work #2 Work and routine

Work #2 – Work and Routine

Another important reason why someone may resign and frequently change jobs is the need to combat routine. For certain individuals—especially those with high cognitive abilities and creative inclinations—routine is not merely tedious; it is intellectually suffocating. These individuals do not seek change solely because they are competent and desire recognition. Rather, they also require intellectual stimulation and variety in order to thrive.

Routine becomes a psychological burden for them. Over time, the monotony of repeating the same tasks within the same environment can lead to diminished creativity, disengagement, and even signs of mental fatigue. This fatigue, however, is often misinterpreted. They may report feeling tired or unmotivated, without recognizing that boredom—not exhaustion—is the root cause. As supported by research in occupational psychology, the absence of variety and challenge at work leads to reduced job satisfaction and decreased performance, especially among knowledge workers and individuals with high intrinsic motivation.

When allowed to perform diverse tasks or make minor adjustments to their workflow or physical environment, these individuals often experience a resurgence of energy and productivity. This observation aligns with findings from the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham), which posits that variety, autonomy, and task significance are critical components of employee motivation and performance. The model explains why even talented professionals may underperform or disengage when forced into repetitive, unchallenging routines.

Highly intelligent individuals are often willing to accept roles that might seem below their capacity if those roles provide flexibility, mobility, and opportunities for creative engagement. Employers who attempt to evaluate employees solely based on their IQ, or who assign tasks based only on perceived mental acuity, risk misunderstanding the motivational drivers of these workers. In fact, many cognitively gifted individuals explicitly avoid office-based jobs, not because they are incapable, but because the constraints of a static environment and predictable schedules stifle their sense of autonomy and purpose.

It is a common misjudgment to assume that office work is a universally desirable position for qualified professionals. Many capable workers decline such roles in favor of fieldwork, dynamic tasks, or freelance structures that allow for movement, change, and diversity of experience. These preferences are not signs of irresponsibility or instability but rather reflect an orientation toward autonomy, novelty, and engagement. According to Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, autonomy and competence are two of the three essential psychological needs that drive motivation. When these needs are not met, job dissatisfaction and turnover become likely outcomes. Furthermore, neuroscience research on the brain’s reward system shows that novelty activates the dopaminergic pathways associated with motivation and learning, which is why repetitive environments can feel mentally draining for high-functioning individuals even when the workload is objectively light.

Thus, when someone expresses the desire to resign, the appropriate managerial response is not to cling to them out of fear of losing a high performer. Rather, it is to reflect on whether their role provided sufficient intellectual stimulation, flexibility, and autonomy. If not, then their departure is not just inevitable—it is logical. You either adapt their work to fit their cognitive and psychological needs, or you accept that you’ve lost them to an environment better suited to who they are. From a strategic HR perspective, failing to adapt roles for such employees not only risks turnover but also weakens the company’s ability to innovate, since these individuals are often the drivers of creative problem-solving and unconventional solutions.