Participant Resource · CEO Cadence Workshop Series
The most common leadership mistake in moments of collective uncertainty is waiting until people are already anxious to start talking. By then, the conversation is reactive. You are managing emotions rather than creating conditions for thinking.
The goal of an opening conversation is simple: signal that you've thought about this, that your team is safe to have reactions, and that uncertainty doesn't mean instability.
Sample Opening
"I want to spend a few minutes on something that's been in the news and that I've noticed is coming up in conversations — the U.S. government's ongoing disclosure of UAP-related information. I don't think any of us have complete clarity on what this means, and I'm not going to pretend I do. What I do want to say is that this is the kind of topic where people can have very different reactions — from fascination to skepticism to something more unsettling — and all of those reactions are normal, and all of them are welcome here. I don't think we need to resolve anything today. I just want to open the door so that if you're thinking about it, you know you don't have to think about it alone."
Sample Opening
"I appreciate you bringing this to me. I want you to know that what you're feeling — [name what they said: uncertain, worried, fascinated, whatever it was] — makes complete sense given the information that's out there. I'm going to be honest with you: I don't have all the answers on this either. What I do know is that this is something a lot of people are sitting with right now, and that our job isn't to have a perfect answer — it's to figure out what we know, what we don't, and what we can do with that. What would be most useful for you right now?"
Phrases to avoid
These questions are designed for a structured discussion with a team of 5–15 people. They are not designed to produce conclusions — they are designed to surface the range of thinking in the room and normalize having the conversation at all. For larger groups, consider breakouts of 3–4 people with a reporting-back structure.
Allow 8–12 minutes per question in a focused session. Don't rush to the next question — the value is in what surfaces, not in covering all five.
Question 1
"What have you actually heard about UAP disclosure — and where did you hear it?"
This surfaces the information landscape your team is actually navigating. People often don't realize how different their sources are from their colleagues'. It also distinguishes primary sources (official government reports) from commentary, speculation, and entertainment. Don't evaluate the sources during this question — just listen.
Question 2
"If a significant announcement were made — something that confirmed more than has been confirmed so far — what's the first thing you'd want to know?"
This reveals what people are actually worried or curious about. Practical concerns (economic impact, safety, "what does this mean for my job") are common. Existential concerns (religion, human identity, what else we've been told that isn't true) are also common. Both are legitimate. Your job is to receive them without resolving them.
Question 3
"Is there anything about this topic that you find difficult to talk about — or that you'd feel strange raising at work?"
This is a permission question. The act of asking it does most of the work. It normalizes the idea that there's a stigma, and that you're aware of it, and that this room is different. Common answers: religious concerns, fear of being seen as irrational, worry about judgment from colleagues. Let people name it without fixing it.
Question 4
"What do you think would be most useful to have in place — for yourself and for your team — if this story gets significantly bigger over the next 12 months?"
A practical, forward-looking question that shifts the conversation from uncertainty to agency. Common answers: reliable sources to follow, a clear organizational position on discussing it, access to support. This is where to introduce the idea of EAP preparedness without making it alarming.
Question 5
"What would you want your leader to say — or not say — if this became a much larger public conversation next week?"
The most direct question. It asks people to articulate their expectations of leadership in this moment. Answers vary widely. Some want information. Some want reassurance. Some want permission to process privately. Some want their leader to say nothing at all. All of it is useful to know.
Research on how people respond to UAP-related information identifies four broad categories of reaction. You will likely encounter all four in any group of more than a few people. The key is not to treat one as correct — it is to respond to each in a way that keeps the person in the conversation.
| What you see | What it may signal | Useful response |
|---|---|---|
| Anxiety or distress | Worldview disruption; the information is threatening to something they hold as foundational — religious, philosophical, or about the reliability of institutions | Validate without amplifying. "That makes sense — this is genuinely unsettling." Don't rush to reassure. Offer to follow up one-on-one. Know your EAP contact. |
| Fascination or excitement | Genuine curiosity; may have been following this topic for years and feel vindicated; at risk of going deeper than the group is ready for | Channel toward questions, not conclusions. "There's a lot to learn about — what would be the most useful thing to ground ourselves in first?" Keep the conversation at a level the whole room can stay in. |
| Skepticism or dismissal | Protective response; skepticism is a healthy instinct and should be respected, not argued with; may signal discomfort with uncertainty being made explicit | "Healthy skepticism is exactly the right starting point — we're not here to convince anyone of anything, just to think through what we know and what we'd do with it." Don't debate. Move on. |
| Religious or philosophical concern | The implications of non-human intelligence are genuinely significant for many faith traditions — this is not irrationality, it is a legitimate theological and existential question | Acknowledge the legitimacy explicitly. "That's a real and important question that a lot of people are sitting with, including theologians and religious leaders." Don't try to resolve it. Don't minimize it. |
Most people will process this topic with curiosity, mild unease, or detached interest. Occasionally, someone may respond in a way that signals they need more than the group conversation can offer. Distress in a professional context often looks different from what we expect — it may present as withdrawal, unexplained irritability, difficulty concentrating, or a sudden strong need to talk. It rarely looks like visible crisis.
"I noticed this topic seemed to land hard for you — I just want to check in." Don't make it a big moment. A quiet conversation after a meeting is usually sufficient.
Both are tempting. "You shouldn't worry about this" minimizes. Engaging deeply with the content in a one-on-one can amplify. Your role is to be steady and present, not to resolve what hasn't been resolved.
"I want to make sure you know our EAP is available for conversations that go beyond what I can usefully offer — that's what it's there for." Normalize it as a resource, not a referral because something is wrong with them.
A brief check-in 3–5 days later. "How are you doing?" No need to reference the specific conversation unless they do. The act of following up is most of the value.
You are a leader, not a therapist. If someone's distress seems significant or persistent, the appropriate response is to connect them with professional support — not to manage it yourself. Know who in your organization can help you make that referral well.
The goal after an initial conversation is not to resolve the topic — it is to signal that the conversation is ongoing and that the door remains open. Two or three practical steps are enough.
Share a reliable source. After the conversation, send one link — ideally AARO's public site or the NASA UAP study page. Not commentary. Not media. A primary source. This signals that you're grounded in fact, not speculation, and gives people somewhere to start if they want to learn more.
Name the next moment. "I'm going to keep an eye on this and I'll flag anything significant." You don't need to become an expert. You need to signal that you're paying attention and that you'll share what matters when it matters. That's all your team needs from you.
Let it be an ongoing thread, not a one-time meeting. The most effective leaders on this topic won't be the ones who hold one all-hands and move on — they'll be the ones who treat it as a standing dimension of the organizational conversation, no different from any other significant external development. Normalize it. Make it just one more thing worth having good information about.
Free Self-Assessment
10 questions. Instant scored results. Are you ready to lead in this moment?
ceocadence.com/disclosure-readiness-quiz.html
CEO Cadence — The Book
The Inner Work of Becoming a Cadence-Based Leader. Available April 2026.
ceocadence.com
Executive Coaching
David works with a small roster of CEOs and senior leaders. Application-based.
humancapitaldevelopment.ca