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?

OP I recently had an interview for a senior position at a blue chip firm and they sent me the interview questions in advance - it was amazing! Meant I could fully answer the questions and I think helps women as we tend to be very factual vs men who tend to exaggerate when put on the spot. I did get additional questions as well but the main questions I’d already covered.

I think you did the right thing in leaving - it wasn’t a good role or a good fit for you

Either all candidates get the questions in advance, or nobody does.

I'd say people are more likely to lie when they're desperately trying to come up with something on the spot.

Definitely empowering to have cut it short and communicate not only that you're wasting their time, but they're wasting yours. What rude tossers.

It's like notes - some people get sniffy about notes, bit I think it shows a candidate who is well-prepared.

I think you handled this well and should not feel small or stupid. It became very clear to you that it wasn't the right role so you cut it short. Well done.

I'm slightly surprised about providing questions in advance as part of a reasonable adjustment. I've never heard of this (I'm private sector so possibly this is a public sector thing) and in my line of work being able to "think on your feet" in response to tricky questions is pretty much a job requirement, but clearly this doesn't apply universally.

In your specific situation it's clearly not a fit and you've done the best thing you could have done. Job interviews can be horrendous.

Boss move, ending the interview, OP, well done. It's not easy but sometimes it is for the best.

Would you feel able to summarise the experience, in view of their so-called inclusivity, and contact them about it afterwards?

All aside from expecting someone to do a FT job on PT hours (and pay)

I would say that they didnt want you for the job from the beggining and why should you have the questions in advance no wonder they asked different questions, you are already asking for special treatment, if you need the questions in advance how on earth will you do the job, it sounds like they didnt make the decision on who to interview

I think this plays into it a lot. I’m in the US so our practices may be different here (but I don’t think so in this case).

I’ll post a job and maybe get 5 resumes in the week 1 (I’m making these numbers up). I’ll go through them and schedule 3 interviews for the week 2, then that week #2 I’ll get 5 more resumes so the interviews have started for the first three from week 1… then I’ll spot 2 more that I want to interview from the week 2 batch… those interviews will be scheduled for week 3. So if someone from the week 2 batch asks for the questions in advance, it may not be fair for the week 1 candidates that I’ve already interviewed.

We keep the ad live and fresh until the role is filled.

*This isn’t the practice in all sectors some have a response period and once it’s closed they pick from those applicants so they are all chosen and contacted at the same time. Generally this is government positions. It is typical for these positions to have a list of questions asked to all of the applicants so it would be easier to supply in advance without disadvantaging anyone.

Totally agree, stand tall OP and feel proud of yourself.

I'm amazed at the number of posters who seem to think that having access to questions in advance is unfair.

Unless the job description requires someone to process new information rapidly and come up with immediate answers there is absolutely no need for an interview to be formatted around unseen questions.

I say this as someone who is pretty good at dealing with quick fire unseen issues and questions. I'm much better at that than I am at careful preparation, thorough planning etc.. IMO the stuff I'm rubbish at is much more important to most roles than the stuff I'm good at- but I interview well under the traditional system as I can fly by the seat of my pants and craft quick answers under pressure.

Agree that the interview questions in advance is a reasonable adjustment however how can you expect to work in any job without unrelated things cropping up at a minutes notice? If you can’t handle a couple of curve ball questions, how will you cope as an employee in any business? Not every day will be the exact same so you can’t prepare for everything in advance.

They provided you with a reasonable adjustment by giving the questions in advance which other candidates would not have had access too, I don’t think they did anything wrong by asking a couple of other things most likely based on the answers you gave, but that’s just my opinion.

Lack of experience of workplace practices would cause a person to think that was a normal and acceptable process. But it isn’t. It’s unprofessional and shows a disregard for the time of others, particularly if the applicants were not forewarned.
Also, in your example, how was interviewee number 6 supposed to react if the others refused to let her go first?

No, probably someone who is sick and fed up of being metaphorically prodded and poked about because they don't fit into a neat neurotypical box.

As exemplified by your chip on shoulder snark.

Oh dear oh dear. You are so far off the mark here.

I hope you aren't in any kind of HR role as this attitude would land an employer in extremely hot water.

Few roles require a candidate to be skilled at giving excellent answers to unseen questions. I'm thinking a spy, maybe a radio interviewer or an improv comedian. Unless this is a key requirement there should be no issue giving a candidate the questions in advance. The result is likely to be more thoughtful, detailed answers which are way more helpful than instant responses. I should know as I'm great at quick fire answers and thinking on my feet- but I'm rubbish at planning, preparation, detail etc which are much more important for many roles!

I think you did very well to cut it short @cigarsmokingwoman. You should absolutely value yourself and your worth.
Sounds like they are very disorganised, and would expect blood (on a part time wage!)

Of course you should have ended it once you worked out it wasn't the role for you. Sounds like a shit place to work.

They provided you with a reasonable adjustment by giving the questions in advance which other candidates would not have had access to

you do realise that the reasonable adjustment was put in place so they were on a level playing field with others who do not have to cope with a neurodiverse condition. You make it sound like they were doing the OP a favour. They weren't.

I wonder where people work that sending questions in advance is so strange. Where I work, it’s the norm in several departments, all candidates receive the questions in advance.

@cigarsmokingwoman Good for you to end the interview. It does sound like a waste of time and not right the right fit for you. Definitely positive that they showed their true colours at interview, rather than Later.

But they will probably fail miserably, rather than using AI or researching.

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

Regardless of the adjustments or anything else I'd have ended it the instant that became clear, because frankly they've got to be joking

And what if the job requires on the spot thinking (which surely a lot of professional high qualified jobs do). A client wouldn’t be as kind to provide reasonable adjustments so surely the interviewer would rule a candidate out if the job required it? I’m honestly not trying to be unsupportive, I’m genuinely curious. I’m ASD as are my children and I’ve never thought to ask for questions in advance. I’m obviously missing a trick here but would feel like I’m cheating if I did.

I’m not really sure where you are going with this to be honest. The OP asked for the questions in advance as a reasonable adjustment and she got them. They provided the adjustment she asked for. Other candidates would not have had access to them in advance because they don’t have a disability. I didn’t say anyone was doing the OP a favour, I’m just saying she got what she asked for.

I wasn’t going to argue about who was going first. I did say I only had the morning off when he said sort the order out between you. Two older women already jumped up claiming their place. Who on earth invites all interviewees in together (without letting you know) and thinks they’re so important you’re going to sit and wait a couple of hours to be interviewed? It’s not like there was a tour of the place first. That was the first sign that it was a badly organised workplace.

As somebody else already said, an interview is a two-way process - he was unsuccessful!!

We have refused questions in advance to candidates on the basis that the role is client-facing and clients don't give questions in advance and you'd have to be able to respond under pressure to impress the client - part of the job.

If this is what they are like during the interview process, imagine what they'd be like to work for. Chaotic. You had a lucky escape.