No, again, it's completely because humans have a desire to avoid things that are not considered interesting. We must get our kids to school on time, so we push ourselves to get up early, get them ready, and either drive them to school or get them to the bus stop. What all of us would rather do is read, or play games, or watch TV. Laziness is part of our human makeup, and our success in combating it makes the difference in our lives.
You actually don't "have to" do any of that. If you don't wake up early tomorrow or take your kids to school, you will not be hauled off to jail and the world will still go on.
What you're really doing, if you stop and think about it, is making a deliberate choice - between the cost/benefit of sleeping in and taking it easy, and the cost/benefit of employment/income/future of your children. You may not think of it as a choice, but it is. Plenty of people decide its not worth it, and don't take their kids to school or hold a job. For you, the inconvenience of your morning is offset by the value of a more secure future.
So when you say you "have to" do these things, that's false. I wouldn't even call it "pushing" yourself. You actually want to do it, because you value it on some level. The fact that its not pleasurable or emotionally exciting doesn't even enter into the equation of deciding.
The most effective combat tactic is not to struggle, but to make things in your life _interesting_.
One of the tactics is to simplify exercises, the other involves rationalization. When I feel in control - I do not need to force myself to do something, I just do it because fills the structure of my life and because I understand how consequences of my actions build this structure by relying upon each other.
So I do not respect the success in combating laziness only through sheer will, I prefer to divide big tasks and find meaning in small ones.
