You’ve probably heard this question before: “Why in France is hiring like auditioning for a Spielberg film, but for a €2,500/month job?”

Here’s the paradox: France has some of the most protective employment laws in the world. Trial periods can last for months. Employers can legally test the relationship before committing. Yet French startups have created an obstacle course: 4 interviews, 1 technical test, reference verification, sometimes even a case study to complete at home.

The question becomes obvious: why this proliferation of barriers to entry if the company has no legal risk in welcoming someone during the trial period?

The industrialized filtering system

An application arrives. You submit it to a first interview. Then a second with a manager. Next, a skills test (often on platforms like Codingame or HackerRank). Then a third interview, sometimes with an entire team panel. Finally, reference verification from previous employers.

It’s a funnel process : each step is designed to eliminate. Each step increases friction. And at each step, the candidate asks themselves: “But why? If I passed the first three tests, why submit to a fourth?”

Recruiters often answer: “It’s normal, we need to make sure this is the right person.” But that’s precisely the point: the trial period exists for that. It exists so the employer can “verify” in the reality of daily work, not just on a standardized test or interview simulation.

The French paradox

Here’s where the paradox becomes acute:

In France, employers can legally terminate the trial period without a real reason - and this period can last up to 8 months (4 months renewable once). Theoretically, if after a week you realize the person isn’t a good fit, you can stop. And you have up to 8 months to be sure. There are procedures, certainly, but the flexibility is there.

So why build such tight filtering before hiring when you already have a safety net after onboarding?

The answer reveals something deeper: French startups don’t trust their own ability to train and integrate.

They compensate upstream with massive filtering rather than downstream with solid onboarding and accountability to the new employee. It’s easier to reject 50 candidates before hiring than to welcome one and let them flourish.

The “fast tech” culture: no time for people

Here’s where the reality of “fast tech” enters: these startups growing at breakneck speed, funded by massive funding rounds, pressured to prove their business model before the next liquidity crisis.

In this environment, companies don’t have the luxury of time. No time to integrate someone gradually. No time to invest in training. No time to give a chance to someone just starting out. They need warriors ready for battle, today.

What this means concretely:

  • A junior developer can’t be hired because “we don’t have time to train them.”
  • A career-changer is rejected outright, regardless of real abilities.
  • Technical tests become prerequisites, not verifications: you must prove upfront that you won’t need any adaptation.

But here’s the irony: this approach creates a vicious cycle. By systematically rejecting anyone who would need an adaptation period, startups guarantee they’ll only attract overqualified candidates - or candidates with no choice but to accept any terms. They kill internal innovation, fresh perspectives, diversity.

The invisible consequences

This system has subtle but lasting effects:

For companies: They deprive themselves of potential talent. A brilliant self-taught developer with a non-linear background? Rejected at first screening. Someone who pivoted careers and would bring fresh perspective? Too risky. Result: same profiles, same ideas, same stagnation.

For candidates: Those who don’t match the standardized profile - even if they could excel - are eliminated before getting a chance. Young people, women returning from absence, career-changers, migrants with accents: all filtered by “safety” mechanisms that often mask unconscious biases.

For society: It loses mobility. French recruitment becomes less a mechanism of selection and more a mechanism of reproduction. You must already have the perfect profile to get a chance. And if you don’t have that profile, no trial period, no chance to prove your worth - you’re simply rejected upfront.

Contrast with other approaches

In other countries, notably North America, the model is reversed: hire quickly, test in reality, adapt or leave. It’s less comfortable, certainly, but it creates greater mobility.

In France, we prefer: select slowly, test extensively, then hire. We get the worst of both worlds: massive friction for candidates, and yet a trial period for employers that… almost nobody actually uses for testing, since upstream filtering was supposed to eliminate all doubts.

Toward a more human approach?

Change could come from a simple realization: trusting requires courage.

If you build solid onboarding culture, continuous learning, and shared responsibility, you don’t need 4 interviews. You need one honest conversation, a cultural fit test, and then: a real trial period where you welcome the person and verify together.

Some startups do this. They hire broader, they train, they take risks. And you know what? They don’t collapse. They build more diverse, creative, resilient teams.

The French recruitment paradox reveals a deep lack of trust: neither trust in their own ability to train, nor trust in people’s capacity to learn and grow. Maybe that’s what needs to change first.

Slow tech opens other horizons

It’s in this context that different approaches to tech are emerging. Approaches like Sinra, which embrace “slow tech”: a vision of technology not as a frantic race toward growth at any cost, but as a tool serving sustainability, humanity, and meaningful work.

When you step outside the “fast tech” lens, new opportunities open up. Suddenly, hiring someone is no longer “a risk to minimize” but “a potential to cultivate.” Onboarding becomes not a chore but an opportunity for mutual learning. Teams can be built on diversity rather than conformism.

Because in a company that reasons in terms of sustainability - not funding rounds and quick exits - you have time. Time to train. Time to let people grow. Time to invest in people because you know you’ll keep them longer.

It’s a radically different lens. And it changes everything: recruitment, culture, impact, even how the product is designed.

And you, what’s the longest recruitment process you’ve experienced in France? Share your stories in the comments - they reflect a systemic trend it’s time to question.