Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win

target. We standardized the way we “broke out” (or exited) from
buildings. We standardized the way we got head counts to ensure we had
all of our troops. We even standardized our radio voice procedures so
that the most important information could be communicated quickly and
clearly to the whole troop without confusion. There was a disciplined
methodology to just about everything we did.
But there was, and is, a dichotomy in the strict discipline we
followed. Instead of making us more rigid and unable to improvise, this
discipline actually made us more flexible, more adaptable, and more
efficient. It allowed us to be creative. When we wanted to change plans
midstream on an operation, we didn’t have to recreate an entire plan. We
had the freedom to work within the framework of our disciplined
procedures. All we had to do was link them together and explain
whatever small portion of the plan had changed. When we wanted to mix
and match fire teams, squads, and even platoons, we could do so with
ease since each element operated with the same fundamental procedures.
Last, and perhaps most important, when things went wrong and the fog
of war set in, we fell back on our disciplined procedures to carry us
through the toughest challenges on the battlefield.
While increased discipline most often results in more freedom, there
are some teams that become so restricted by imposed discipline that they
inhibit their leaders’ and teams’ ability to make decisions and think
freely. If frontline leaders and troops executing the mission lack the
ability to adapt, this becomes detrimental to the team’s performance. So
the balance between discipline and freedom must be found and carefully
maintained. In that, lies the dichotomy: discipline—strict order,
regimen, and control—might appear to be the opposite of total freedom
—the power to act, speak, or think without any restrictions. But, in fact,