Discipline Versus Self-Discipline

Etsy.com

I recently read a great post on The Art of Manliness, describing the difference between discipline and self-discipline. Now admittedly, many would not even know the difference in outcome between the two, but both have quite distinct meanings.

In his book, The Attributes, retired Navy SEAL Rich Diviney delves into how we can maximize our potential not just by learning more skills, but instead by strengthening our attributes. He makes a deft, useful distinction between discipline and self-discipline.

For Rich, self-discipline is all about the self. It’s about managing your emotions, resisting temptations, forcing yourself to do things concerning your personal habits and routines that you may otherwise not want to do. 

Discipline, on the other hand, is about accomplishing external goals. When you’re disciplined, you know what you need to do to achieve an outside objective and then do whatever is necessary to get it done.

It’s a distinction with meaning, states the article. We can be very self-disciplined, mastering aspects of our personal lives in rigid ways, while still not being able to achieve a lot of outward success.

On the other hand, there are those who lack self-discipline but still manage to get a lot accomplished through sheer discipline, despite retaining bad habits. When they're given a task, they'll do whatever it takes to get it done.

I love the comparison to Winston Churchill, who despite lacking self-discipline, was probably one of the most accomplished figures in history. He ate a bit too much, drank, had a temper and kept an idiosyncratic daily schedule. He stayed up late, then luxuriated in bed each morning while reading newspapers, replying to correspondence and preparing memos - all while propped up on pillows and smoking a cigar. 

Yet despite his lack of self-discipline, he was also highly disciplined with his strict schedule - entirely organized and absolutely dictatorial. If this ruthless daily timetable was broken, Churchill was said to get very agitated, even cross. His objective as a wartime leader was to win the war, and he worked with relentless focus to achieve that objective. 

The article also pointed out the contrast between the Civil War’s two commanding generals: Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee.

Lee had tons of self-discipline, graduating from West Point with a reputation for being fastidious in manners and composure. Yet he lacked discipline, never fully grasping the changing nature of warfare during the Civil War. His more defensive approach and outdated tactics were not enough to win in the face of the Union's overwhelming resources and manpower.

Grant, on the other hand, was deficient in self-discipline. His career at West Point was lacklustre and his private life and habits were both disheveled. Yet incredibly, he had plenty of discipline. While eshewing drills and military formations, he nevertheless had plenty of strategic vision and leadership. He rode into battle with speed and violence, pursuing Confederate armies until they surrendered. 

The point is, we can be one or the other, even both.

• Self-disciplined, but not disciplined.

• Disciplined, but not-self disciplined. 

Which one is superior? Ideally, you should master both.

While self-discipline can help in realizing external goals, of itself it may not be enough to achieve success unless coupled with discipline. Both represent two distinct attributes and skill sets.

Without self-discipline, you may lack the motivation and willpower necessary to overcome challenges and achieve success. Without discipline, you may lack focus, become distracted and fail to achieve your goals.

Ultimately, discipline and self-discipline are both key components of success in all areas of life.