©Arlene R. Taylor PhD

altQuality can be difficult to define and/or may mean something very different and unique to each brain. Some have described quality as the state of having a high degree of excellence. Others have considered it to be some type of superiority. Still others refer to it in terms of being free from deficiencies, defects, or significant variations (and then they try to describe what constitutes the standard for ultimate quality).

Not only that, people differ in their perception of what constitutes quality of care, or education, or products, or upbringing, or you-name-it. They also differ in their perception of what falls outside of a quality-range standard as well as what consequences should accrue for that failure.

And then there is often the discussion about whether the quality determinations are objective or subjective:

  • If objective, are the criteria measurable and verifiable, and are they able to be expressed in numbers or quantities, and/or in qualities such as softness or hardness, lightness or heaviness, thickness or thinness
  • If subjective, can characteristics be observed and interpreted, and may they be quantified or approximated (e.g., flavor, taste, odor, beauty, touch) but not objectively measured

Discussing quality is complex, nevertheless, following are examples.

altPrioritizing Division

altEnvisioning Division

Individuals with an innate energy-advantage in this division may take a logical (inductive/deductive) approach to quality issues and ask:

  • Is there convincing research?
  • Is it competitive and efficient?
  • Is it cost effective?
  • Was the goal reached?

Should they decide to sue, they might do so to obtain compensation for perceived loss due to quality that fell below their standard

 

Individuals with an innate energy-advantage in this division may approach quality issues innovatively and ask:

  • Is it cutting-edge?
  • Was it presented with humor?
  • Was it delivered imaginatively?
  • Did it solve the problem?

Should they decide to sue, they might do so because of a perceived poor outcome that was due to archaic rules or failure to use “state-of-the art” technology or procedures

 

altMaintaining Division

altHarmonizing Division 

 

Individuals with an innate energy-advantage in this division may take a rational approach to quality issues and ask:

  • Is it practical and dependable?
  • Are there clear step-by-step directions with details?
  • Does it follow traditional and established procedures?
  • Does it meet criteria and is it within budget?
  • What is its track record?

Should they decide to sue, they might do so to make a point (e.g., to prevent a similar reoccurrence for someone else), especially if they believe the situation fell outside the recognized standard of quality or care

 

Individuals with an innate energy-advantage in this division may approach quality issues somewhat emotionally and ask:

  • Is it pleasant and meaningful and does it feel good?
  • Does it involve good care or is some level of pampering provided?
  • Do my friends agree with what is happening, do they like it, and do they think I should be doing it?
  • Is there a sense of harmony and an absence of conflict?

Should they decide to sue, they might do so on behalf of someone else, in order to obtain funds to pay for “comfort resources” due to perceived poor outcome

 

Tips to Enhance Perception of Quality

Studies have shown that people often tend to evaluate the quality of an organization or service by their social interactions. As such, it is often possible to enhance their perception of quality. Here are three tips:

  • Sit rather than stand. People tend to perceive you spent a longer amount of time with them when you sit down, even if it is only for a couple of minutes.
  • Use humor whenever possible to elicit laughter. It has been said that laughter is the shortest distance between two people, and it can promote a positive atmosphere.
  • Make sure your words, voice tonals, and nonverbal body language are congruent—everything matches. This can impact your believability.