
This single heuristic prevents a huge amount of dysfunction.
Cameras should be intentional, not mandatory
This is not an argument for “cameras always on”.
Forcing cameras:
- Increases fatigue
- Penalizes neurodivergent teammates
- Ignores privacy constraints
- Reduces trust instead of building it
A healthy approach looks like this:
When cameras add real value
- Stand-ups
- Planning & retrospectives
- Design discussions
- Onboarding
- 1:1s (by mutual agreement)
When cameras should be optional
- Large broadcast meetings
- Quick syncs
- Deep focus sessions
- Incidents after hours
The goal isn’t visibility — it’s connection where connection matters.
How to introduce this without being weird about it
If your team is camera-off today, don’t flip a switch overnight.
Instead:
- Explain the why
- Start with specific meetings
- Make it a team agreement, not a mandate
- Allow exceptions without justification
- Lead by example
A simple framing works well:
“For meetings where collaboration and discussion matter, we’ll try cameras on to improve clarity and connection.”
No guilt. No judgment. No surveillance.
Final thought
Remote software development works — but only if we intentionally replace what distance removes.
Cameras aren’t about productivity theater. They’re about bandwidth, trust, and shared understanding.
Used thoughtfully, turning your camera on isn’t a burden — it’s a small act that makes remote teams feel like actual teams again.
Resources
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design.* Management Science.
Information Richness: A New Approach to Managerial Behavior.
Zoom Video Communications — The Science of Video Engagement