I was invited to an online interview but when I enquired about receiving questions in advance as part of my reasonable adjustments for my ADHD, my request was denied. Instead, I was offered "some time" to consider an answer before replying and turning my camera off if needed.
As someone with ADHD, I need questions in advance so I can plan out my answers and avoid the likelihood of losing my train of thought and waffling nonsense. What angers me about interviewers thinking this is a demonstration of my everyday verbal communication is that I'm usually very articulate because I've developed pre-planning methods to cope which they are refusing to allow me to implement for my interview. The extra planning time they allow breaks up the tempo of the interview and makes me feel self-conscious so I don't even feel comfortable using it.
I understand that there isn't a "right" answer. Regardless of what I say, or how long I've had to prepare what I've said, my answer still gives insight into my person. The practice I desire from having questions ahead of time is to steady my nerves so I communicate my ideas eloquently. The need to "spring" questions of candidates confuses me as interviews are not a stand-in for everyday life.
In a question such as "How would your colleagues describe you" there are millions of adjectives that I could pull from, each revealing some understanding behind what I value/ what I believe others should value from me. But if I'm a stuttering mess you won't take that information away. You'll take away "bad verbal communicator". Without the added pressure of the interview arena, I'm a better verbal communicator.
As a colleague, I would have built enough personal rapport with you to communicate my ideas properly. As a candidate, I do not have this understanding and as such would benefit from having questions in advance. The two are not a placeholder for each other. I can't help but feel that there was a degree of ableism involved here.
