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?

if only to have their accreditation (is it that kind of thing?) revoked.

I am aghast at how many MNetters have very little imagination or empathy or understanding of this whole process.

There is a WHOLE other thread running about questions in advance that really explains everything in great detail. Along with some organisations who, upon receiving a request for questions in advance as a reasonable adjustment, then send them to ALL candidates.

The ability to think on your feet and be flexible during interviews goes for both sides. If a company presents itself badly, people won't bother interviewing. And the more people who take OPs bold step of cutting it short and saying why, the better.

There's a big difference to asking a specific question such as ' how would you approach X task?' To competency based questions like 'give me an example of a time whne you've improved the productivity of your team?'

This is outdated in general and discriminatory towards those with relevant requirements.

It is absolutely not discriminatory, so long as alternative adjustments are made available based on the candidate's requirements.

Why people are so wedded to recruiting people who are able to blag quickly I don't know.

I work in a fast-paced industry where the ability to think on your feet and deal with serious issues on the fly and without warning is essential. It's not about hiring people who can 'blag', it's about hiring people whose attributes fit my requirements.

Some companies now give the questions in advance as standard to avoid just recruiting people who are good at interviews and crap at the job.

I set tasks in advance, or hold assessment days if I need a measure of someone's ability.

Interviews - for me - are about the person, team fit, and how they do things, rather than just what they can do.

As I said in my original post, if I feel someone is trying to blag me, or simply be 'good at interviews', I will catch them out with additional questions/curve balls. No two interviews are the same.

OP suggested that all questions be provided ahead of time, with no deviation or follow up. That simply would not work for me.

Reasonable is the key word in reasonable adjustments, and its definition is deliberately vague, because not all adjustments are reasonable.

Its deemed a reasonable adjustment to give questions in advance by public employers though.

Exactly. Advanced verbal reasoning skills are paramount in so many sectors.

I do agree that poor interviewers, often with little understanding of their own sector, can be fooled by candidates who have strong communication skills but little else.

However, when one finds a candidate who is not only capable of completing tasks but also of abstracting them and presenting them to others, they're worth their weight in gold.

absolute rubbish - it depends on the nature of the role. Some roles within public sector - yes. Others - no.

You can't just apply a blanket rule like that

Source: me. I work and recruit in public sector

Ok? I don't really understand your point or why you've quoted me here.

I don't have a problem with giving questions in advance - I have a list and ask candidates the same questions as it allows for transparency and good comparison.

However if someone doesn't answer the question in enough detail or a point for clarification comes up I would expect to be able to ask for further clarification.

And if asking questions that are a test of a specific technical skill then I need to know they understand that rather than can look up the answer but not actually understand.

Yes, though I don't think they'd get the accreditation removed, not sure. I'm currently going through the process to upgrade a company accreditation for this, and a lot will depend on what level they have. Though obviously reasonable adjustments is a legal requirement, not a requirement of the scheme.

And, yes, sending questions in advance is pretty common these days. Making questions up on the spot is hilarious! Though, to be fair, even with pre sent questions you can still probe into the answers with more questions, it doesn't mean the interview isn't dynamic.

I'm feeling slightly bitter, and i guess people with some disabilities might feel this too, that companies are boasting about their inclusivity and DEI bollocks, but older women and any disabled people can't get a foot in the door.

No, I have a disability and I don't feel bitter at all. If I was recruiting for a role in my team.i wouldn't give the questions in advance due to the nature of the work we do, thinking on our feet is important.

I would not feel sad or upset if I were you. I admire you for ending the interview rather than sitting there wasting your time talking to people who sound unpleasant for a job you do not want.

I think that the fact they didn't make all the reasonable adjustments they agreed to does indicate it wouldn't have been a good place to work.

I think you may have been unreasonable regarding some of the questions however. Asking you to explain concepts related to the job, even if basic, seems completely reasonable to m. I think it is fine for them to have told you that a question about achievements was more about outcomes than awards (and I would think that this is generally true of a question like that). In fact, with that it sounds like they were trying to give you an opportunity to give the answer they wanted, ie they were trying to help you. Additional questions, I think if they were follow-on questions that is more reasonable, if they were completely random new ones they should not have provided these if they agree to provide a list of questions in advance.

then you don't understand reasonable adjustments.

Whether questions in advance is a reasonable adjustment obviously depends on the role in question. Eg for a role that involves thinking on your feet under pressure, this adjustment might not be reasonable. However in this case it is a moot point, since the organisation did agree to give questions in advance, they just apparently didn't stick to the questions they gave. That is definitely wrong. If they didn't deem this a reasonable adjustment they should have declined with reasons.

At least you bowed out with your self respect intact .
I remember a horrible interview where I was so intimidated I couldn’t put a stop to it and told a staff member as I scuttled out I wouldn’t be proceeding with my application. I felt so pathetic that I couldn’t speak up for myself in the moment . So good for you OP you should be proud of yourself .

I don't know why people are going on about you having the questions in advance, a lot of disabilities require this as a reasonable adjustment, I am one who would also need it for my own reasons

I would say that it depends entirely upon what the 'new' questions actually were.

I agree that it would be wrong to agree to ask questions on A, B & C, then throw in questions on X, Y & Z out of the blue.

However if the 'new' questions were prompted by answers given to the agreed questions, I don't think they've gone against their reasonable adjustment.

If a candidate casually drops in that they're not very comfortable with a key piece of software, for example, you can't simply skip over that because it's not on an agreed list of questions.

As I have said in previous posts, there are other reasonable adjustments that can be made depending on the candidate's requirements.

For many roles, having the questions in advance is more than reasonable. However, not all roles.

It's not just the disability that determines reasonability, its also the role.

I more than understand them. Assuming you also do, you know they can be specific to the role don't you. Hence why there are many jobs that can be adjusted for visual impairment but I bet you don't want a blind pilot flying your plane.

That quite an extreme response to the first few posters asking some gentle questions. I wonder if that's how you can across in the interview.

That's where "reasonable" comes in.

Well done you. I wish I had walked out of some crappy interviews but didn't have the courage.

No. It went beyond the first few posters and the questions were couched in terms of ‘what kind of disability needs the questions in advance’. Unfortunately this is the kind of ableist attitude that’s rife on MN.

YABU. The interview served an important purpose: if they can’t figure out how to conduct a proper interview it’s highly unlikely it would have been a good place to work.