An ideal worker has been conceptualized as those who are constantly committed to and are available for their jobs, at the expense of their personal lives. Employees who meet such definition of the “ideal” are seen as effective and are rewarded by organizations. In this dissertation I introduce a new perspective and test the existing assumptions in the extant ideal worker research.

In Essay 1, I examine how individual endorsement of the belief that an ideal worker is someone who is fully committed to work, can have negative consequences on employees’ psychological wellbeing. This challenges the extant understanding that being an ideal worker will only bring positive outcomes. Furthermore, this study compared the effect of having such belief on psychological wellbeing during COVID-19 to the effect before the outbreak of the pandemic to show that the blurring of work-life boundaries during the pandemic strengthens the negative effect of the belief in ideal worker on employee wellbeing.

In Essay 2, I challenge the key assumptions inherent in the definition of ideal worker in the extant literature. First, I challenge that notion that people have a unified conceptualization of an ideal worker as someone who is overly committed to their jobs at the expense of his/her personal life. Second, I present that having an alternative ideal can also lead to positive outcomes in personnel selection, as perceptions of integrity is also considered an important character for employees, above and beyond job commitment.