I use a mathematical model based around how people think. Human measurement would start at a resting point of ok. If you use feelings as active or passive states outcomes you can build more accurate algorithms.
Consider this - We struggle to put our feelings into words because sometimes we cannot describe exactly the difference between different feelings. We all know that we are driven by emotions – even we we decide to be logical (or follow a set of decision making rules) we make emotional decisions. We say things like “I was scared and excited” or “I felt very let down and disappointed and even a little helpless”. Exact descriptions
But in the real world, of families, friends, communities, in our workplaces and socially we do understand how we feel and how those feelings effects our interactions, experiences, and relationships.
We see the world around us through our "sense" of emotion. We understand how people around us feel subconsciously all the time. It is part of our basic survival kit. In some respects that common understanding provides the rules and frameworks for our experiences
We people do something very clever, we use words and phases like:
very, very very, so much, big, tiny, a little, too much, and, both, more than, even if, whatever, completely
and hundreds more to provide context and connection.
We also use micro expressions, tone of voice, emoji's, CAPITAL LETTERS, loud tones, reduction of respect and manors, physical gestures, pictures, music
We start every day with ok! We are ok or we are better or worse than ok. OK is at the centre of how we measure people. In every situation we think to ourselves is better or worse than OK.
If we operate using the analysis of behaviours as stakeholders interact with events then model our metrics and they tend to align with financial impact. They are more financially accurate by their nature. This is the by-product
Continuous cultural engagement is is the most efficient means of delivering continuous improvement.