Our election processes are, in some instances, hundreds of years old - yet they still hold learning points for organizations looking to avoid employee dissatisfaction and questionable results.

AP reports hat Puerto Rico's Democratic Party has chosen to hold a presidential primary instead of a caucus to encourage more islanders to participate in the June 1 contest. Puerto Rico's switch was done, in part, to avert the chaos that might ensue should the unfamiliar and time-consuming caucus process be overwhelmed with thousands of new voters, eager to contribute to choosing a candidate. This is an example of a wise process choice: selecting the method most likely to accommodate stakeholders and assure a fair, equitable, and smooth implementation.

This smart decision stands in stark contrast to the process mess facing the disgruntled states of Michigan and Florida. The voters in these states were punished by the national Republican and Democratic parties for holding their primaries earlier than allowed by party rules. Officials are currently saying that half the Republican delegates, and all of the Democratic delegates, will not be seated at the National Convention.

But Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton "won" -- or, we should say, got the most votes* -- in both the Michigan and Florida contests, and because the race is so tight, her campaign has been working to get the delegates seated. The Democratic Party seems torn on the issue, and there's even talk of a revote in those states. That would cost tens of millions of dollars, and even more millions for the candidates to campaign in the two states.

The activity of voting has been plagued with problems - mostly due to unanticipated crowds. For example, Hawaii reported numerous problems, including confusing instructions, a shortage of ballots and overcrowded rooms. Gail Collins' rueful opinion piece in the New York Times begins, "Once again, we are discovering that our election process works great as long as it doesn’t actually have to decide anything."

When polls run out of ballots, or a caucus session starts three hours late, it indicates a process in distress. This makes for a lot of process dissatisfaction.

In business and in politics, clarity of process is the only sure way to get stakeholders to buy into the outcome. If voters even suspect it’s possible to game the system, they lose trust, and may opt out of the voting process. In a similar way, lack of process clarity in organizations leads to wasted time, wasted money and frustrated employees.

Our election processes are, in some instances, hundreds of years old - yet they still hold learning points for organizations looking to avoid employee dissatisfaction and questionable results. Let’s look at ways to assure process satisfaction - and highly engaged stakeholders - in your business.

When thinking through a business process, here are a few questions to consider:
1) Do we need a new process to address the current realities of our business?
2) Can we simplify what we’re currently doing?
3) Is our process negatively impacting our results?
4) What impact does our process have on how people feel about their work (i.e. does it frustrate them or delight them)?
5) How can my key stakeholders help identify the best process changes? Hint: Engage all the parties appropriately. Don’t let the "company bigwigs" dictate the decision.

Whether in politics or business, a process that satisfies stakeholders will ensure the best results and preserve precious relationships.

*edited