Case Study: Stress and Burnout Among Disneyland Cast Members môn Principle of Management | Trường Đại học Quốc tế, Đại học Quốc gia Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh

Case Study: Behind the Magic – Stress and Burnout Among Disneyland Cast Members
Disneyland has long been known as “The Happiest Place on Earth,” where visitors escape into
world of fantasy, laughter, and childhood wonder. But behind the smiles and polished
performances lies a more complex reality for the people who make that happiness possible — th
park’s “cast members.” Every employee at Disneyland, from ride operators and costumed
characters to food vendors and janitors, is expected to perform their role as if they are part o
continuous stage play. They must maintain a cheerful attitude at all times, even when the weathe
is scorching, guests are impatient, or their personal lives are difficult. The culture of Disney
insists that every guest experience the same level of magic, regardless of what challenges
employees face behind the scenes.
For many workers, this demand for constant positivity has become emotionally exhausting.
Several long-time cast members have described feeling drained from the need to “always smile”
and to suppress negative emotions. One performer who played a popular princess said she had t
continue smiling through 40-degree heat, despite feeling dizzy and dehydrated. Others in food
service mentioned that guest rudeness is common, yet any visible frustration could result in
disciplinary action. Over time, many employees have reported symptoms of burnout — fatigue,
irritability, lack of motivation, and even loss of empathy — all of which are consistent with t
General Adaptation Syndrome model of stress. Initially, new employees feel excited and proud
to work for such a famous company. But as weeks turn into months of long shifts, unpredictab
schedules, and strict rules, that excitement is replaced by resistance, fatigue, and eventually emotional exhaustion.
Despite the emotional and physical strain, many cast members still express deep attachment to
the Disney brand. They take pride in creating moments of joy for visitors and describe their wo
as meaningful, especially when they see a child’s eyes light up. This paradox — loving the bra
but feeling overworked — reflects a tension in the psychological contract between Disney and its
employees. Workers expect fair pay, empathy, and recognition in return for their loyalty and
effort. Yet many say this balance has eroded over time, especially as the company became mor
profit-driven and attendance increased. Some employees live paycheck-to-paycheck or share
crowded apartments near the park, while others feel they have no real career advancement
opportunities. As one former cast member put it, “We make dreams come true for guests, bu
we’re running on empty ourselves.”
Disney has made efforts to improve working conditions by creating employee assistance
programs, offering mental health support, and introducing flexible scheduling trials. However,
the culture of perfection remains strong. Many managers still emphasize guest satisfaction over
employee well-being, and the fear of “breaking character” keeps workers from expressing
genuine frustration. Researchers studying emotional labor in theme parks found that Disneyland
employees often engage in surface acting — faking positive emotions without truly feeling them
— which strongly correlates with burnout. Those with higher levels of emotional intelligence or
more balanced personality traits tend to cope better, finding ways to genuinely connect with
guests instead of pretending to be happy. Still, for many cast members, the daily performance o happiness takes a heavy toll.
The Disneyland case reflects how individual differences, attitudes, and workplace expectations
intersect. The company’s culture creates extraordinary guest experiences but can also push
employees beyond their emotional limits. The challenge for management is to preserve the magic
of the brand while acknowledging that even the happiest place on earth needs to care for t happiness of its people. Discussion Questions
1. How does the concept of emotional labor explain the stress and burnout experienced by Disneyland cast members?
2. In what ways might the psychological contract between Disneyland and its employees
have been broken or unbalanced?
3. Which personality traits or levels of emotional intelligence might help employees cope
more effectively with the demands of their roles?
4. What can Disney’s management do to reduce burnout without compromising the
“magical” experience that defines its brand?
5. Do you think the culture of constant happiness helps or harms long-term employee well- being? Why?
Case Study: Starbucks – Brewing Commitment Through People
Starbucks has become one of the most recognizable coffee brands in the world, with more tha
38,000 stores and over 400,000 employees globally. From its early days, the company built its
reputation not only on quality coffee but also on its people-centered culture. Howard Schultz, the
long-time CEO, believed that if Starbucks took care of its employees—whom it calls
“partners”—they would take care of the customers. This philosophy shaped the company’s
psychological contract with its workforce: Starbucks promised respect, inclusion, and growth in
exchange for loyalty, teamwork, and excellent service.
To support this, Starbucks invested heavily in benefits that were unusual in the retail industry.
Part-time employees received health insurance, stock options, and free college tuition through
online university programs. Baristas were trained not just to make coffee but to connect with
customers, remembering names and personal preferences. Many employees said they felt proud
to be part of something larger than just a job. Surveys often reported high levels o
organizational commitment—employees felt emotionally attached to the brand and identified
strongly with its mission of creating a welcoming “third place” between home and work.
However, as Starbucks grew rapidly, cracks began to appear in its culture. Store traffic increased,
customer expectations rose, and performance monitoring became stricter. Baristas were expected
to complete online training modules, handle mobile orders, and maintain fast service times—all
while smiling and maintaining friendly conversations. For many, the workload became
overwhelming. Some began to feel that management cared more about metrics than about
people. The person–job fit that once drew them to Starbucks was starting to erode, especially
among employees who valued meaningful interaction more than speed or sales numbers.
A 2023 internal survey revealed that while employees remained proud of the brand, job
satisfaction had declined in busy urban stores. Some workers described feeling like “robots”
rather than partners. This mismatch between their expectations and reality led to frustration and
turnover, particularly among younger staff. In response, Starbucks leadership launched initiatives
to “re-center the partner experience,” including better scheduling systems, mental health benefits,
and forums for open dialogue. They also increased hourly wages in several markets and
reemphasized training on empathy and listening—core elements of emotional intelligence that
had once defined Starbucks’ success.
The company’s situation illustrates how employee attitudes—such as job satisfaction,
engagement, and commitment—directly influence behavior and performance. When employees
feel their contributions are valued, they go beyond their formal duties, displaying organizational
citizenship behaviors such as mentoring coworkers or ensuring customer satisfaction even in
stressful moments. Conversely, when they perceive unfairness or lack of recognition, these
behaviors decline, leading to absenteeism, indifference, and turnover.
Starbucks’ ongoing challenge lies in preserving its human-centered culture amid the pressures of
large-scale retail operations. The brand was built on warmth and connection, but sustaining those
values requires more than slogans—it depends on consistent attention to the psychological and
emotional needs of the people who serve the coffee every day. Discussion Questions
1. How does the concept of person–job fit explain both the initial success and later
challenges of Starbucks’ workforce?
2. What factors might influence employees’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment
in a fast-paced service environment like Starbucks?
3. How can perception and communication between management and employees affect
workplace attitudes and performance?
4. What role does emotional intelligence play in maintaining Starbucks’ customer
experience and employee well-being?
5. What actions could Starbucks take to rebuild the balance between performance demands
and its “partner-first” philosophy?
Case Study: Netflix – The Culture of Freedom and Fear
When Netflix transformed from a DVD rental service into one of the world’s largest streaming
platforms, it didn’t just reinvent the entertainment industry — it redefined how organizations
think about people and performance. The company became famous for its radical culture,
summarized in a single idea: “Freedom and Responsibility.” Employees were told to act in the
company’s best interest, make bold decisions without approval chains, and innovate constantly.
Netflix abolished many traditional corporate rules — there were no set working hours, no fixed
vacation days, and no approval forms for expenses. In theory, it was a workplace built on tru and creativity.
This freedom attracted ambitious, high-performing individuals who thrived on autonomy. Many
employees described Netflix as exhilarating — a place where good ideas rose quickly and
bureaucracy was almost nonexistent. However, others found the culture intimidating. The
company’s management philosophy emphasized “talent density” — hiring only the best and
letting go of anyone who did not meet its extremely high standards. The psychological contrac
was clear: in exchange for high pay and creative independence, employees had to deliver
constant results. If performance slipped, even slightly, they could be asked to leave, often with
generous severance package but little warning.
Inside Netflix, this system created a paradoxical environment of creativity and fear. Employees
were encouraged to “speak truth to power,” challenge assumptions, and take risks. Yet, at the
same time, they knew they were being constantly evaluated. Some workers called it a “culture o
radical transparency”; others described it as “a polite survival game.” Netflix promoted a practice
known as the “keeper test” — managers were told to ask themselves, “If this person were
leave tomorrow, would I fight to keep them?” If the answer was no, the employee was dismisse
Supporters argued that this kept the company agile and filled only with top talent. Critics
however, saw it as emotionally draining and fear-inducing, leading to stress, insecurity, and distrust among colleagues.
The company’s culture also tested the limits of perception and attribution. Because performance
feedback was open and frequent, employees often interpreted criticism differently depending on
their own experiences and personalities. Some viewed it as constructive — an opportunity for
growth. Others perceived it as personal attack or humiliation, especially when it happened
publicly during meetings. Managers’ attribution errors sometimes amplified the problem: when
an employee failed to meet expectations, leaders often attributed the cause to lack of talent o
effort (an internal factor) rather than external constraints like workload or unclear priorities. Over
time, this high-pressure system bred both innovation and burnout, showing how perception and
attribution shape workplace relationships and behavior.
Despite the tension, Netflix’s structure produced remarkable creative outcomes. Teams worked
with exceptional speed, launching genre-defining series such as House of Cards, Stranger
Things, and The Crown. Employees who survived the pressure often described the company as
“a boot camp for excellence.” But the same culture that rewarded creativity also tolerated
dysfunctional behaviors, such as excessive competition, overwork, and self-censorship. Some
employees admitted they avoided taking controversial risks, fearing it might make them look
“replaceable.” Ironically, a culture designed to promote freedom sometimes created conformity.
By 2024, Netflix began rethinking parts of its culture after several waves of resignations and
public criticism about its lack of psychological safety. Leaders started focusing more on
emotional intelligence, encouraging managers to show empathy and provide coaching instead of
only blunt assessments. They realized that creativity thrives not just on freedom, but also on
security, trust, and a sense of belonging. The Netflix story shows how innovation can flourish
when individual behavior is well understood — and how quickly it can decline when fear replaces trust. Discussion Questions
1. How does Netflix’s culture of “freedom and responsibility” influence employee motivation and creativity?
2. What role do perception and attribution play in shaping relationships and communication
within Netflix’s performance-driven environment?
3. In what ways might stress and dysfunctional behaviors emerge in a system built on
extreme transparency and competition?
4. How can managers apply emotional intelligence to maintain accountability while preventing fear and burnout?
5. Do you think Netflix’s approach to performance management is sustainable in the long run? Why or why not?