The Absurdity of Recruitment in France: When Hiring Becomes an Obstacle Course

Recruitment Has Become an Endurance Sport

I have a friend who applied to a tech company in Paris. The process? A 30-minute HR call. An interview with the manager. A practical case to submit within 48 hours (he worked on it for an entire Sunday). An interview with the N+2 (manager's manager). A "culture fit" with the team. And finally, a lunch with the CEO "to see if the vibe was right." Six steps. Three weeks. For a project manager position at 45K.

The guy was rejected after lunch. The CEO felt he lacked "energy." After six steps, it was 'energy' that made the cut. Not skills, not experience, not the practical case — energy during a lunch. It's utterly insane.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." — Albert Einstein

And this isn't an isolated case. It's become the norm. Companies have turned recruitment into an obstacle race, as if multiplying the steps will magically guarantee the right choice. Spoiler: it doesn't.

Why We've Reached This Madness

If recruitment has become a marathon, it's for several reasons — and none of them are particularly good.

1. The Fear of Making a Mistake (Thanks to Labor Law)

Let's be honest: in France, a bad hire costs a fortune. Not just in wasted salary — the actual cost of a hiring mistake is 1.5 to 3 times the annual salary of the position when you add up lost training time, sacrificed productivity, impact on the team, and especially severance pay. Because French labor law makes dismissal so complicated and costly that companies prefer to over-filter upstream rather than quickly correct an error. The result: instead of testing people in the field and quickly parting ways if it doesn't work, we create Kafkaesque recruitment processes.

2. The "Everyone Must Give Their Opinion" Syndrome

In many companies, every hierarchical layer wants to meet the candidate. HR, the manager, the director, the CEO, the team... Everyone has a say, their criteria, their biases. The candidate becomes a product examined from every angle. We just forget one detail: meanwhile, the best candidates — those who truly have options — accept offers elsewhere. Long processes don't filter out bad profiles. They eliminate good ones.

3. The Trend of "Culture Fit" and Other HR Bullshit

"Culture fit" is the most dangerous concept in modern recruitment. Under the guise of checking if the candidate will "integrate well," we hire clones. People who think alike, talk alike, dress alike. This is the exact opposite of the diversity we claim to champion. And personality tests? Seriously? A 45-minute questionnaire is going to tell me if someone is right for the job? If it were that simple, we wouldn't need managers anymore.

A Bad Hire Costs a Fortune — But Labor Law Prevents Correcting Course

Here's the real problem, the one no one wants to talk about: French labor law is designed to protect the employee in position, not to allow companies to adapt quickly. It's noble on paper. In practice, it creates absurd situations.

An employee who doesn't fit during their probationary period? Still manageable. But after the first few months? The dismissal procedure becomes a cross to bear: summons, preliminary interview, reflection period, registered letter, notice period, indemnities. Not to mention the risk of industrial tribunal claims. The result: companies keep employees they know are unsuitable for months, sometimes years, because the cost of dismissal is higher than the cost of inefficiency. It's a losing situation for everyone — including the employee who stays in a job where they are not fulfilled.

"A 3,500-page labor code protects no one. It paralyzes everyone."

My Proposal: Simplify, Humanize, Empower

I'm not saying we should be able to fire people without reason. But we need a more flexible system. Faster. Fairer for both parties. Here's what I advocate:

First, limit recruitment to a maximum of 3 steps. One interview to understand background and motivation. A short practical test (2 hours max) to assess real skills. An exchange with the direct team. Period. That's enough to make an informed decision. If you need 8 interviews to know if someone is suitable, you don't know what you're looking for.

Second, extend and make the probationary period more flexible. Instead of multiplying filters upstream, let's test people in real-world conditions. A 6-month probationary period, renewable once, with simplified termination from both sides. That's the best way to know if a collaboration works — much more reliable than a lunch with the CEO.

"You judge a tree by its fruit, not its roots. Let people prove their worth in the field."

My Experience: Recruiting (and Being Recruited) Differently

When I started SpeedFame, I hired people in a week. One call, a paid test assignment, a decision. No bullshit. No committee. Those who performed stayed. Those who didn't fit, we parted ways quickly and gracefully, with no hard feelings. It was honest.

Conversely, I've also been a candidate. I've experienced those endless processes where you're made to feel it's a privilege to be there. Where you're ghosted after 4 interviews. Where you're asked to work for free for hours on a "practical case" that strangely resembles a real project. It's disrespectful. And companies that do this deprive themselves of the best talent — because the best won't tolerate it.

Recruitment should be a meeting, not an obstacle course. Two people (or a candidate and a company) asking if they have an interest in working together. That's it. Everything else is theater.

The True Cost of Inaction

By maintaining such rigid labor laws and cumbersome recruitment processes, we create a system that penalizes everyone. Companies no longer dare to hire (especially SMEs and startups). Candidates get exhausted in endless processes. And unsuitable employees remain in positions, blocking the spot for people who would be more effective and happier.

Countries that have streamlined their labor markets — Denmark with its flexicurity, Switzerland with its short notice periods — have lower unemployment rates and more satisfied employees. This is no coincidence. When you know you can correct an error quickly, you dare to hire. And when you dare to hire, the economy thrives.

"Flexibility is not the enemy of security. Inaction is what creates precarity."

Conclusion: Let's Stop the Circus

Recruitment in France has become a circus. Too many steps, too many processes, too much fear. And labor law, instead of protecting, paralyzes. It's time to rethink the system. Not to weaken employees, but to make the labor market more fluid, more human, more efficient.

What if we started by treating candidates as human beings rather than files to validate? And what if we gave companies the freedom to test, adjust, correct — instead of forcing them to play Russian roulette with never-ending processes? Talent is shown on the field. Not in a personality test.

"Hire for attitude, train for skill. But most importantly: hire." — Herb Kelleher (Southwest Airlines founder)