The conventional work-centric ideal worker model emphasizes unwavering job commitment over personal responsibilities, while the ongoing shift in society towards valuing individuals' well-being and well-rounded success in all aspects of life suggests a more balanced ideal. We conducted six studies to explore the presence and consequences of multiple ideal worker models. Adopting a bottom-up approach, we first explore how individuals define the ideal worker and assess the alignment of these definitions with traditional work-centric perspective. We then conduct experimental studies to assess the consequences faced by employees and job seekers who value work-life balance, a preference that seemingly conflicts with conventional notions of job commitment. Our findings suggest that signaling a preference for work-life balance can also serve as a positive signal of integrity—a trait valued alongside commitment in organizational contexts. By questioning the universality of the work-centric ideal worker and demonstrating the signaling value of work-life balance, this study reveals coexistence of multiple ideals and their implications for individuals, organizations, and society.
