For example, consider a team that wanted to hire people that they considered 'Empathetic'. Firstly they would need to define what they consider good signals of this, secondly they would need to share some kind of system of measure of it, and then finally they'd be able to optimise for it by trying to create the context and behaviour that they believe would increase its likelihood (e.g. hiring people that went to a lot of Empathy training days at their previous companies).

My point is that the definition of quality is objective but abstract. In practice it refers to a concrete property that you wish to optimise for, and this choice of how and what to measure as quality is a subjective decision requiring coordination.

That does not mean it's not a useful concept, and that therefore everything should be considered equal. Most people prefer to act with regard to their preferences, and that is why people often talk about something called quality even though it's difficult to pin-down.

(This is conceptually similar to Merit which is another abstract word people use to help coordinate human activity.)