Before pressing the record button on the next Zoom call—thinking you’re saving a lot of transcription and minute-taking time—think twice about the possible “side effects.” Especially in the realm of association note-taking, more is not necessarily better; indeed, legally and substantively, less may be more. Here, we’ll take a look at some of the pluses and minuses of trusting your video conference platform’s recording and AI-powered note-taking services.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Automated Note-Taking

The plus list is rather short, but impactful: You get a serviceable transcription of the conference call based on the platform’s recording—an exact record of what was said. But is this really a good thing, especially if less can be more? A recording that exists “for all time,” can easily be edited or excerpted out of context, creating potential legal and privacy implications. And something many do not consider: Knowing a meeting is being recorded may affect what participants say and how they behave. In fact, some qualitative studies suggest recording can have a “chilling” effect.

Mechanisms Suggested by Related Research

The very act of videoconferencing itself can increase cognitive load, self-monitoring, and stress. This tends to dampen conversational behavior. For example, theoretical and empirical work links video meetings to higher ambiguity, greater effort to convey the same meaning, and turn-taking disruptions, all of which can shape how detailed, nuanced, or spontaneous contributions are.

One large experimental study on video chat shows that seeing one’s own live image elevates self-focus and tends to reduce evaluations of one’s own performance in handling difficult interpersonal issues. This type of heightened self-awareness is theorized to reduce risk-taking and vulnerable disclosure in video consultations and online interactions.

International and Intercultural implications

We know from longstanding research that many cultures differ along several dimensions, which may affect the quality and impact of videoconferencing.

High-context vs. low-context cultures.

High-context cultures (Japan, Korea, much of the Middle East, parts of Latin America) tend to communicate with more nuance and implicit meaning; when a meeting is recorded, participants may hold back indirect criticism, avoid disagreement, or reduce emotionally expressive cues for fear that context will not carry over in replay.

Low-context cultures (U.S., Germany, Scandinavia) favor direct, explicit communication; while participants may adjust less dramatically, recording can still prompt more formality, closer adherence to stated facts, and less improvisation.

Power distance and hierarchy.

In cultures with high power distance (India, China, Malaysia), recording can amplify hierarchical pressure:

• Junior members may speak less because their words become permanent and attributable.
• Leaders may speak more cautiously, knowing recorded statements carry reputational risk.

Conversely, low power distance cultures (Netherlands, Australia, Denmark) often see recording as an accountability tool that can level the playing field, encouraging broader participation.

Privacy norms, legal sensitivities, and trust.

Privacy expectations differ dramatically across regions:

• European participants, influenced by GDPR and strong privacy norms, may be more sensitive to being recorded and more likely to request explicit consent.
• In the U.S., recording is more normalized in corporate environments, though still subject to consent laws.
• In East Asian countries, mixed norms prevail—privacy concerns coexist with strong social norms around compliance and harmony, leading to quiet acquiescence but heightened self-monitoring.
• In some contexts, recording boosts trust by creating shared documentation. In others, especially where surveillance is a sensitive issue, recording may feel control-oriented or even punitive.
• Global organizations need to recognize that what may seem like a harmless operational habit in one region can feel like intense scrutiny in another.

Language confidence and recording anxiety.

The choice of language(s) used can also have repercussions. Those working in other than their native tongue (or a language they’re comfortable with) often report stronger anxiety when recorded:

• Fear of mispronunciation or imperfect grammar becoming “permanent.”
• Reduced spontaneity and participation.
• Reliance on prepared statements rather than natural dialogue.
• International teams may see an imbalance in speaking time because recording magnifies linguistic self-consciousness.

Practice-Based Implications

Given the likely effects of video meetings (both positive and negative), tilting the process toward the positive might include:  

• making recording optional in highly sensitive sessions
• clearly explaining why and how recordings will be used
• allowing participation without video or identifiable information, and
• giving participants alternatives (e.g., contributing via chat or follow-up channels).

Recording a conversation is in itself an “interference,” akin to the Hawthorne Effect; that is, the experimenter by his or her very presence affects the experiment. Just the presence of an automated recorder can affect the outcome of a meeting. Participants may hold back attributable ideas or criticisms, inviting groupthink and limiting brainstorming.

We then ask what is really needed to record a Zoom meeting? In committee or board settings, minutes are NOT (and should not be) a verbatim transcript. What matters is capturing outcomes and fulfilling procedural requirements, not pages of a line-by-line conversation. Arriving at a concise summary through Zoom’s recording and summary functions requires a high level of trust on the part of all the participants:

• trust that the presence itself of the recording function is not going to misshape the discussions.
• Trust that the recording is not going to be misused, even temporarily.
• Trust that the machine-generated summary captures both the substance and feeling of the meeting, while perhaps missing the gestures and eye rolls that are better left unrecorded.

In practice, reading through a verbatim recording to pull out the highlights often requires more effort than a human taking essential notes to begin with. As with most human vs. Machine tradeoffs, a balance is needed — one that respects participants’ time and well-being (e.g., reputation, legal exposure, etc.), while keeping the focus on the meeting’s desired outcome.