
NovaGroup's posting of a list of over 420 employees, along with their job titles and positions, who are "not eligible for re-employment" has attracted significant attention from the public and the HR community. - Photo: DN
Large corporations in the US possess extremely rigorous internal data systems to screen for risks, preventing an employee who has committed serious violations at one subsidiary from freely joining another. However, American businesses understand a red line very well: that data is confidential internal property.
If leaked or made public, businesses not only face multi-million dollar lawsuits for privacy violations or defamation, but also destroy their own brand reputation.
Reading about a major domestic corporation recently releasing a list of nearly 420 people – complete with names, titles, partial ID numbers, and phone numbers – under the name "list of people not to be rehired," left me deep in thought. Although the list was removed after public outcry, the stain has already been left.
With years of experience managing businesses, I can confirm that the need for "risk information storage" is entirely justified. The core issue lies in the fact that keeping information for internal management and exposing that information to the public are two completely different things.
To make it easier to understand, imagine a doctor. A doctor's job is to record the most sensitive information about a patient in their medical record (illnesses, medical history, treatment history). It's a professional duty, a matter of confidentiality, all to save lives.
But what shouldn't be done is to post that very medical record outside the hospital gate for anyone passing by to read. At that point, it's no longer a matter of professional conduct; it's an insult.
The mistake wasn't in documenting it. The mistake was in posting it outside. An internal list is only meaningful when it stays internal – a few responsible people look at it, use it when needed, and then that's it.
But when that list is uploaded to a website accessible to everyone, it ceases to be a management tool. It becomes a public, labeled board for the entire society to see.
I think those 420 names might include people who have done something seriously wrong, something worth warning about. But surely there are also those who simply are no longer a good fit, or have disagreements with superiors, or are having personal issues, or have found a different path for themselves.
These people, with their completely different stories, are grouped together under a single title. And from now on, for many, that title will follow them.
I thought about this: such a brief statement could appear in search results when another recruiter searches their name – at a company completely unrelated to that corporation.
Perhaps an old friend, a neighbor, will stumble upon it by chance. Perhaps years later, their children will search for their parents' names online and find it.
We live in an era where data outlasts human memory. What happens today, those involved may forget after a few years.
But that data, if ever published, could remain somewhere long after the real story has ended. That's why those in positions of power to release information, whether individuals or corporations, need to be far more cautious than they might think.
I still believe that the maturity of an organization lies not just in revenue, size, or growth rate. It lies in how that organization treats those who are no longer with it. Treating those who are still working well, helping you create value – that's easy.
But treating those who have left – those who no longer bring any benefit to the organization – fairly and respectfully is the true measure of an organization's culture.
Disclosing information about an individual or a corporation requires caution and compassion.
Source: https://tuoitre.vn/long-trac-an-khi-cong-khai-thong-tin-20260614082904392.htm








