If you want an interview process where: a) The HR recruiter communicates well and gets back to you in a timely manner. b) The interviewer doesn't waste your time by interviewing you when they have clearly made up their mind about another candidate. c) The interviewer shows even vague interest in your skills or experience. d) The interview you are told to prep for and assign 45 mins goes on for longer than 15 mins of small talk. d) The HR recruiter gets back to you about the outcome and doesn't completely ghost you after the interview. Then I wouldn't bother applying to Sky.

3 step, uno sulle mie esperienze e sulla spiegazione del ruolo e del progetto che avrei dovuto seguire pregresse uno step col il responsabile dell’area in cui avrei dovuto lavorare e poi uno con le risorse umane dov’è ho ricevuto l’offerta

It was a two stage interview. The first interview was really informal, relaxed and more of a conversation about why I wanted the role, my experience etc. The interviewer was really nice, professional and left me with a really great impression of the company. The second interviewer (who was a director) left somewhat of a bitter taste in mouth, and their interviewing style bordered arrogant and offensive. They opened the interview by telling me they were tired and that their head was "all over the place". Fair enough, but re-schedule the interview! They proceeded to flip flopped between any random question that appeared to pop into their head, seeming completely unenthused throughout the entire 30 mins or so they had. It was incredibly disrespectful given the effort that I had put into preparing. They even referenced that a colleague they were worried a colleague they were working with wasn't as strong as their predecessor and that was a concern. Bizarre! I understand providing feedback to interviews can be difficult, but the feedback received was pitiful - simply that I was "amazing" and that they thought really hard about their decision. I find feedback like this really unhelpful as there is little you can take from "you're amazing, but not amazing enough." I would seriously question whether I would want to consider applying for another role at Sky, based solely on the interaction that I had with the second interviewer. The whole experience felt like some sort of benchmarking exercise to validate their decision to progress an internal (they let slip during the interview by the way that it was between me and one other candidate). Disappointing, as it's a company I admire.