awful interview, WIBU to have ended it early?

[cigarsmokingwoman]

I had an interview this week for a fixed‑term maternity cover role in a field I’ve worked in for years. On paper, it looked perfect — but it turned into a complete nightmare.
The current postholder is full‑time, but they want to replace her with someone part time, on a short contract, no team, and still covering the same massive list of responsibilities. Straight away, it felt like they were expecting one person to do the work of several. Its not a senior role, but sounded it as they kept refering to "supporting our staff of over 2000".
Beforehand, I’d asked for some reasonable adjustments, as I have several disabilities, which they agreed to — but when the interview started, they hadn’t done them. I had to ask twice, which was awkward and made me feel like I was being a nuisance. They did send the questions in advance, again as an adjustment, but then on the day they started asking completely different ones, putting me on the spot and making it much harder to answer properly.
One of the panel was so patronising. They asked me to explain really basic concepts that I’d expect anyone in the field to already know. When I started talking about some of my biggest achievements, they cut across me and actually said they didn’t want to hear about the awards I'd won! The question was literally about qualifications, experience and achievements related to the role.
The whole thing felt off. The tone was wrong, the expectations were ridiculous, and there was no sign of respect for my experience or the effort I’d put into preparing. Eventually, I just said I was ending the interview because it was a waste of both our time. I left the Teams call feeling small, upset, and wondering why I’d ever applied.
I’ve done and sat on many interview panels, but I’ve never had such a bad experience.I've never exited an interview before either and I'm still shaken by it. AIBU to think that whatever the role is, the least you should expect is a bit of professionalism and basic respect?

They may be able to argue in response that the job role required some thinking on your feet though.

https://www.stammeringlaw.org.uk/british-telecommunications-v-meier/

That job sounds awful, you did the right thing.

I think it would be great to give questions to all candidates in advance. The current system favours the confident types and disadvantages those who suffer from interview nerves or language difficulties. When I look at the people I’ve employed over the years my best staff are typically those who didn’t interview brilliantly. There needs to be a new way.

Exactly. I always ask a lot of technical questions in interview to ensure the candidate fully grasps the concepts. If people could practice in advance we'd get parroted answers and would find it harder to determine who is most comfortable with the concepts.

In so many jobs, the ability to think fast and on your feet is imperative. Most offuce jobs have meetings where being able to process, interact and brainstorm in real time is an integral part of the job's responsibilities.

You mention being put off by them.asking to explain basic concepts. Explaining something simple well is a vital skill and sets the tone for the interview. As for interrupting your list of achievements, I can see how they might have been annoyed if they already had access to that info on your CV.

It sounds they weren't the right fit for you, and neither were you for them. They were unreasonable in their expectations but so were you.

I started reading this thread last night and see it is still rumbling on. Questions in advance is been a thing in my sector for years. In Teams interviews we also paste the lead question in the chat so candidates that process better in written rather than verbal form can refer back. Standard for everyone.

Also pretty sure we interviewers now aren't told who has had the questions in advance so as not to add bias. We certainly wouldn't be told why the adjustment was being made. Real eye opener the practises others run with.

Well done OP for standing up for yourself.

If they didn't interview brilliantly how did they get appointed, you give the job to the worst performers?

You can give answers with excellent content without being the best 'performer' at interview. Being a confident bullshitter doesn't make you good at real work

Interviews are a pretty poor way of finding good people.

This. Also some people are internally promoted do you know they’re excellent but they struggle to articulate because of interview nerves.

I think interviews are not a reliable assessment of people. Assessment days are probably better.

Interviews stopped being 'organic" decades ago. Because what happens if they're 'organic' is people ask different questions of different people, leading to confirmation bias and them just appointing the person that most reminds them of themselves.

This thread is funny. It's like people from the past are visiting us.

What jobs have you had where being able to come up with very specific examples of past examples on the spot was important?

I'm not talking about listing achievements, not sure where you got that from.

Exactly my point too.

I had a job interview recently. Three different areas in the role. Naturally when you look at my CV and background I covered off two fully. I asked the interviewer if there was anything they were concerned about me lacking experiencewise. They said yes and asked me specifically about the third area. I have them some solid examples here. If they hadn't been prepared to deviate from a script then I would have left with them still having concerns over a skills gap that I just hadn't had occasion to talk about on their other questions.

Technical knowledge is more effectively assessed through tests. Interviews favour confident performance over technical competence. Tests are known to give better results in recruitment than verbal questioning.

the ability to think fast and on your feet is imperative Responding confidently very quickly is often a negative except in certain situations (emergency medicine for example) but your average accountant, lawyer, project manager can take five minutes to give the right answer rather than the first answer.

Maybe. But beyond screening calls I find it quite rare to have HR present in interviews.

There's an optics issue. I think it is quite reasonable to say everyone would perform better if they had the questions in advance. HR might ask an interviewer for questions in advance, they might be sent as an adjustment. That doesn't mean an interviewer (and decision maker) isn't themselves going to think that this is hindering their ability to properly assess this candidate.

I say this as a dyslexic, and is conscious in job interviews of not appearing as "less than" a NT candidate.

Genuinely confused how any candidate who is not able to get through an interview without being handed the questions before would actually be able to do lots of roles in the real world - unless it’s a routine task driven position, thinking on your feet is key to most jobs I’d assume?

its like being given the questions of the A-level exam before the exam isn’t it?

either way, these people sounded generally rude anyway with their comments on your awards and experience so you’re probably well out of them anyway.

To everyone who thinks supplying questions in advance is unfair or whatever, I do it as a matter of course for accessibility reasons, so people don't have to ask. It is remarkable how good candidates still do a great job, and candidates who are a poor fit make a hash of it, even with the questions in advance. Answering on the spot isn't quite the skill interviews make it into.

We always give questions in advance for a couple of reasons- the job does not rely on people being able to come up with amazing answers on the spot. As an interviewer, you need to think about what you are actually testing through the process. If the job involved say excellent presentation skills or mass comms maybe this would help you assess the skills you are looking for- otherwise you could be rejecting great candidates because they find coming up with answers on the spot difficult.
also, it means that I have very high expectations around the quality of the answers given as the person has had lots of time to think it through!

I use technical tests too but being able to explain what you're doing is an extremely reliable sign of clear thinking in my experience, not to mention a job requirement for collaboration woth colleagues and knowledge sharing.

It does depend on the field of course.

This is shocking, if true.

There’s one question that should definitely have been asked in advance and that’s “how is this full time rule supposed to be done in part time hours?”

We work in professional services - the ability to answer in a client meeting is pretty important, especially in preliminary sales meeting and you will get asked for your answer on the spot and whilst you can delay on the detail - you still have to articulate some kind of response - continually asking for 5 minutes will impress no one.

But if you're always doing it no one is saying that is unfair. What people are failing to grasp is how one persons reasonable adjustment isn't actually a massive advantage compared to other candidates. If folks here arguing it is reasonable said that they send questions to everyone in advance - we'd think that was fair. Or if when one candidate asks for questions in advance they get sent to everyone in the batch- that would be fair.

That’s not good.

Not really the same, a job usually isn’t an ability to recall answers to questions, it’s your ability to do the job
being able to recall a time when I’ve helped a customer or colleague or excelled at something or parroting how I would deal with something has nothing to do with my actual job
the questions for all candidates should be the same anyway

That's not really how disability discrimination claims work.

The actual award could be very high.