Camp interviews are a little weird when you stop to think about them.

We meet with an applicant — often a teenager or young adult — and ask them to immediately establish rapport with a stranger, interpret our questions, remember relevant examples, think quickly, read our social cues, demonstrate enthusiasm, and somehow convey that they will remain calm when 17 campers are simultaneously asking where their water bottles went and requiring assistance tying their shoes. 

Then we use that interaction to decide whether they’ll be “good at camp.”

There is certainly useful information to gather in an interview. It’s also worth asking whether some of what we traditionally evaluate is actually related to the job or simply related to being good at interviews. And that question becomes particularly important as more applicants with neurodiversities enter the workforce openly identifying how their brains work and what helps them succeed. 

We make a lot of judgments in an interview — which is kind of the point. But what if we’re interpreting what we’re seeing through too narrow a lens? Characteristics that get interpreted negatively in a workplace can sometimes look very different from another point of view. What if the candidate who wants very granular information about the daily schedule and asks a ton of specific, direct questions during an interview may become the staff member who notices that a camper’s name is missing from the field-trip assignments list. 

Camp needs staff who notice things others miss, who think creatively in a different way from others’ creative thinking, who value clarity, and who bring energy, structure, honesty, focus, empathy, passion, and different ways of solving problems. All of this to say: It’s very possible that the person who struggles with a traditional interview may be excellent at the actual job.

Start with Strengths, Not Stereotypes

Neurodiversity describes variation in how human brains process information, communicate, pay attention, interact socially, and respond to sensory input. It’s a very broad umbrella, and it can be interpreted in many different ways. It’s easy to stereotype; it’s much harder to see each person for who they are without making assumptions based on a diagnosis or identity they share about themselves.

Not every person with ADHD is your energetic activities superstar. Not every autistic employee loves spreadsheets. People are, inconveniently perhaps, still people – and every human is their own human. 

So one person perceived as “rigid” may value consistency and create predictability for campers; another may truly be too stuck in their way of doing things to be able to adapt to the flexible thinking camp counseling requires. One person labeled “overly sensitive” may notice changes in group tone before anyone else; another may not be ready to handle when campers make disrespectful statements or point out personal characteristics without diplomacy. Similarly, one person who communicates very directly may eliminate some of the vague hints and hidden expectations that create problems on teams; another may not be able to navigate team communication in a way that is functional for co-workers, too. 

The goal isn’t to romanticize neurodivergence or pretend challenges don’t exist. Staff may need support with sensory overload, transitions, time management, social energy, communication differences, or changing expectations. Strengths and support needs can exist at the same time.

Before You Recruit, Ask a Harder Question

It is tempting to jump immediately to, “How can we make our hiring process more inclusive?” That’s a question that matters, but there’s another one that needs to come first: 

If a neurodivergent person came to work at your camp, would your environment feel like support — or survival? 

Camp is not a particularly subtle workplace. It’s loud, social, constantly changing, and intense. Some staff thrive in exactly that kind of high-energy environment. Others can thrive when certain pieces are made more predictable or where they are able to practice good self-care when things feel hard. Still others may require a level of ongoing support a particular camp simply cannot realistically provide.

Thinking about the supports that any potential applicant might need as a continuum is helpful here. At one end are those staff who will require minimal supports: they may need small, occasional adjustments though in general they function in standard camp structures with light awareness from supervisors. In the middle of the continuum we have those who will require moderate supports: structured, predictable systems and some individualized accommodations, with supervisors who check in periodically. At the other end are the staff who would need considerable supports: substantial ongoing accommodations, frequent guidance/active support from supervisors, and structured interventions that are integrated into daily routines from day one. 

Understanding what your camp currently offers on this support continuum is essential knowledge. A camp with 200 staff may be able to hire an additional job coach or supervisor to ensure the success of a handful of staff who require considerable support; a camp with 10 staff may not be in a similar position. And it’s not just the size of the staff that matters, of course; multiple factors influence whether any particular staff member will find success in their role. 

The good news is that a camp’s readiness for supporting staff is also a continuum. Click here to download a series of questions you can ask to determine how far along your camp is in six functional areas of readiness: environment and physical space, leadership and supervision, policies and procedures, culture and team dynamics, task design and role flexibility, and reflection and continuous improvement. 

Then, Look at the Hiring Process

Once we know what support we can realistically provide, we can examine whether our hiring systems allow applicants to show us what they can actually do.

A few relatively small shifts can make a substantial difference:

• Make the process predictable. Tell applicants what the interview will be like, including who will be there and what happens afterward, such as timelines for next steps and how they can get further information if they have questions. 
• Tell applicants what matters. If you are evaluating judgment, camper safety, teamwork, reliability, creativity, or communication, say so. When you ask a question about homesickness, for example, let them know you’re assessing how well they can emotionally support campers, not their formal speech or personal charisma. 
• Consider providing questions in advance of an interview. You’re allowing people who need more processing time to organize their thoughts so you can evaluate the thoughts rather than the speed with which they produce them. You’re also reducing anxiety; ambiguity creates stress, and stress causes people to dysregulate. 
• Offer alternative response formats. Allow a candidate to draw you a visual diagram on the whiteboard function of your virtual meeting software to show how they would structure a daily activity rotation, instead of explaining verbally. Or consider having the candidate do a short role-play with the interviewer simulating helping a homesick camper, rather than describing what they would do in the abstract. 
• Use real camp situations and focus on real-world tasks. Give candidates concrete scenarios that mirror the actual work. Instead of saying “tell me what you would do about camper misbehavior,” ask “describe what you would do and say if a camper is refusing to follow directions.” Show a lifeguard candidate a picture of a busy waterfront area and ask them to point out potential safety hazards rather than just describing safety procedures. 
• Prepare your interviewers. Brief them on neurodiversity basics and what they should focus on as a way to reduce unconscious bias and help them feel confident with the varied ways candidates may present. Remind them that “social polish” and “rapid response to interview questions” aren’t on-the-ground staff skills; you can also consider providing them with a rubric or checklist of strengths to watch for (creativity, patience, problem-solving, etc.).

To be clear, these options don’t need to — and should not — be reserved for candidates who disclose a diagnosis or request accommodations. One of the easiest ways to reduce stigma and minimize barriers to applications is to simply make flexibility part of how your organization hires people. Be open and transparent: “We know people process information differently, so here is what we’re asking of you, and here are several ways you can show us what you know.”

“But . . . isn’t that lowering the bar?” “If they can’t do a simple interview, how will they do the work?”

This is where the conversation sometimes gets sticky. And I guess the answer depends on what we believe the interview is supposed to measure. 

If rapid verbal processing under artificial social pressure is an essential function of the position, then measure it. If what we actually need to know is whether someone can keep children safe, follow procedures, solve problems, connect with campers, collaborate with coworkers, and reliably fulfill their responsibilities, our interview should help us assess those things. 

The interview isn’t the job, so providing a different route for someone to demonstrate capability does not mean changing the capability we require. We’re not lowering the bar; we’re moving the interview closer to the bar that actually matters. Think about waterfront hiring, for example. We would never say, “This candidate was incredibly charming while explaining their lifeguarding philosophy, so I assume the rescue skills will work themselves out.”

Needing an adjustment during an interview does not automatically tell us how someone will perform once they are working within concrete responsibilities, established routines, familiar relationships, and appropriate supports. The more important question is: Can this person do this job successfully with supports we can reasonably and consistently provide?

One Small Change Is Still a Change

In case all this feels quite overwhelming, please hear me say that you don’t need to redesign your entire staffing system tomorrow. And you don’t need to be an expert in neurodiversity to create a workplace that welcomes different kinds of brains. 

Here are a couple quick steps you can take this hiring season: 

• Look at one job description and remove an unnecessary requirement that applicants be “bubbly” or “outgoing.”
• Send your next applicant an interview agenda ahead of time.
• Give someone ten seconds to think without rescuing them from the silence.
• Replace one abstract interview question with a realistic camp scenario.
• Tell candidates exactly what you’re evaluating.

Then see what happens. 

A closing thought: Some of those folks may not present like our traditional idea of the “perfect camp staff.” And, maybe it’s time to worry less about that and more about making sure we’re hiring for the job they will do rather than how well they interview. 

Emily Golinsky is the founder/owner of Bright Moose, LLC (brightmoosetraining.com), which provides professional development, training, and consulting for camps, schools, and youth programs. 

This blog was written on behalf of ACA's Project Real Job, whose goal is to support camps in their efforts to recruit, hire, and retain staff. 

Photo courtesy of Camp Arrowwood in Sevierville, Tennessee