A company proudly appoints its first Head of Innovation. Armed with a mandate to shake things up, this inaugural innovation chief launches several initiatives and talks up transformative change. But what happens if those early projects fizzle or a foundational assumption proves wrong? In many organisations, early missteps by the first innovation leader can embed a deep-seated scepticism — a credibility gap that all subsequent innovation leaders struggle to bridge. It’s a phenomenon we might call the Popeye Paradox, after a famous nutritional myth born from a tiny error. Like a ship veering a few degrees off course, a small mistake at the start of the journey can compound over time, leaving the whole enterprise far from its intended destination.
A Myth Born of a Misplaced Decimal (The Popeye Paradox)
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes” attributed to Mark Twain (Maybe!)
In the 1930s, the cartoon sailor Popeye helped persuade generations of children that eating spinach would make them strong. The lore was that spinach’s power came from its high iron content — a “fact” that turned out to be disastrously wrong by a mere misplaced decimal point. The iron content of spinach had been reported as 35 milligrams per 100g, when it was really only about 3.5 mg. Back in 1870, German chemist, Erich von Wolf made a transcription error and inflated the numbers tenfold. To put it in perspective, if this calculation were correct each 100-gram serving would be like eating a small piece of a paper clip.
By the time scientists uncovered the mistake in 1937, the damage was done — the spinach-iron myth had already taken root and stuck around in popular belief despite newer, better data. As our forthcoming guest on The Innovation Show, Samuel Arbesman notes in The Half-Life of Facts, initial misinformation often spreads more readily than the truth that follows, because “it’s a lot easier to spread the first thing you find, or the fact that sounds correct, than to delve deeply into the literature in search of the correct fact”. In other words, once a false notion sets a foundation, it can compound over time, gaining a sheen of truth simply by virtue of being repeated. As Sara Lippincott, a fact-checker for The New Yorker, once warned: “Errors will live on and on… deceiving researcher after researcher through the ages, all of whom will make new errors on the strength of the original errors, and so on into an explosion of errata.” She likened it to trying to gather dandelion seeds once they’ve been blown to the wind. Once misinformation gets out, it has a first-mover advantage. It spreads faster than correction, and its effects ripple for years. This is the essence of the Popeye Paradox: a small error in the beginning leads to a long-lived myth.
That same dynamic can play out inside organisations. The first Head of Innovation might have been given the role, because the company didn’t know what else to do with a certain employee. Or perhaps they were just creative, have interesting ideas or read books on innovation. Maybe they had once been part of a winning innovation elsewhere — but we mistake proximity for capability, falling into hot-hand fallacy. None of this means they are equipped to be a head of innovation. They are often well meaning and truly want to make a difference, but the innovation role is not only about creativity, it needs metrics, methodology and organisational buy-in. The aftermath of a well-meaning first Innovation officer may be a trail of irrelevant “lipstick on a pig” projects or Innovation theatre, but the long-lasting impact is often an organisational myth: “We tried innovation and it doesn’t work here.”
Like Popeye’s spinach legend, a narrative takes hold that innovation efforts are mostly hype and little substance. Future data or success stories struggle to dislodge this belief, because the first impression was one of disappointment. The organisation’s collective memory latches onto that initial failure — the vivid cautionary tale — rather than any nuanced lessons learned. Just as the spinach myth persisted for decades due to a single typo, a company can cling for years to a skewed perception of what innovation entails.
The First Innovation Chief’s Lasting Shadow
“What once is well planted cannot be plucked up easily.” — Francis Bacon. (Maybe!
Organisational culture has a long memory. When the first person to lead innovation drops the ball, that memory casts a long shadow in the form of a credibility gap. The next person stepping into the innovation role isn’t starting on a neutral playing field; they’re already in a deficit of trust. They not only have to prove the value of their new ideas, but also to atone for the sins of their predecessor in the eyes of sceptical colleagues.
We see echoes of this in how organisations respond to new initiatives. If the prior innovation head loudly led a pet project that went nowhere or a hackathon that yielded no value, every future proposal that smells similar will meet raised eyebrows and folded arms. People say, “We’ve heard this tune before.” With the organisational scepticism ingrained each subsequent innovation lead may find their projects scrutinised more harshly, their budgets trimmed, their authority undermined by constant reminders of “that last time we tried this.” The first failure becomes an anchoring effect — it anchors expectations low and drags down any effort to lift them. To make matters worse, we are prone to confirmation bias, seeking evidence that reinforces what we already believe. So if employees believe “innovation is all talk,” they will interpret any minor stumble by the new innovation team as further confirmation of that belief. The result is a vicious cycle: the lack of trust leads to underinvestment in innovation or reluctance to give new ideas a fair trial, which in turn virtually guarantees underwhelming results, which then further confirm the scepticism.
Clayton Christensen once observed the plight of innovation executives in established companies and delivered a sobering verdict: “My sense is almost all of them will prove to be wasting time for the company, and they will fail.” That pessimism stems from how entrenched corporate habits and doubts can be. Often the very creation of a Chief Innovation Officer (CIO) role triggers unrealistic hopes on one side and cynical eye-rolling on the other. So what can a company do to prepare the soil for a successful CIO, (so the role doesn’t ultimately mean Career Is Over).
Breaking the Cycle
“We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.” — Honestly no idea who actually said it, attributed to Cora L. V. Hatch? Thomas Sheridan? George Whyte-Melville? A. B. Kendig? Ella Wheeler Wilcox? Bertha Calloway? Jimmy Dean? Dolly Parton? Thomas S. Monson?
A new innovation leader stepping into a credibility gap must confront the legacy of scepticism head-on. This means acknowledging and addressing past mistakes openly — effectively debunking the internal myth — and demonstrating how things will be different this time. For the CIO, you must address this even before accepting the role. Knowing this before taking a role might even convince you to pass on it. Ultimately, you will need to show value with small, but tangible wins that prove how innovation can deliver value. Small wins can recalibrate expectations (perhaps aiming for a series of 5% improvements instead of one 10x moonshot).
To do so, you need a methodology, you need agreed metrics and you need a seat at the boardroom table. By openly measuring and communicating progress, you chip away at the perception that innovation is just fluff. In the same way the scientific community corrects the record over time (eventually, even the spinach myth has been largely corrected in public awareness), a company’s narrative can be corrected — but it requires diligent effort and patience.
Innovation leaders need a system that measures outcomes, not just outputs. One that can express value in the same language that finance, operations, and strategy already use. Without it, innovation is judged on myth and memory. With it, innovation can be judged on evidence.
The first head of innovation often doesn’t have this system. They are pioneers working without maps. But subsequent leaders don’t have the luxury of going without. They must not only correct the organisation’s course but also undo the myths seeded by their predecessors. Otherwise, innovation risks being dismissed as just another fad, a collection of dandelion seeds scattered to the wind.
One such framework is Expected Value, a disciplined portfolio approach, which replaces anecdotes with accountability. We discuss this framework with its creator, author of Expected Value: The System to Measure, Prove, and Scale Value, Simon Hill.
https://medium.com/media/d50dab8ca7173c2f71cdbb9f6c20bd5f/href
The Popeye Paradox: How Early Innovation Missteps Poison the Well was originally published in The Thursday Thought on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.