The Quitting Framework
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- —
A decision tree for quitting well, built on the observation that quitting and starting are both actions of winners. The premise is that you cannot start anything without quitting something else — a new relationship requires ending the last one, a new startup requires leaving the current one — so the two deserve equal regard, yet culture glamorises only starting. The framework splits any quitting decision into two branches by first asking why you want out: because the thing is hard, or because it sucks. Hard is difficulty and discomfort; sucks is emotional, mental and psychological. Each branch resolves through a reward test. The framework is deliberately ambiguous, because the definitions of 'hard' and 'sucks' and the value of the rewards are yours to set.
Origin
Extracted from Deep Dive with Ali Abdaal
How to run it
- 1
Ask whether you are thinking of quitting at all
The framework only begins if the answer is yes. This is the entry gate — a simple yes or no that separates genuine deliberation from background dissatisfaction.
- 2
Classify it as hard or as sucks
Decide which of the two subcategories applies. Hard means difficult, painful, causing discomfort — like being on mile 23 of a marathon. Sucks is emotional, mental and psychological: it just doesn't feel good to you.
Pro tip Define both categories for yourself; the framework is intentionally ambiguous and that definition is part of the work.
- 3
If hard: ask whether the hardship is worth the rewards on offer
Weigh the difficulty against what you get at the end. If the hardship is worth it, don't quit. If it isn't, quit.
Watch out Doing something hard and meaningless is the worst situation to be in — the guest links it to the research on lacking autonomy, meaning and purpose in work, and its impact on health and disease.
- 4
If sucks: ask whether you believe you could make it not suck
Test whether the situation is changeable — in a marriage that might mean counselling and having the difficult conversation; at work it might mean the conversation with your boss you haven't yet had. If you believe you cannot change it, quit.
Pro tip Notice whether you've actually attempted the change or only imagined it — many people quit before the difficult conversation.
- 5
If it can be fixed: ask whether the effort to fix it is worth the rewards
Look at how the situation would look if resolved, and weigh the work of fixing it against that outcome. If the reward isn't worth the effort, quit. If it is, stay and fight for it.
In the wild
The guest's illustration for the hard branch: you're running a marathon to raise money for a leukaemia charity and you're on the 23rd mile. It's painful, difficult, and causing real discomfort — squarely in the hard category rather than the sucks one. The test is whether the hardship is worth the reward on offer, and here it plainly is, so you don't quit. The framework's value is that the same structure returns the opposite verdict when the reward is absent, which he identifies as the genuinely dangerous state: something that is simultaneously hard and meaningless.
→ Don't quit — the hardship is worth the reward.
For the sucks branch the guest uses a marriage where the magic has left the relationship. First question: do you believe you could make it not suck? That might mean marriage counselling, having the difficult conversation, thrashing the issues out with your partner. If the honest answer is no and you think it can't change, quit. If you believe it can be fixed, the second question is whether the effort to fix it is worth the reward — look at how the marriage would look resolved and ask if that's worth it. If yes, stay and fight for it.
→ Either a clean exit or a committed decision to fight for it, rather than drifting.
Common mistakes
Treating quitting as what losers do
People say quitting is for losers and starting is for winners. The guest's counter is that both are the actions of winners, and that the most successful, intelligent people he has met have an unbelievable ability to quit things that objectively make no sense to quit — leaving a high-paying job or a legal career for something apparently absurd.
Staying in something hard and meaningless
This is the worst outcome the framework exists to prevent. Hardship with no reward attached is where the problems happen; the guest ties it to studies on the absence of autonomy, meaning and purpose in daily work, and the way that shows up as disease in the body.
Quitting a fixable situation before attempting the fix
The sucks branch has two questions, not one. Skipping straight from 'this feels bad' to leaving bypasses the test of whether you believe it could be made not to suck, and the effort-versus-reward weighing that follows if you do.
From the transcript
“quitting and starting should be held in equal regard and there should be acknowledgement that they have a two-way relationship with one another they're both…”
“the worst thing to do in life is to do something that is hard and meaningless”
“if you believe you can make it not not suck and the effort it would take is worth the rewards on offer stay and fight…”
From the episode
How to start a 7-figure business in 2025: Advice from 4 millionaires