The most shambolic interview process ever. These were the steps (yes 5 interviews over 2 months and references taken) 1 Telephone interview 2 Second telephone interview 3 Face to face interview 4 References taken 5 Fourth telephone interview for different job 6 Face to face interview Overall a good start with solid telephone interviews with people in the US., although the second one had to be rescheduled to later on the same day. Then it all started to fall apart. The 3rd interview (face to face) was promised to be the final one, which was important as I had another job offer and had let them know I was under pressure to make a decision. They interviewed me but the interview was a bit shambolic; the interviewees were late, they seemed unprepared and one of them seemed quite agitated and stressed about situations that seemed quite normal in software development. I was told that the people I would be working with "moaned all the time", so I should not really listen to them too much. I took this as being not very open to feedback and I was feeling less enthusiastic about managements attitude to stakeholders. Even though I was a bit surprised by the performance of one of the interviewees I decided not to turn the position down flat. At the end I let them know I had turned down the other position as I was interested in the Viacom role. After the interview and a gap of a few days with no news, I was told that they couldn't make an offer until references were taken. I don't know what happens in the US but this is normal practice after making an offer " subject to satisfactory references" because it can jeopardise people's relationship with their existing employer, so I was hopeful. As a .precaution, I asked the agent whether this was the last step and he said "yes". The references came back and were good and from senior people, one of which had just been promoted to a very senior role so was very busy. Then there was a surprisingly large gap in the process, after which I was told that they wanted me to talk to someone else in the US. This time the telephone interview started so late I almost gave up on the call. However the interview took place just before I hung up. The content of the interview was a shock; the role had changed to a different location with a different group of businesses and more overseas travel. I felt let down by this as I had turned down another position because the Viacom position was marginally better. If I had known about the extra travel I would have though twice about the other role. In addition the interviewer seemed repeated how hard the work was; I said hard work was not a problem. After a few days the agent (who was great all the way through this) got back and said they wanted to see me again for the last, last time on site in London. I went to the interview and which started late again. The interview went quite well but the role was confirmed as different to the original. By this stage I was well advanced in other interviews but thought I would let things role and see what they said. After all maybe they would come in with a better rate or maybe another change to entice me. Another few days later the agent got in touch with feedback. He said that they had decided not to offer the position. The reason was an answer to a question I was asked in interview 3. Yes interview 3, after they had taken references and wasted everyones time with 2 more interviews. This was not something I was going to accept as it had been so long I had given up on them and had 2 job offers from interviews after the final one with Viacom. I am still shocked, but now some time has past and I am in another role where I had one interview,. So I am ready to put this to paper. I think it is quite damning of Viacom and in particular, but not exclusively, the UK based operation and the PMO. I summary based on my experience I would not recommend anyone to interview for this company. I was applying for what I though was an important role and I would be expected to be professional including starting on time, sending feedback in a timely and complete way and, most of all, not wasting my or my referees time. Based on the interviews and other research I would be concerned about the range of experience of the people they are putting in senior positions.