Last week, Netflix cut about 1,000 jobs and replaced the Chief Content Officer, Bella Bagaria ( Bela Bajaria ). She spent many years helping this streaming service provider grow into a global entertainment giant. Netflix stated that Bagaria “left” the company after nearly a decade. She didn’t leave to “spend more time with her family” or “pursue other interests.” Regardless of the specific circumstances of her resignation, she is now gone.

Donald Trump once made firing people a catchphrase during the "Apprentice" show. But at some point, it seems that this attitude has become a management philosophy in American business circles. Bajaria's successor, Peter Rice (Peter Rice), is no stranger to such experiences. In 2022, Rice was suddenly dismissed from Disney by then CEO Bob Chapek (Bob Chapek), which reportedly came as a surprise to him and many others in Hollywood. Just a few months later, Chapek himself was fired; he learned of the news over the phone at home, with only a few hours left before he was supposed to introduce Rice at a concert by Elton John held at Dodger Stadium and broadcasted on Disney.

In his newly published memoirs, “Behind the Castle Walls”, Chappeck reflects on the painful end of his decades-long career at Disney, including not having the opportunity to say goodbye to the employees he worked with for so many years. He can’t help but wonder: Why were they so heartless?

Hollywood has always been a highly competitive ecosystem, sometimes even tinged with intrigue. Executives come and go, and their careers experience ups and downs. No one, no matter how accomplished, is entitled to a lifetime job. But when does it become a problem to treat someone with respect upon departure? To be fair, Netflix Co-Chairman CEO Ted Salandos Ted Sarandos publicly acknowledged Bajaria’s contributions. Of course, the company also has the right to replace leadership when performance or strategic needs require it. However, there is a difference between making difficult decisions and making unnecessary and cruel decisions.

Of course, Bagaria will be fine. But what about the other approximately 1,000 employees who have lost their jobs? Perhaps the company's board of directors believes that decisive layoffs will send a reassuring signal to Wall Street. This is somewhat similar to the style of George Steinbrenner ( George Steinbrenner ): we are tough, decisive, and not afraid to make difficult decisions. Maybe we have become so obsessed with "appearing tough" that we have forgotten the value of "dignity."

So what does that bring? Wall Street may reward companies that cut costs, but cruelty does not lead to rising stock prices. In the longer term, what does this mean for the companies themselves? Think about the message such sudden layoffs send to the employees who remain. They see people who have dedicated themselves to the organization for years, even decades, disappear almost overnight. What conclusions should they draw from that? Is loyalty meaningful? Will their contributions be remembered? Will the company value them as individuals? Or will it be just a matter of time before they can also be replaced at any time?

Multiple studies have shown that a harsh attitude towards employees during the layoff process can lead to long-term business consequences. Research from Columbia Business School found that layoffs perceived as unfair can reduce the commitment of the remaining employees. Similarly, a 2023 study Airbnb on layoffs found that employees who viewed the layoff process as unfair had less trust in management, lower job satisfaction, and were more cynical. Researchers discovered that respect, dignity, and honest communication can affect employees' perceptions of the layoff process.

This is not surprising: the way you treat those who are laid off affects those who stay. Companies spend a fortune on recruitment, training, and retaining talent; they hire consultants to study organizational culture, organize retreats, team-building activities, and play games to build trust. Businesses claim that people are their most important asset—referring to employees as team members, cast members, and even family. However, when it comes time to part ways, they sometimes treat these “most important assets” with less care than outdated office furniture or old technology. Such a contradiction is shocking.

Let's take a look at a statement made in 2023 by Russell Water, the current Director of Management and Budget Office ( Russell Vought ). He expressed his hope that federal bureaucrats would be "traumatized" – he hoped that they would wake up not wanting to go to work. Regardless of one's political stance on the size of government, there is clearly a difference between eliminating unnecessary positions and deliberately targeting the people who hold those positions. Why must a disagreement over the value of a certain position be translated into a lack of respect for the people who perform that job?

Part of the appeal of unions is that they provide employees with protection against arbitrary or unfair treatment. Companies that oppose unionization often claim that they can establish better relationships with their employees without the need for third-party intervention. Well, fine. But if you oppose unions, at least you should support "people," right? And this issue is becoming increasingly urgent.

We are entering an era in which artificial intelligence (AI) may fundamentally reshape employment. Millions of young and older workers are reasonably concerned about whether the skills they have cultivated over the years will still be valuable. Some jobs will disappear, while others will change dramatically. Companies will have to make difficult decisions regarding their workforce, often for legitimate economic reasons. But if AI agents and technologies are making employment increasingly uncertain, shouldn't we at least make sure that the "human" aspect is done well?

I'm not saying that firing a person should turn into a lengthy ceremony, nor am I suggesting that companies should keep employees who no longer contribute value. Sometimes, speed, confidentiality, and decisive action are necessary. But what is the cost of showing a little more consideration? A candid conversation; sincere recognition of the other person's contributions; a decent opportunity to say goodbye; support in helping to find the next job; a way to leave the company that doesn't feel humiliating. These are not luxury perks, but basic expressions of respect. And they can bring considerable returns.

Former employees may become future customers, business partners, supporters, or even return to work as employees again. Employees who stay are also more likely to trust leaders who show empathy when making difficult decisions. Potential employees, and even current customers, are all observing.

After all, reputation is built not only on how an organization celebrates success but also on how it handles awkward moments. The employment relationship is essentially a social contract. Organizations provide salary and opportunities, while employees contribute their time, energy, creativity, and often a significant portion of their self-identity. We all know that this contract cannot last forever. However, its end should not erase the value, camaraderie, and humanity that have existed before.

Most of us will experience some form of involuntary separation from our jobs during our careers. Those who haven't gone through it yet should also keep in mind: the person who calls to fire someone today might receive the same call tomorrow. Just ask Bob Chapman or Peter Rice, and they'll tell you that.

As we move towards a future increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence, perhaps the most important competitive advantage for businesses is something that is very humanistic: a bit of dignity. It costs so little, yet it could bring returns for many years to come.

The views expressed in the comments by Fortune.com represent only the author's own opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views and positions of Fortune.