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?

I've noticed this a bit lately in job ads- they'll note they'll close it when they've found the person. So hopefully they don't leave people hanging if they are a no.

And how am I supposed to know that ? I was a disability outreach worker for over twenty years and dealt with this stuff every day and the level of misunderstanding of what reasonable adjustment actually means, as well as lack of understanding of the laws designed to protect the interests of disabled people was depressing then and judging by some of the comments here, not much has improved.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not many employers are knowledgeable and understanding, but the point here is that this employer was - or should have been because they were part of the Disability Confident scheme. They knew what was expected of them, agreed to reasonable adjustment and then didn’t provide it.

And I do tend to agree with you regarding the levelling of the playing field where set interview questions are concerned. If everyone had the questions in advance they would be able to provide better considered answers than being put on the spot.

There are an awful lot of disabilities which include information processing delays and other difficulties. Neural tube defects like Spina Bifida and hydrocephalus - especially where a shunt is needed - often include these types of delays, even if it doesn’t affect learning ability or IQ.

Ay least you keep in touch and give them a rough idea - in the UK it's hell in the current jobs market did ghosting and endlessly waiting for calls that you are not even sure will ever come.

Oh that’s happening a lot here too. It’s generally down to individual companies and hiring managers. That’s why the general advice is to interview and then put it out of your head and assume you won’t get an offer or even a firm rejection.

If it makes anyone feel better hiring managers hate delays and drawn out processes just as much (if not more) than the candidates do!

It sounds like you weren’t the right fit for them and vice versa so it worked out well overall .

I'm curious about what other adjustments they didn’t meet?

I can’t see how knowing the questions in advantage doesn’t put you at an advantage , sorry. Yes your disabilities re processing may put you at a disadvantage without but surely it’s only an even playing field if every candidate has them in advance ? Surely everyone gives a better interview when able to fully prepare?

I’ve had interviews where inappropriate or ‘illegal’ questions were asked and they turned out to be an amazing places to work with great people. I wouldn’t let that put me off personally. I even had questions regarding my sexuality in interview at this job and having been here over 2 years I can honestly say there isn’t a single homophobic person here and I have never been discriminated against in any way .

I think if the job market in your field is difficult at the moment you may have to lower your expectations and worry less about what is legally allowed , your rights etc . I currently do a job part time that was previously done by 1-2 full time workers . Yes I’m very busy but I manage and I love it and it gives me a 3 day working week.

you come across as someone who is very aware of their ‘rights’ and he is quick to complain. I’m not sure a lot of employers are excited by that , rightly or wrongly.

I think if you need the questions in advance then them arranging a meeting room for you to review the questions half an hour before in "exam conditions" or sending the questions to all candidates would be fair. Otherwise is goes from helping to overcome processing delays to allowing you to do specific research that isn't available to the other candidates.

Ah I am sorry you had such an unpleasant interview! I did this once, went for a role (not even sure why they invited me for interview when I clearly didn't have the experience they wanted) and the first 15 minutes were basically tearing apart my application and telling me why I wasn't suitable. In the end I agreed, cut it short politely saying I didn't feel i was what they were looking for and didn't want to waste any more of her time and she finished up with 'Oh thats a shame, I was going to offer you thebjon'

Ah I am sorry you had such an unpleasant interview! I did this once, went for a role (not even sure why they invited me for interview when I clearly didn't have the experience they wanted) and the first 15 minutes were basically tearing apart my application and telling me why I wasn't suitable. In the end I agreed, cut it short politely saying I didn't feel i was what they were looking for and didn't want to waste any more of her time and she finished up with 'Oh thats a shame, I was going to offer you the job'

I’ve been on a panel in the past with a Strategic Director who had already decided - sans interview - who they wanted - and very much went through the motions with the other candidates. Indeed, 2 of them complained this was the case, as he sighed every time they answered and rolled his eyes. And in a different interview - the follow up questions were aimed at evidencing the appointment of their favourite candidate.

I’ve experienced the above a couple of times myself and so far I haven’t walked out (but felt like it). I did once ask in an interview for Newham Sixth Form College whether I was boring the Chair as he spent the entire interview looking at his watch and rolling his eyes. I knew I wouldn’t be appointed so it was just a bit of fun at their expense.

Lucky escape OP

It's infuriating when employers do this because it wastes the time and money of people who they had zero intention of hiring in the first place. Not to mention how hard it is to get the time off to interview in the first place for many. Or if you're in school looking to make a move, you only get so many interview days, so that will have been one wasted.

Employers really need to think about how they would have like to have been treated before putting people through this crap.

@cigarsmokingwoman so sorry you had that awful experience. You dodged a bad company there and I would just be relieved and chalk it down to experience. So sorry also to see the amount of ignorant comments, and very sad also that this is the world we live in. People need to educate themselves in the world of neurodiversity and disability. Makes me so scared for what will happen to my dear child when they grow up. As a senior career person, I would always accommodate reasonable adjustments and proactively do this. I have employed several people with a ND because I knew I could get the best out of them with the right support in place and much better than someone neurotypical.

Also, there is no "legal requirement" to open jobs up to the public, or interview anyone. It's a myth that just won't die.

I do think if you are invited for interview you should be able to submit reasonable expenses - train ticket and parking for example. The candidate isn't disadvantaged and the employer is then held to account if they are just interviewing to benchmark an internal candidate, or wants insight into a competitor.

Well done you for saying enough! I’d of stuck it out and been miserable. You wouldn’t want to work there anyway.

I'm sorry you have been made to feel this way.

It's the way of the world. Unless we have personal, lived experience, we can't know or empathise.

The good news is you took control and did what was right in the circumstances, and for yourself.

Sounds like a toxic environment, where they're setting the role up for failure. And this with the behaviour, forget about the questions/interview process! Perhaps, they had a candidate already chosen, etc. As we know, all too often equity/inclusion is a tick box exercise and true inclusive team-orientated culture is NOT alive. Discrimination is alive and well.

The good news: there are people and organisations out there that live and breathe equity and inclusion. They may get it wrong sometime, but they don't tick box, green wash and use influencers to market a fable. These 0.5% have my respect.

The issue is them and theirs. You did well to walk away. Well done.

They offered/have in mind to offer the post to someone internally or someone the interviewed before you. HR insist that they interviewed all shortlisted applicants. I've worked in the NHS and private healthcarefor years and seen it done many times for roles in all levels (qualified amd qualified). Not right at all but if it feels odd it's probably not you.

I've had some stinkers in my time! A group interview lasted 5 hours, a recorded one where they give 30 seconds for you to think and record an answer and another I was given a written document and given 30 minutes to prepare a presentation on, I had absolutely no clue what the subject was about, sat there for the time in the hope something would come to me. It didn't and I ran out the room in tears! Another I had a maths test sprung on me but I have issues with reading and doing mental math so again failed miserably (please tell me who doesn't allow calculators in 2025!) I feel your pain, move onward and upwards, something better is around the corner, sounds a bit toxic, you wouldn't want to work there anyway, no loss!

An interview is a two way process and they clearly made you feel uncomfortable and the conclusion you came to was you didn't want to work there. You were right to end it there and then and not waste further time. There are quite a few occasions I wish I had done that too!

Sorry you had an awful experience but as others have said your perception of this early has undoubtedly saved stress further down the line that just isn't worth it for a temporary job. As an interviewer we have set questions that we ask each and every candidate. We aren't allowed to depart from these and we used to send out general themes beforehand but now send the questions out the day before or at least a few hours before I think, the point being that it's not a memory test and a lot of questions relate to previous experience "tell me about a time .." etc which it's hard to remember in an interview scenario when time is short. The additional questions are permitted from the interviewee not the interviewer. If the panel interviewing are allowed to change questions for different candidates how can this meet the definition of the Equality Act? We have to score each answer and add them up including the task at the beginning (usually a presentation) Reasonable adjustments should be made on grounds of protected characteristics, disability being one of them and it sounds like they complied initially but then went completely off piste which shows you who they really are and won't follow their own employment rules why would you help them fill their yawning gap of staff member on maternity. Go get a job that serves you as well as yoir employer. Good luck and well done for sticking up for yourself in a dignified way. I would be giving feedback to their HR.

I once interviewed for a half time academic job. When the responsibilities were discussed I remarked that it seemes a very heavy work load for a half time job. The interviewer tossed off "Well everyone knows that a half time job is three quarters of a full time job". I ended the interview early and left.

For anyone that hasn't heard of getting questions ahead of interview before: https://www.hays.co.uk/market-insights/article/in-the-news-should-employers-show-interview-questions-in-advance-

Also it doesn't mean you can ask follow up questions! But be aware the person you are interviewing may need new questions repeated and a little longer processing time to respond.

They often say that they reserve the right to close the applications if they have received enough applicants - I suspect the reality is often that the person they want to apply has applied.

Well done. I wish I had the presence of mind to have done the same a few times.

In my early 20s, I was interviewing for a very big law firm and one of the partners took an issue with me not being British because they value "loyalty". It was bizarre and so overtly racist that I actually didn't know how to react.