I don't know how to actually answer your question.

First I can recommend an essay of _Bertrand Russell: In Praise of Idleness_. Not because what he says is true because it is more a reflection or a philosophical enquiry than a demonstration of something so it cannot be true of false in itself.
But because it might provide some questions to ask about the source of ideas behind the concept of how we do work.

Second: related to a new mental model. I think in order to have a new mental model there should be a problem (a crisis) with the existing one.

What is the existing model?

A possible speculation (in IT) based on common mainstream ideas:

- There is/was a general move from seeing jobs/work as means to live to "making a dent in the universe" or "changing the world"

- There is/was a supporting atmosphere of believing that work can happen anytime and anyplace - we have access to what we need to work from everywhere and every time we want to

- There is/was a general idea that everybody should love what they are doing and should want to do that all the time

- There is/was a large support for work from home, which (at least symbolistically) means that work and home are not antagonistic concepts

- There is/was (maybe not majority) support and focus on spreading concepts of: one should hang together with one's peers afterwork, one should go to hackathons in weekends, one should read more about technology during personal time, one should come early to the office or one should leave late ...

- Now the outsiders are seen as being the ones who are saying that after work they are not doing programming but something unrelated to IT

Based on the mainstream ideas above then one possible logical conclusion could be that: (in general) we are not moving toward a work/life balance but to work being the main activity of the day and life being a complement.

What I agree with is that we don't yet have a name or a good understanding of the current model works - what what it is (which is not work/life balance). And it might be that we don't have such understanding because we are in a transition period.

Historically I think we passed through multiple periods for the vast majority of people:

1. When there is not life after work (and no concept of happiness, well-being ...) - from the dawn of humankind until manufacturing era

2. A period when the focus was on the life after work. When people were working to have money to spend after work. In this case it did not matter what kind of work was. It matter how much time one spent there and how much money could bring it. I think it lasted up until 70s - 80s.

3. A period of high purpose - let's called it "enlightenment" - when people wanted to "make a dent in the universe", "want to change the world" and basically everybody was talking about passion, ideas, ....

4. Now - a period of unrest or anxiety about the future

In the end I think there is one subject we are not talking about and I think it might define how we explore the topic you are providing and that subject is a question to ask ourselves: What is a GOOD life?
Where GOOD is a personal concept including morals/ethics, happiness/well-being, tranquility, being content with life, but in the same time a concept defined or imposed by society.

edit: formatting