Gauging one's priorities is one of the most contentious issues faced in life after high school. From inception to realisation, individual priorities remain so controversial that many choose only to speak limitedly about them. They are considered to be individual secrets that can only be traced within practical steps. Society has little leverage over their existence.

So strong is this reality in Ethiopia that little is said on the wisdom of setting priorities -at an individual, firm or governmental level. Debates rather focus on the aggregate weight of prospective activities. Neither do performance assessments provide enough emphasis on priorities. So defined is this trend that even policymakers shun specifying activity priorities within a certain planning period.

It is surprising that that this is taking place in a world where choice defines life. So long as scarcity is the driving force of decisions, choices will exist as direct results of individual priorities. It happens either directly or indirectly.

That may not be the case in other cultures, as a recent conversation with a Swedish friend revealed. There is no secret about priorities in Swedish culture. The discourse is full of idiomatic expressions and the freedom of choice is openly promoted.

Passivity over priorities is typical of Ethiopians. It is common to overlook the costs of our preferences, in decisions ranging from daily plans to marriages. Boldly stating priorities is considered to be offensive, if not superficial. As a result, they are expressed only through actions.

This deprives the public discourse of essential perspectives. No objective debate exists on public choices. The silence is merely deafening for outsiders.

Whilst at high school, setting individual preferences is often conducted with naivety. Little is known about the major factors affecting life in later days that only wish lists exist. Every small heart will be filled with a long list of wishes, but little consideration is given to accounting their cost.

As one joins college, the real time costs of the choices made at high school become apparent. Yet, it is still too early to recognise the full burden they represent. Only short-term costs will be felt and the impacts may even be indistinguishable. So far as the costs will be confronted with prejudice, which partly stem from analytical ignorance, they are usually accepted as disposable.

As one gets into the job market, however, the full costs of choices made during the early days become vivid. It all boils down to the issue of individual relevance in a world of judgment. Priorities that push relevance upwards will be considered as thoughtful, whereas the ones reducing it prove otherwise.

Communal judgments worsen the case even further. They provide the moral ground for individual priorities. Yet, they themselves are defined by individual choices, evolved over the years to be seen as standard. As often is the case, however, closed societies force individual choices towards monotony.

The cost of priorities, therefore, emerges from the challenges of confronting established lines of choice. In open societies, such as Sweden, the cost of doing so is little, as the culture provides enough space for marginal disparity. Closed societies, such as Ethiopia, on the other hand, give less space to peculiar individual priorities, and thus the cost of having them is significantly higher.

Concealing priorities is no less vivid in the Ethiopian private sector. Only a few enterprises have detailed expenditure priorities. Their procurements are heavily dependent on subjective management decisions, rather than objective analyses. It so happens that the viability of costs will only be analysed afterwards, during the auditing process.

Similarly, the public sector is also marred by an undeveloped culture of prioritisation. Big government plans consist of little, if any, efforts of activity prioritisation. Budgets are often bulged with repetitive tasks with no accompanying studies of viability. Scheduling is provided with little attention.

From individuals to governments, the culture of concealing priorities embeds costs. That, in turn, thwart perceptions, so much so that real costs vary considerably from the perceived costs. It is like a fission reaction, wherein no end is foreseeable.

At an individual level, the long-term costs of priorities are only felt after opportunities have been lost. Many of the opportunities will vanish in the resistance to change from a common line of priorities. Usually, they are irreversible.

Unlike the Swedish, Ethiopians lack the cultural confidence to claim a priority. It is not traditional to list things in order of priority. Exceptional cases are even driven by the analogy of communal thinking that particulars could not easily be defined.

In the absence of the culture to enlist priorities, life in Ethiopia involves confusion over aggregation. It is cumbersome, tedious and gross. It takes more liveliness than it should. By and large, it is cyclic.

Cultural infusion that superimposes priority over communal thinking may help to break the vicious circle. It is much better to stay awake in the consideration of choices, than live under a deep sleep of indecision. As such, there is a lot to learn from the Scandinavian nation.

Getachew T. Alemu Getachew T. Alemu Is the Op-Ed Editor for Fortune.