I’m in the camp of most leadership exercises are complete contrived bullshit that should be endured with a minimum of fuss.
the OP had good leadership skills.
I’ve had a couple of leadership exercises and/or lectures that were pretty cool but they are the exception. Jim Lowell, has a great corporate talk where he narrates the apollo 13 mission. It’s all about leadership, but he doesn’t hit you over the head with a hammer on it.
Hell, can you imagine if Buzz Aldrin had to sit through a team building leadership seminar? He would have punched the instructor and taken his lunch money… and then treated the rest of the group.
I’m with you. Who’s buyin’?
You know, this was my initial reaction as well, as I thought “smug” necessarily had some negative connotation. Not sure I ever heard anyone use it other than in a derogatory/critical manner. But I was a little surprised to see the dictionary define it simply as “highly self satisfied.”
Yeah? This is the definition I found:
adj., smug·ger, smug·gest.
Exhibiting or feeling great or offensive satisfaction with oneself or with one’s situation; self-righteously complacent
In any case, the word “smug” does have a negative connotation, even if its denotation is benign.
Thanks. Guess that should teach me to look beyond the handy M-W Collegiate 10th!
You should at least post a poll and let people debate it out. 
Being shy, introverted or quiet does not equate to being a “wiener”. Different people process information and reach decisions in different ways. Some will just blurt out whatever is in their head while others will think through the problem internally and then offer their opinion. Part of being a leader is reigning in the loudmouths who want to go off half-cocked while encouraging the more withdrawn members of the group to participate.
Alright, it’s not like the OP solved the Kobayashi Maru test. But I would agree that the instructor should have not let them go to lunch for 2 hours.
My company actually had a pretty good team-building exercise. Our group of about 50-100 new hires had to assemble something like 100 bicycles for Toys for Tots in a fixed time period. As an added incentive, if you didn’t finish on time or fuck around, you get to explain to the Senior Partner and a couple of waiting Marines why the children aren’t getting bikes this year.
Easy. Explain that HR is making employees jump through stupid hoops that are causing poor children to miss out on Christmas.
But but, those are Marines they kept waiting, bub. Marines. They don’t give a shit about excuses, so you better break out that spoke wrench and get a move on.
nonsense, well it might be nonsense, personally as an instructor I would love to have this kind of thing happen when I teach. every time it does I learn something about my students or about my course. any teacher worth a damn is going to improve from an event like this.
From the first post, it sounds like you’ve predetermined everyone else’s feelings on the matter and responded as if there were 20-25 Euphonious Polemic’s in that class. You wouldn’t think that some of the 20-25 other people would have a change of opinion like our OP did?
I have an even better idea. Gather up the poor kids, make them build the bikes, and give the bikes to rich kids. Explain their life lesson – “You work your ass off, don’t get jack, and the rich get the product of all your work.”
Oh yes, and if any of the kids slack off, have a marine bayonet them. 
If they had a change of opinion weeks later, so what? Too late.
Well I have to say I too found your OP to be pretty funny. But I don’t agree with your solution. I won’t claim to know much about your field of work, but speaking in general if I were in your group I would have been pretty upset. Lose a chance to learn something that may be helpful to doing my job so that you can skip out of work early? What gives? Presumably your higher-ups thought that this training would be beneficial to your employment with them, and even if they’re wrong then so be it; I personally would go through a few “pointless” exercises than risk being up the creek later for not knowing how to do my job. So I for one would have objected, but like others have said, silence is not agreement. In a work setting if you are leading a team and they disagree with something you’re doing then they will refrain from saying anything and then talk amongst themselves when you’re away. I’ve been in that situation; though in my case it was a corporate setting, I would imagine the same would be true in other types of work.
If I were your instructor I’d be even more upset. Surely it took this person quite a bit of time, thought, and skill to come up with this exercise in the first place, no? (We can debate how much skill they actually have but I don’t think that matters too much.) I would be insulted if the fruits of my labors were dismissed like that. If I were your boss and you did what you did I would begin to have doubts about your suitability for leading a team.
You showed excellent leadership AND you were a jerk at the same time. Often the two go hand in hand.
What does a good leader do? He gets people to do things they wouldn’t do on their own. That means imposing his will on them, which is always a little jerkish.
Now, if you’re a REALLY good leader you can be a jerk without the followers catching on that you’re a jerk. You come up with subtle ways to play on your followers’ natural impulses so they’re directed toward your desired ends. So a really good leader isn’t just a jerk, he’s a DEVIOUS jerk.
Admit that you’re a jerk. Own it. Without the jerks being jerkish nothing gets done.
Yall keep saying this but it’s wrong. Or at least, woefully incomplete.
By this yardstick, Bush was a good leader. He got people to things they wouldn’t do on their own. He was able to get a consensus. People listened to him. Problem was, he made bone-headed decisions that he couldn’t justify without sounding like an arrogant, smug dumbass.
What was the point in delegating the ranking task to the quietest “girl” in the group? As the self-appointed leader in the group, why didn’t he volunteer for that task himself? If you’re going to decide something arbitrarily, don’t nominate the person least likely to verbally disagree with you, especially when your ultimate plan is to weasel out of something and potentially make the whole group look bad. That’s just jerky. Would have been much better to simply ask the group who wanted to order the whatever, instead of singling someone out on a groundless basis.
If the OP didn’t want to do the exercise and didn’t respect the teacher enough to play along like a good sport, why didn’t he tell that to the instructor and walk out? That’s what the kids who are truly too cool for school do, and that is what a real mavericky leader would do. He or she would quit and be ready to justify the decision in an honest manner if called on it later, and he wouldn’t feel it necessary to bring anyone else down with him either under the pretense of doing what he was told. “Gaming the system” to teach the a powerless cog-in-the-wheel instructor a lesson may make for good storytelling, but if the OP thought the lesson was pointless, there’s no better way of showing that than to not participate.
The OP realizes that now, I suspect. One to grow on.
Too late to re-examine the the chain of events and later conclude that he was a jerk? Was there a deadline or something they missed? Was there an opinion nazi there with a stopwatch?
Yeah, to late to finish the exercise in a meaningful way, but NOT too late to change one’s opinion on the matter. That’s the point I was making.
Yes there was a deadline… lunch time, or the end of the exercise as set by the instructor.
I think a lot of you have terrible attitudes. It’s pretty childish to think someone is a jerk just because they are in a position where they are supposed to tell you what to do.
Some managers are jerks. They may be petty beurocrats, ambivalent do-nothings or self-absorbed meglomaniacs. And they treat their subordinates with a mixture of contempt, neglect or hostility. Good leaders act more like a coach. They provide direction and guidance to help their people reach their goals, one of which should be to be successful at their job. If doing your job well is not a goal of yours, it’s not your manager’s fault.