To ask for these ‘reasonable’ adjustments interviewing with ASD

[ASDnocareer]

I have ASD and really struggle with interviewing. Whenever I get told tasks to prepare in advance I can do very well, as I have time to research and break down exactly what they’re asking from me.

However during actual interviews I’m a mess, I really struggle to understand what exactly they’re asking from me, combined with thinking quickly on the spot and end up going on a tangent or blanking because my mind is so overwhelmed. It’s embarrassing and taking anxiety medication as well as regular practice hasn’t prevented it

I find it really hard to know what to ask for when it comes to reasonable adjustments at interview stage, without being perceived as taking the piss. Usually, I just mention I’m autistic and please could the panel be aware I struggle with maintaining eye contact for prolonged periods.

However, recently I’m wondering if it would be fair for me to request having interview questions in advance?

Through googling reasonable adjustment for autistic candidates, sources such as University of Bath and Employment Autism charity both suggest this but I’m still conscious it will give a bad impression to employers, and scared hiring panel will think that I’m using autism as an excuse to get an easier interview.

(I actually think it should be done this way for almost all interviews).

I think it’s a reasonable adjustment only if that adjustment reflects the actualities of the job.
No point letting you have questions in advance, and then putting you in a client facing role… because they’ll not give you questions in advance and expect you to think on your feet within a meeting conversation.

Hi Op, Mumsnet is notoriously ableist, especially towards ND community so please ignore anyone saying you are being unreasonable.
It is absolutely acceptable to ask for reasonable adjustments for a job interview which includes questions in advance. I did the same recently and had a really positive experience with it. Not everyone does understand so you may need to share a link to the govs website for reasonable adjustments if they push back but please please please do not listen to anyone saying this is unreasonable. It isn't giving you an advantage, it's bringing you up to a similar level as the other applicants xx

Exactly what we do too, for everyone as you say, because plenty of people struggle in interview situations for a range of reasons.

Absolutely a reasonable adjustment.

Ask away.

How does questions in advance work with follow up questions or questions about experiences listed on a CV? Are these ok or can they not be asked?

What happens if a candidate rattles through the interview and you've got loads of time left at the end?

I'm not against questions in advance, but I am interested in the practicalities as I've never been on either end of an interview where this was the case.

So it's not really an Interview? Just reading out stuff you (or anybody else) decided in advance. Why not just send it by e-mail.

This. This is definitely becoming a lot more common in the public sector.

Ask, there is no harm in asking. I’ve been a hirer/on panels and would consider this a reasonable adjustment too. I think interviews should be a two way conversation to establish the best person, not a memory test! And also the candidate should be made to feel as comfortable as possible.

With so much more awareness now of ND employers should make reasonable adjustments so they can to give everyone a fair shot.

Questions in advance help a candidate prepare better and focus their answers, and you get the best out of them. Yes follow up questions are asked, to find out more and probe the candidate about their experience.

We give the questions in advance for all interviews as standard. Those who require reasonable adjustments sometimes get them further in advance. They absolutely should be happy to discuss you'd with you at least. If they aren't, are they even the sort of company you'd want to work for?

I am in the public sector and we also give the questions to all candidates in advance.

Personally as a hiring manager i really dislike interview candidates being given the questions in advance, unless all candidates are given them in advance.
Two reasons for this:

1. a good candidate will have prepared for the interview by reading our HR pages about our competencies, plus researching typical interview questions, and will have thought about questions they may be asked, mocked up some answers and considered how to adjust these if a similar question comes up. I feel like handing one candidate the exact questions in advance undermines me being able to assess preparedness.
2. i dont know anyone who doesn't find interview questions REALLY tough. Its horrible for just about everyone, having to come up with an answer on the spot, and as an interviewer i fully expect candidates to be quite nervous, perhaps ask for a few seconds to think or compose their answer. And i look for candidates to have tried to mitigate for this with above strategy, lots of interview prep. I have no issue with a candidate coming in with a sheet of bullet points to act as trigger reminders of scenarios they have considered as good examples of competencies we've stated we are looking for in the successful candidate.

So on this basis, i can't quite see how giving one candidate the questions in advance, but not all the candidates, won't confer one with an unfair advantage.

Also this. Sometimes thinking on your feet us one of the skills the job is going to require. The role might require attending meetings when you have to answer to senior staff who are going to ask questions about a project (progress, evaluation, whatever) and its unlikely in the job the questions will be issued in advance, so it doesn't in that scenario give a realistic picture of how things will play out once in the role.

OP have you considered taking notes in? A candidate i interviewed recently did this, and explained at the start that they might take a few seconds to consult their notes before answering, and might also pause in their answers to again check notes and get themselves back on track if nerves/anxiety had made them go off on a bit of a tangent. I thought they were an excellent candidate and had prepared very well.

I will always give questions in advance, and as most interviews are now carried out remotely, as we ask the questions we also post the question in the chat so candidates can check on the day without having to look elsewhere. If an employer is unwilling to do this simple thing, how are they going to be when you work with them?

autism significantly impairs my communication skills

Is this not then also an issue in actually performing in the job itself?

I think it sounds reasonable to be honest.

Most modern employers are very aware of reasonable adjustments and I personally think this falls into the reasonable category,given your diagnosis.

I think it'd look far worse if you flustered on the day and had to explain why. It looks proactive to broach it beforehand and get yourself as prepared as possible to stand an equal chance against others without an impairment. (If I've used the correct word)

Good luck!

Oh this would be amazing to have! My tangents are a source of anxiety. For all those asking about thinking on your feet and needing to be quick in the job- I'm great at that. Great in a crisis. Great at problem solving. Not great at being able to unpick what is being asked in an interview because my head is miles ahead of my mouth or vice versa and I don't know where to look and for how long.
Thanks for this thread OP because when it comes to going back out into the world of work instead of being a carer for my mum I'll be able to ask for the questions.

Arrivapercy perfectly demonstrates discrimination in employment practices.

Communication and interaction needs impact people differently on many levels, and differently throughout the day. Being in the spotlight (at interview) is very different to completing tasks in employment.

I work with a number of autistic adults both as service users and colleagues. We adapt and adjust where we need to to get the best out of people. It's enshrined in the equality act. Any company who does not understand their legal obligations would not feel a very safe employer.

being in the spotlight (at interview) is very different to completing tasks in employment.

I really resent being told I'm discriminating. One of my team has ASD. He's fine in role because the role doesn't require him to be "in the spotlight".

However, lots of roles DO require you to be in the spotlight. To communicate clearly and calmly in stressful situations etc.

There's a role in my team that requires this, and part of what i needed when i hired for that role meant interview questions in advance would have misled a candidate about the nature of that role (also really unfair)

The point being, i need to see how someone reacts unprepared

Because our job involves situations where you basically can't prepare!

Completely depends on the role. For a technical, non-client facing role then I think it could work well. But for a field sales rep, answering verbally under pressure is part of the job, so I don't think it would be a reasonable adjustment as part of the interview is checking how they respond to questions in a pressurised environment.

Question to those who are ND and have had questions in advance -
I do lots of interviews, and never thought of giving questions in advance, have never been asked to do so. We do give questions in writing in the interview.

I have found that no matter how many times we consider how questions are phrased, someone misunderstands them. If we feel they are on wrong track when start answering, we redirect them so we get info we need to assess their suitability.

If someone had questions and prepped in advance, would it be even more challenging if we needed to redirect?

Thanks

I think it is a very reasonable request. You could say that if they are concerned about you having an advantage, they could level the playing field by giving them to the others in advance too. Interviews are often designed to hire the person that is best at interviewing, not the best at the job anyway.

For those concerned about people then being able to think on the job, this isn't necessarily the case. I suck at interviews, as in the artificial stress environment with overly long questions, my short term processing is terrible. Stick me in front of a customer to discuss a product I understand and things are great. I will get to the root of any problems and not be put off asking questions to any other area.

I think more and more people are giving questions in advance. They should be given to all candidates though. Or that's not fair.