To bring notes into a second-stage job interview?

[ThatRoseFish]

I have a final second-stage, in-person interview coming up for a relatively senior role in the charity sector.

The organisation has described the interview as conversational but structured, with questions covering several key areas.

I’ve prepared thoroughly and have some brief cue cards covering key examples, achievements and points I’d like to make.

Would you consider it acceptable to bring these into the interview and occasionally glance at them if needed, or would that come across as overly rehearsed or unprepared?

I’m not talking about reading out scripted answers, just having a few prompts available.

Interested to hear from people who’ve interviewed candidates at a similar stage as well as those who’ve used notes themselves.

Up until about a year ago I had a photographic memory. Then peri menopause hit and brain fog is real.
My new version of being prepared is having notes or prompts.
An interview shouldn’t be an exam.

I think this thread shows a real divide between old school interview styles and modern more inclusive practice. In my most recent job interview I was sent an agenda of questions the day before, then given a print out of questions when I arrived for the interview. I was allowed to take notes in and had bullet points to prompt. I didn't actually look at them at all but I was glad they were there.

I am incredibly anxious about interviews - I had a couple of awful experiences early career that really made them into a massive barrier for me. I'm great at my job, and finding interviews hard doesn't mean I can't do my work properly. I just think for so many jobs interviewing the way we have done for so long is so artificial and doesn't actually give lots of people the opportunity to show themselves at their best, so if you have the chance to make the environment a bit more inclusive why wouldn't you!

Yeah I understand the logic of what you’re saying but in my industry in senior roles there’s a premium placed on appearing confident, communicating clearly, appearing to have full grasp of the brief and also being flexible and able to think on your feet.

Rightly or wrongly having notes would signal to the interviewers that you were not fully across the brief and you doubted your ability to communicate.

I’m not saying that is necessarily correct and it varies from industry to industry. In some sectors it may be absolutely fine. In mine it would not.

I’m clinical staff and have always brought brief notes with me. I always check when the interview starts and everyone has always said yes and noted how well prepared I am. We’re not robots!

I’m struggling to understand why having notes/prompts would mean you’re not confident, able to communicate clearly, don’t have a full grasp of the brief or the ability to think on your feet?
It’s seems very old fashioned. I’d be interested to see how diverse that industry is!

Definitely not unless:

1. to support a presentation they’ve asked you to prepare - but even then I’d err on the side of not using them
2. a small prompt of Qs you want to ask them - but make sure in professional note book etc
3. they’d be considered reasonable adjustments for any disability you have

if not #3, I’d strongly avoid using them as having the ability to recall info and think on your feet is part of any job. Plus, they risk coming between you and the interviewer should you keep look at them rather than maintaining eye contact / connection etc

Best wishes for your interview!

Because my industry is about communication and presentation and winning an argument. If you can’t present an argument without notes, you’re perceived not to have been able to articulate it well.

Look I’m not saying this necessarily is the best approach. It may be a bit old-fashioned.

But I don’t see how the diversity comes into play? People of all different ethnicities, ages and sexes are equally capable of making clear arguments: I don’t understand why that would discriminate against any particular groups?

You’re confusing ad-libbing (confidence) with bullshitting (in competence).

Very different.

Peri menopause and menopause can cause brain fog. If you’re saying that notes/prompts aren’t allowed or viewed negatively then that is absolutely going to discriminate against women.
ADHD can impact short term memory recall. My colleague with ADHD is absolutely brilliant but she needs notes when presenting.

There will be other examples. A one size fits all approach will usually result in some sort of disadvantage.

I don't really see that as a diversity issue.

ADHD would fall under the category of needing a reasonable adjustment, which I'm sure would be given if requested. I don't know about perimenopause/menopause: if someone requested an adjustment it would probably be considered. But perimenopause brain fog is not something which automatically affects all women and for any woman who is affected there is likely to be a commensurate issue which would affect men. So a man with diabetes could just as equally argue that he was suffering from dizziness and brain fog: that would again be a reasonable adjustment he could request but I wouldn't see it as a diversity issue. Men and women can equally suffer from health-related impacts to their performance but you can't legislate for all of these.

My industry does discriminate against people in a lot of ways: it's historically been very sexist and quite ageist, so I'm pretty clear-eyed about this but I just don't think this is really a diversity issue, it's a competence issue.

If the main requirements of the job are good presentation, clear communication and the ability to make an argument under pressure then those are the requirements of the job. If perimenopause makes you incapable of doing this you're not meeting the standards of the job and shouldn't apply for it.

BTW I'm perimenopausal and my memory isn't what it was but I can still do a good pitch or interview on my feet and retain enough memory/recall to do it. If you're properly prepared and know you're stuff you should be able to do it: if you absolutely can't retain information at all under pressure, this job isn't right for you.

I'm very much pro diversity, before you ask: this is absolutely not an anti-woke rant, but diversity at work can't just mean an endless series of competence waivers for anything which makes the job challenging.

I could only do interviews with notes, going off the civil service interviews, I had to bring in my competencies otherwise I would not remember an entire competency. And they were entire paragraphs not just a couple of sentences.

Menopause is a diversity issue. Just like pregnancy is a diversity issue. It only impacts women . If there is an equivalent condition which only effects men then that would aso be a diversity issue and I'd expect workplaces to take that into consideration.

Just because you haven't been impacted by brain fog doesn't mean other women haven't been. You can still do a good presentation, think on your feet and make decisions under pressure with notes and prompts. It's an odd approach to assume someone with notes is poor at their job - and incredibly old fashioned.

I'm delivering a really important presentation today. I'm very well prepared but will also have my notes in case I need them. I know my male counterpart from another department will just rock up without slides or notes. We've always had very different ways of approaching events like these. Both are equally valid.

In fact @Thepeopleversuswork it will be mandatory from April 2027 for workplaces to have a Menopause Action plans in place as part of their wider Equality Action Plans. So it very obviously is a diversity issue. One which will soon have legal protections.

I'm recruiting a lot at the moment, and while it surprised me at first, more and more people are bringing in notes and I think that's absolutely fine. It wouldn't make me think any differently of them.

For some people (myself included) it's really hard to think on the spot, especially if you're nervous. I have no issue with people having a few prompts prepared, or questions written down to ask at the end.

I mean that's good, I'm totally in favour of having more menopause support in place.

But fundamentally it's a bit of a digression: the competences needed for the job are the competences needed for the job and clearly different industries have different approaches and standards.

Yes, I recently successfully interviewed and took notes in, including a plan I'd prepared. They had given some questions beforehand so I was basically taking prompts for projects I'd done, figures etc. They were very happy for me to have the notes out . I barely glanced at them but it was helpful. Thinking on your feet is one thing being tested but also being thoughtful, weighing up, using evidence etc.

I guess it becomes an issue if the methods used to assess those competencies are disadvantaging a particular group or groups.

This is where it's relevant to the OP. I work with a lot of recruiters and find that some employers approach their recruitment processes in a 'this is what we've always done' way without giving any thought to how they might get the most of they people they're looking to recruit.

Not allowing someone to bring notes into an interview or automatically viewing this as a negative is a very old fashioned approach to recruitment.
How the person uses those notes is the important thing to assess here. Not whether someone has brought notes in the first place .

Charity sector is generally more progressive in recruitment

I do high level interviews and its common to have notes (and has been for sometime)

I wouldnt be using cue cards because of the risk of having to shuffle through them. Nothing written in tiny writing that you have to study closely to read, and not full sentences. Write fuller notes to start with then condense them into prompts that are actually usable in a pressure situation

Generally what I would recommend is one sheet of a note book, colour coded that you can glance at to get your point.

The only time I've seen it back fire is when the notes are too heavy, people trip over them, get them in a muddle and break focus, or try to read out full sentences

I'd love to know the sectors where people thinks its an absolute no or if people that are horrified by it have been interviewing recently

I guess it becomes an issue if the methods used to assess those competencies are disadvantaging a particular group or groups.
This is where it's relevant to the OP. I work with a lot of recruiters and find that some employers approach their recruitment processes in a 'this is what we've always done' way without giving any thought to how they might get the most of they people they're looking to recruit.
Not allowing someone to bring notes into an interview or automatically viewing this as a negative is a very old fashioned approach to recruitment.
How the person uses those notes is the important thing to assess here. Not whether someone has brought notes in the first place .

I certainly agree that "this is how it's always been done" is not a good approach to recruitment or management. I think people should be encouraged to present themselves in their best light in the way that best fits the way they think and work.

But I still keep coming back to the fact that in my particular sector (and I know all sectors aren't equal) it's massively important for senior people to look like they know what they're talking about, to be able to project an argument confidently, and to be able to pivot and think on their feet.

Having notes may tick a lot of boxes: it makes you look organised and diligent, it makes you look well prepared. But it also makes you look like a rule-follower, not a rule-maker. And it detracts from the image of a person who can adapt to fast-changing situations.

Can I ask how recently you interviewed/ in what sector?

Lots of roles in the charity sector wouldn't require live debate/ arguing etc. Having notes and being well researched is part of looking like you know what you are talking about in lots of industries eg budget stats, demographic stats and that can be more important in many areas.

The reality is lots of sectors (and potentially your sector based on your previous comments about demographics) are old boys clubs who are interested in promoting people who are their mirror image

Charities are normally fairly progressive, and ahead of recruiting curves.

You are probably right for your specific role in your sector but if op isnt in your sector and isnt in that kind of role then continuing to post about why you think it wouldn't work for your job probably is a waste of breath.

It would be the same if I insist that everyone should talk about their pets, because that would have worked in my old industry

But I still keep coming back to the fact that in my particular sector (and I know all sectors aren't equal) it's massively important for senior people to look like they know what they're talking about, to be able to project an argument confidently, and to be able to pivot and think on their feet.

I guess what I keep coming back to is why would having a few notes mean you don't meet this criteria? I do all of this on a daily basis, the fact I have my note book on the desk next to me doesn't change any of that.

Having notes may tick a lot of boxes: it makes you look organised and diligent, it makes you look well prepared. But it also makes you look like a rule-follower, not a rule-maker. And it detracts from the image of a person who can adapt to fast-changing situations.

Again this doesn't really make sense. You could quite easily say someone not having notes just looks like they're winging it. Shouldn't you assess people on their individual performance not some stereotype of what you think a confident person looks like?

I think it depends on the prompt cards. If they ask ‘what’s important for you in a co-working relationship’ I’d not be impressed if you need prompts rather than answering freely. If you mention an example of having engaged X number of people, worked with Y number of stakeholders across Z months, making a revenue of £, then I think it’s fine to check your notes to make sure you present the correct numbers.

@Lolarose20

Can I ask how recently you interviewed/ in what sector?
Lots of roles in the charity sector wouldn't require live debate/ arguing etc. Having notes and being well researched is part of looking like you know what you are talking about in lots of industries eg budget stats, demographic stats and that can be more important in many areas.
The reality is lots of sectors (and potentially your sector based on your previous comments about demographics) are old boys clubs who are interested in promoting people who are their mirror image

It's communications/PR. You're right that it has historically been quite old boys club (certainly at senior levels). It's changing but there's still a bias in favour of people who appear very confident and corporate (and in the nature of this there are a lot of public school/Oxbridge people in senior roles).

I think the charity sector is at the opposite end of the spectrum from this so not a like for like comparison. I'm sure charities are generally far more progressive than this and I'm sure the culture is very different.

I still think in senior roles some of these principles still apply though. Being able to communicate clearly and show flexibility and confidence goes a long way in most senior roles in any sector.

When i was doing recruitment training, the consultants (who were involved in redesigning in recruiting in many of the big places) specifically warned about the challenges of changing it.

Lots of people cant see past the way they were recruited / i had to do it, why shouldn't they type thing. They end up recruiting their mirror image and the pattern continues even if given evidence that their recruiting process isnt meeting their own aims and is screwing themselves over.

It creates a dangerous environment where there's little diversity of thought or skill set and similar to any species that lacks diversity it leaves huge vulnerabilities to outside changes. They miss good candidates because they dont recognise them, and keep getting the same people.

The aim shouldn't be to find someone who is good at interview, it should be to find someone who is good at the job and the role of the interview should be to assess that. Often now moving to things like questions in advance, things that people can prep eg presentations but more task based processes

Because after all what I'm looking for in a social media person, head of estates, spokesperson or data analyst is wildly different so they should be assessed on different criteria via different tasks.

OP might be interviewing for head of accounts in a small charity, head of safeguarding in a massive one, head nurse in a hospice etc

They might be interviewing for a role with a high level of scrutiny where facts are everything. These days even politicians, barristers and white house coms all carry notes on their podiums

Of course they might go in and read directly of cue cards and avoid all eye contact, never build a rapport

But they also might go on more confident, more factually sound, less thrown by curve ball questions and glance at their notes in a way that presents them with certainty. It doesnt mean they dont communicate clearly or flexibly at all. Having notes in front of you might mean you are able to give a good answer to a less prepped question that you didnt anticipate.

No, don't do this. It just looks bad and shows lack of confidence in your memory and thinking quickly.