Asher's Blog

I was asked recently what I would do differently if I were starting a new company in Nigeria today, compared with the way I approached my earlier businesses. It is a smart question because experience should not merely make you better at repeating what you did before; it should change the order in which you make decisions.

My main answer is that I would begin with the end in mind. Before I became emotionally attached to a product, hired a team or started looking for capital, I would decide whether I wanted to build the clear market leader in Nigeria or build a company designed to compete globally. I would then structure the business, governance, leadership, product and capital strategy around that choice from the very beginning.

These two ambitions can eventually meet. A company can dominate its home market and then become global, while a globally designed company may use Nigeria as its first and most important proving ground. However, they are not the same starting strategy. They require different products, prices, talent, distribution, legal structures, investors and definitions of success.

The greatest thing I would do differently is refuse to leave these decisions vague.

I would decide what kind of company I am building

Many founders begin with an idea and postpone the question of scale. They tell themselves they will start small and see where it goes. There is nothing wrong with beginning small, because almost every important company begins with limited customers, people and capital. The problem is confusing a small beginning with a small design.

If I want to become the Nigerian market leader, I need to understand the market more deeply than anyone else. I need to know the customers, informal alternatives, regulatory environment, purchasing power, distribution systems, languages, payment behaviour, trust barriers and infrastructure constraints. My advantage should come from serving Nigerian customers with an intimacy and reliability that a distant global competitor will find difficult to reproduce.

If I want to build globally from the beginning, I have to identify what is universal about the problem. I need to ask whether customers in Lagos, London, Nairobi, Toronto and New York describe the pain in comparable ways, whether the product can be configured rather than rebuilt for every country, and whether the economic value remains strong after accounting for local regulations and competition.

A Nigerian company is not global merely because people outside Nigeria can visit its website. A global company can repeatedly enter new markets without recreating its identity, technology and operating system every time. That requires deliberate architecture.

Michael Porter argued that strategy involves choosing a distinctive position and accepting trade-offs. This is important because founders sometimes describe ambition as wanting every customer, every geography and every adjacent product. That is not yet strategy. The real strategic question is what the company will do exceptionally well, for whom, and what it will deliberately refuse to do while it builds that advantage.

Market leadership is more specific than being popular

If I chose the market-leader path, I would define the market carefully. Saying that I want to lead “financial services,” “HR technology” or “commerce” is too broad to guide decisions. Which customer segment am I serving? Which problem will I own in the customer’s mind? What evidence will demonstrate leadership: revenue, transaction volume, active customers, assets under management, employee records, retention, distribution or trust?

Market leadership is not simply having the loudest advertising campaign. A company can be visible while another company quietly owns the most valuable customers, strongest distribution, best data and highest switching costs. I would want to know which assets become more powerful as we grow and which advantages will be difficult for competitors to copy.

In Nigeria, leadership can come from solving the difficult local details that generic products overlook. It can come from understanding statutory compliance, operating reliably despite infrastructure problems, supporting different payment methods, earning the confidence of conservative enterprises, or building distribution through associations and partners that already possess trust. A company that translates complexity into certainty can become much more valuable than one that merely offers more features.

I would also distinguish a large population from a large paying market. Nigeria’s population creates enormous possibility, but purchasing power, access to credit and the cost of serving customers determine how much of that possibility is commercially available today. I would calculate the serviceable market from the customers who have the problem, can be reached, possess the authority and ability to buy, and consider the problem urgent enough to pay for now.

From there, I would ask what has to be true for us to become number one. Do we need a superior product, a lower distribution cost, a regulatory advantage, a trusted brand, exclusive partnerships, stronger capital or a much faster implementation process? The answer would influence every major allocation decision.

A global company must be global in its design

If I chose to build globally, I would not wait until the Nigerian business became mature before thinking about the rest of the world. I would test the global assumption early, although I would still begin with a narrow market where I could learn quickly.

The first product decisions would consider localisation, currencies, time zones, languages, identity systems, data residency, permissions, integrations and different regulatory regimes. The objective would not be to build every variation on the first day, because that would create an impossibly large product. The objective would be to avoid embedding Nigerian assumptions so deeply that international expansion later requires a complete reconstruction.

I would be particularly careful about the boundary between the universal core and local modules. The core should contain the capabilities that remain valuable everywhere, while country-specific rules, reports, payment rails and compliance requirements should be configurable. In payroll, for example, the general need to calculate compensation, maintain employee records, approve payments and preserve audit trails is widely shared, but taxes, pensions, statutory deductions and filing rules differ by jurisdiction.

I would also test pricing outside Nigeria early. A product that appears attractive only because Nigerian labour makes manual operations inexpensive may not possess the software leverage the founder assumes. Conversely, a product built under African constraints can be unusually efficient and robust, creating an advantage when introduced into higher-paying markets. The founder needs evidence rather than assumptions in either direction.

Global ambition changes the competitive benchmark. The relevant question is no longer whether the product is good by Nigerian startup standards; it is whether a customer with access to the world’s best alternatives has a compelling reason to choose it. That should influence quality, security, design, documentation, customer support and the calibre of people the company attracts.

I would build the corporate structure for the destination

One of the things I would take very seriously from the beginning is structure. By structure, I mean more than registering a company and opening a bank account. I mean deciding where intellectual property will sit, how operating subsidiaries relate to a holding company, which entity employs people, how contracts are signed, how revenue moves, and how future investors or strategic partners can participate.

The correct structure depends on the ambition, industry and jurisdictions involved, so founders should obtain qualified legal and tax advice rather than copy another startup’s arrangement. A company intending to operate only in Nigeria may not need the same architecture as one planning to raise international venture capital, grant employee options across countries and acquire businesses abroad.

However, postponing all structural thinking can become expensive. Intellectual property may be owned by the wrong entity or, worse, remain informally owned by a founder or contractor. Early shares may be issued without vesting. Taxes may arise when assets are transferred later. Investor rights may be inconsistent. A local company may sign obligations that should belong to another entity. By the time an institutional investor begins due diligence, repairing the history can require lawyers, tax advisers, shareholder approvals and negotiations with people who are no longer aligned.

I would therefore decide the corporate architecture early enough to support the destination, while keeping it simple enough for the current stage. Good structure should reduce future friction; it should not create a collection of expensive companies that exist only on an organisational chart.

Governance would begin before the board becomes prestigious

I would also put governance in place from the beginning. Founders sometimes hear “governance” and imagine a large board filled with famous people, committees and lengthy reports. That is not what I mean. Early governance begins with clarity about who can decide what, how major decisions are recorded, what information shareholders receive, and how conflicts of interest are handled.

If there are co-founders, there should be written agreements covering ownership, vesting, roles, intellectual-property assignment, decision rights, time commitments and exit scenarios. If the company takes investment, the rights attached to that capital should be understood rather than treated as details for lawyers. Board and shareholder approvals should be documented. The cap table should be accurate. Company and customer money should be separated. Related-party transactions should be disclosed and reviewed properly.

Governance matters because success introduces pressure. When the company has little value, everyone may agree easily. When an acquisition offer arrives, a founder wants to leave, a new round dilutes shareholders or the company needs more capital, previously hidden differences become consequential. A good system allows disagreement without destroying the company.

I would choose board members for judgement, courage and relevant competence, not only for status. I would want people who can ask uncomfortable questions, recognise risks early and still understand the ambition well enough not to suffocate the business with fear. Governance should protect the mission and the stakeholders, not turn a young company into a slow bureaucracy.

Leadership structure would precede organisational size

Leadership structure is another area I would address much earlier. Titles are not structure. A company can have a chief executive, chief operating officer and several vice-presidents while every important decision still comes back to one founder.

I would define the important outcomes the company must repeatedly produce—product quality, revenue, customer success, operational reliability, financial control, people development and regulatory compliance—and assign real ownership. Each leader should know the decisions they can make, the metrics they own, the resources available and the circumstances that require escalation.

This does not mean hiring a large executive team before the company can afford one. In the earliest stage, one person may own several functions, and some expertise can be accessed through advisers or consultants. The important thing is that responsibilities are visible and do not remain trapped in the founder’s head.

I would also establish an operating rhythm: regular leadership meetings focused on decisions, a small set of company metrics, written updates, clear quarterly priorities and honest reviews of what is not working. This creates organisational memory and reduces the cost of coordination as more people join.

Ben Horowitz writes in The Hard Thing About Hard Things about the difference between knowing what should be done and getting an organisation to do it. That gap is where leadership structure matters. A strategy has little value if nobody owns its execution or if teams pursue conflicting interpretations of it.

I would hire for the company I am becoming, without hiring too early

Once the destination is clear, I would be more deliberate about talent. A company seeking Nigerian market leadership needs people who understand the local customer and can operate through the market’s complexity. A global company also needs people who can build to international standards, communicate across cultures and compete for customers and talent outside their immediate network.

I would not interpret this as permission to hire an expensive leadership team before the economics justify it. I have learned that hiring should follow a clearly defined constraint. What result is not happening because the company lacks a particular owner or capability? Has someone solved a comparable problem before? What should be measurably different within ninety days?

The company should hire people capable of challenging the founder, not merely people who make the founder feel important. Market-leading businesses require leaders who can bring information the founder does not have, disagree responsibly and take full ownership of outcomes. If everyone waits for the founder’s answer, the organisation cannot become larger than the founder’s personal capacity.

Culture would also be designed through behaviour rather than slogans. What gets rewarded? What does leadership tolerate? How are customer funds treated? How quickly are poor performance and misconduct addressed? Are difficult facts reported early? Culture becomes the repeated answer to these questions.

I would make capital serve the strategy

My earlier approach might have treated capital primarily as money required to keep building. Today, I would connect the capital strategy directly to the type of company I had decided to create.

A Nigerian market leader may be able to finance more of its growth from customers, local partnerships and profitable operations, although certain industries will still require substantial capital. A globally ambitious technology company may need international equity to recruit talent, enter markets and build ahead of revenue. Neither should raise money simply because other founders are announcing rounds.

I would know what each round is supposed to prove. The first capital might establish product love in a defined segment. The next might demonstrate repeatable sales and retention. A later round might finance international expansion after the operating model is proven. Between rounds, the company should become more valuable because uncertainty has been removed, not merely because time has passed.

I would also build financial discipline before significant money arrived. Clean reporting, budgets, daily cash visibility, unit economics, approval limits and scenario planning are easier to establish when the company is small. Capital does not create discipline; it magnifies the quality of the allocation system already present.

For a Nigerian business, I would pay special attention to foreign-exchange risk. Raising dollars while earning naira can create the appearance of abundant runway, but future investors may evaluate performance in dollars while devaluation reduces the translated revenue. I would think carefully about which costs should remain local, which revenues can be earned in stronger currencies and how the company can build genuine value rather than depend on favourable exchange assumptions.

I would design trust into the business

Whether the ambition is national leadership or global competition, trust would be a strategic asset from the beginning. Customers need to trust that the product will work, their data and money will be protected, and the company will still be available when something goes wrong. Employees need to trust the leadership’s word. Investors need to trust the reporting and capital allocation. Regulators need to trust that the company takes its obligations seriously.

This is particularly important for a Nigerian company selling into global markets because customers may carry assumptions about African businesses, whether those assumptions are fair or not. Complaining about the bias will not remove the commercial problem. The company must provide evidence that exceeds the expected standard: reliable infrastructure, strong security, recognised certifications where appropriate, transparent contracts, credible governance and references from respected customers.

The success of one well-run African company creates belief that others can succeed. In that sense, building a globally trusted company is larger than the founder. It contributes credibility to the ecosystem and lowers a small part of the trust barrier for the next entrepreneur.

I would plan expansion as a sequence, not an announcement

Going global does not mean launching in ten countries at once. Market leadership does not mean serving every Nigerian customer immediately. Both ambitions require sequencing.

I would begin with a narrow group whose problem is urgent and whose feedback can improve the product. I would make the product indispensable to them, establish a repeatable way to acquire and serve them, and understand the unit economics. The next market or segment should be chosen because it can reuse a meaningful portion of what the company has already built.

Before entering a country, I would ask what has to be local: regulation, sales, support, pricing, payment rails, partnerships and product functionality. I would distinguish genuine demand from friendly introductions. Two enthusiastic conversations during a visit are not yet a market. Paid pilots, repeated usage, referrals and credible pipeline provide stronger evidence.

Expansion should increase the company’s learning and strategic options, not merely the number of flags on its website. If every new country requires a separate product, leadership team and operational system before producing material revenue, the company may be multiplying complexity faster than value.

I would state the destination clearly

The most important change I would make is the clarity with which I state what the company is meant to become. Is this intended to be the undisputed leader in a valuable Nigerian category, using local depth as its advantage? Or is Nigeria the starting point for a company designed to solve a global problem? What would success look like in ten years, and what must be true in the next three years for that future to remain credible?

That clarity does not eliminate uncertainty, and founders must still adapt as they learn. It does, however, give the company a standard against which choices can be evaluated. Should we build this feature? Hire this leader? Accept this investor? Enter this country? Create this subsidiary? If the destination is understood, each question becomes easier to answer.

Jim Collins and Jerry Porras, in Built to Last, distinguish between preserving a core purpose and stimulating progress. I find that useful because clarity of destination should not make a founder rigid about the route. The mission and ambition can remain stable while products, tactics and even markets evolve in response to evidence.

If I were starting a company in Nigeria today, I would still begin with customers and build something they genuinely need. I would still remain humble enough to change my assumptions. But I would no longer allow structure, governance and leadership to be postponed as matters for a future, larger company.

Those foundations are how the larger company becomes possible.

I would decide whether I am building for national leadership or global competition, create a structure that can carry that ambition, put clear governance around capital and relationships, assign real leadership ownership, and sequence growth with discipline. Everything would not be perfect on the first day, but every important decision would be made with the intended destination in view.

You can start small without thinking small. The company may begin with a few people in Lagos, a limited product and one customer segment, but its standards, architecture and ambition can already belong to the future it intends to create.

Further reading

• Michael E. Porter, On Competition, on strategic positioning, trade-offs and building a defensible advantage.
• Jim Collins and Jerry I. Porras, Built to Last, on core purpose, enduring institutions and sustained progress.
• Ben Horowitz, The Hard Thing About Hard Things, on leadership, organisational design and operating through uncertainty.

• • Noam Wasserman, The Founder’s Dilemmas, on early decisions about relationships, ownership, control and rewards.