The Cost of Underestimating Complexity
- Jan 16
- 2 min read
Africa is often spoken about as if it were a single place.
A market.
A narrative.
An opportunity.
In reality, Africa is 54 countries—each with its own economic structure, regulatory framework, political history, financial system, and pace of development. Treating it as a homogeneous whole isn’t just inaccurate; it’s operationally dangerous.
I’ve learned that the real challenge isn’t ambition.
It’s understanding.
When you work across African markets, surface-level knowledge isn’t enough. Knowing that a country is “growing” or “stable” tells you very little about how business is actually conducted there. Growth can coexist with regulatory uncertainty. Stability can mask structural inefficiencies. Headlines rarely capture the nuances that matter when capital, compliance, and trust are involved.
In financial services especially, details are decisive.
Regulatory regimes differ not only between regions, but often between neighbouring countries. Licensing requirements, capital controls, reporting obligations, and investor protections can vary widely. What is permissible in one jurisdiction may be restricted—or outright prohibited—in another. Assuming otherwise creates risk long before it creates scale.
The same applies to economic realities.
Some economies are resource-driven. Others are consumption-led. Some rely heavily on informal systems that never appear in official statistics. Others are rapidly digitising, leapfrogging legacy infrastructure entirely. Understanding these dynamics isn’t an academic exercise—it shapes how solutions should be designed, priced, and positioned.
What has surprised me most is how much respect local knowledge deserves.
It’s tempting to approach complexity with frameworks and models developed elsewhere. They provide comfort. Structure. A sense of control. But without local context, those frameworks often mislead more than they clarify. They simplify what shouldn’t be simplified.
In practice, progress comes from asking better questions, not from having faster answers.
What does financial inclusion actually mean in this market?
How does regulation evolve in response to political cycles?
Where does trust sit—in institutions, in individuals, or in relationships?
Each country forces you to recalibrate.
That constant learning can feel inefficient. It slows expansion. It complicates planning. It resists neat narratives. But over time, I’ve come to see this friction as a filter. It forces seriousness. It discourages superficial engagement. It rewards those willing to invest in understanding before execution.
There’s also a leadership lesson embedded here.
Managing complexity across 54 countries requires intellectual humility. No one can master all contexts. Success depends on building networks of expertise, empowering local voices, and accepting that centralised certainty is often an illusion. Leadership becomes less about control and more about coordination.
The danger isn’t not knowing enough.
It’s believing you know enough.
Africa doesn’t need to be simplified to be investable. It needs to be approached with respect, patience, and an appetite for nuance. The opportunity is real—but it belongs to those who are willing to do the slower, harder work of understanding difference rather than flattening it.
In that sense, Africa is not a challenge to be solved.
It’s a complexity to be engaged with.
And the way you engage reveals how seriously you take the responsibility that comes with building across borders.
Question
Where in your business or leadership are you underestimating complexity—and what might deeper understanding unlock?
Comments