Raising the voter turnout rate is not easy. Just ask the heads of those campaign teams and political action committees ( PAC ) that spend hundreds of millions of dollars in each election cycle, trying to get people to vote. They flood television and social media platforms with paid advertisements, and invest resources in door-to-door campaigning, phone mobilization, and mailing out promotional materials. Yet, this money hardly makes a significant difference in the results. Random experiments have shown that even well-executed door-to-door campaigning can at most increase the voter turnout rate by one to two percentage points.
A latest study has identified a more powerful lever to boost voter turnout: employers in the United States. Researchers linked the employment records of LinkedIn with voter databases and examined 30 million employees of 377,000 employers. They found that one’s workplace can determine whether they choose to vote or not.
To control for employee self-selection bias, researchers from the University of Michigan, Harvard University, Columbia University, and the University of Maryland also tracked 8 million people who changed jobs. Their findings were as follows: Employees who switched to employers with higher ratings had a 3.5 percentage point increase in their likelihood to vote. If they moved from an employer in the 25th percentile to one in the 75th percentile, that likelihood increased by 5.8 percentage points. Moreover, this effect was observed among people with different political affiliations.
These results point to a striking conclusion: employers have a significant influence over whether employees vote or not.
We know that people are greatly influenced by the environment in which they spend most of their time, and the workplace is among the most influential of these environments. Employers set the tone for civic participation. They can remind employees that elections are underway or emphasize the importance of democratic participation. They also hold some formal levers that may hinder people from voting, such as scheduling and leave policies on election days.
Most corporate leaders don't think much about employee voting – they are also likely unaware of their company's position within this distribution. We believe it is their responsibility to find out and to strive to improve their company's ranking.
In the companies we manage, we have found that increasing the voter turnout rate is a management issue, and the solution is not complicated.
At Weyco, we have a simple communication calendar. A few weeks before the election, we encourage employees to make voting plans in advance. When early voting begins, they receive relevant reminders. Subsequently, they get a friendly reminder one week before the election day and another reminder on the day of the election. Employees who wish to vote or serve as election staff are encouraged to apply for paid leave, and we also arrange transportation for those in need. Weyco also brings voter registration assistance services into the office building.
At Goodmans, we are collaborating with Power, the, and Polls to recruit staff members to serve as election workers. Employees who participate will receive a small allowance and one day of paid leave.
In both cases, these projects are easy to implement and have low costs. Neither requires external consultants nor the establishment of a new department. Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy have released a toolkit that includes communication schedules and templates, which any company can adjust and use accordingly. Both of us have also worked with other business leaders to develop relevant plans through Leadership Now Project.
For most employers, the cost is nothing more than sending out a few emails, along with some flexibility in scheduling. The overall approach is quite simple: giving employees time to vote, reminding them when to vote, and helping them to contact local election officials to find out how to vote.
Another important step is to encourage anyone interested to serve as election staff. According to data from the National Election Assistance Commission, during the 2024 general elections, nearly half of the local election districts faced difficulties in recruiting enough staff. This fall, there were shortages in Milwaukee, Kinoosa, and Maricopa counties, as well as in districts in Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, and other places. A shortage of election staff can lead to longer waiting times for voters and also cause more friction for them.
For a long time, the American business community has been debating whether and when CEO should voice opinions on political issues. For many people, this remains a thorny issue. The good news is that helping employees engage in democracy does not require this. Employers do not need to ask about any employees' political preferences, nor do they need to know which specific candidates they support. Nor does it require business leaders to take a particular political stance or risk getting involved in news controversies.
Better still, this impact will not disappear after November. Research shows that voting is a habit-forming behavior: employees continue to vote even after they leave us. In turn, these employees also influence their families—employees working for employers with higher ratings have family members who also have higher voting rates. Moreover, the influence of employers is greatest in primary elections, as it is in such elections that the additional number of voters can often make the most difference in the outcome.
It is right to help employees vote, but it also benefits the company. A higher level of participation leads to greater trust in democratic systems. In turn, this strengthens the stability that companies need to plan for the future, make investments, and recruit new staff.
Employers are already shaping whether people vote or not. Our experience shows that with very little effort, they can direct this power in a positive, benevolent direction.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and positions of Fortune magazine.
