Survival Analysis for Predicting Employee Turnover
1. Survival Analysis and the
Proportional Hazards Model for
Predicting Employee Turnover
Primary source:
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover.
Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern College Publishing.
Tom Briggs
tbriggs@gmu.edu
November 2014
3. “Our new Constitution is now
established, and has an appearance
that promises permanency; but in
this world nothing can be said to be
certain, except death and taxes.”
--Benjamin Franklin (1789)
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 3 ] NOVEMBER 2014
4. “In this world nothing can be said to
be certain, except death, taxes, and
employee turnover.”
--George Mason Student (2014)
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 4 ] NOVEMBER 2014
7. FIRST PIONEERS
Peters,
L.
H.,
&
Sheridan,
J.
E.
(1988).
Turnover
research
methodology:
A
criCque
of
tradiConal
designs
and
a
suggested
survival
model
alternaCve.
Research
in
personnel
and
human
resources
management,
6,
231-‐262.
Morita,
J.
G.,
Lee,
T.
W.,
&
Mowday,
R.
T.
(1989).
Introducing
survival
analysis
to
organizaConal
researchers:
A
selected
applicaCon
to
turnover
research.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
74(2),
280–292.
Singer,
J.
D.,
&
Wille/,
J.
B.
(1991).
Modeling
the
days
of
our
lives:
using
survival
analysis
when
designing
and
analyzing
longitudinal
studies
of
duraCon
and
the
Cming
of
events.
Psychological
Bulle/n,
110(2),
268.
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 7 ] NOVEMBER 2014
8. WHO IS THIS MAN?
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 8 ] NOVEMBER 2014
9. SIR DAVID COX
#9 on the George Mason Department of Statistics list of
“Great Statisticians” – just below Tukey and William Sealy Gosset.
Known for the Cox proportional hazards model, an application of
survival analysis.
And yes…he rocks this look pretty much all the time.
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 9 ] NOVEMBER 2014
10. BY ANY OTHER NAME
StaCsCcs
• Survival
analysis
• Reliability
theory
Engineering
• Reliability
analysis
• DuraCon
analysis
Economics
• DuraCon
modeling
Sociology
• Event
history
analysis
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 10 ] NOVEMBER 2014
12. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 12 ] NOVEMBER 2014
13. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
A. 39 SHEEP
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 13 ] NOVEMBER 2014
14. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
B. 40 SHEEP
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 14 ] NOVEMBER 2014
15. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
C. DON’T KNOW
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 15 ] NOVEMBER 2014
16. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
A. 39 SHEEP
B. 40 SHEEP
C. DON’T KNOW
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 16 ] NOVEMBER 2014
17. WHAT SIZE IS THE HERD?
C. DON’T KNOW - CORRECT!
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 17 ] NOVEMBER 2014
18. VOCABULARY: CENSORING
CENSORING is a missing data problem
common to survival analysis
(and cross-sectional studies…)
In the herd example, our cross-sectional
“view” was censored in two
respects: what came before and what
is yet to come!
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 18 ] NOVEMBER 2014
19. HOM & GRIFFETH ON WHY
• Cross-sectional study start and end dates
are usually arbitrary
• Short measurement periods weaken
correlations – fewer employees leave –
smaller numbers of “quitters” shrink
turnover variance
• Cross-sectional approach distorts results by
arbitrarily dictating which participant is a
stayer and which is a leaver
• Cross-sectional approach neglects tenure –
10 days or 10 years treated the same
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 19 ] NOVEMBER 2014
20. NOT WHETHER, BUT WHEN
Death, taxes, and employee turnover:
All employees will ultimately turn over, so the
question is not whether, but when?
And a related question: what effects do
potential predictor variables have on
turnover probability?
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 20 ] NOVEMBER 2014
21. VISUAL: CENSORING
leZ
stayed
Right-censoring most common in turnover research;
an employee could quit the day after the study ends!
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 21 ] NOVEMBER 2014
23. SURVIVAL ANALYSIS RESULTS
• Generates conditional probabilities – the
“hazard rate” – that employees will quit
during a given time interval.
• Generates graphs of the survival function –
the cumulative probability of staying.
• Allows for subgroup comparison based on
predictor variables.
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 23 ] NOVEMBER 2014
25. SURVIVAL PREDICTORS
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
Survival Rates for New Staff Accountants as Functions of
RJPs and Job Tenure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Cumulative Survival Rate
Tenure (in months)
Traditional Job Preview Realistic Job Preview
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 25 ] NOVEMBER 2014
26. PROPORTIONAL HAZARD
• Profile comparisons “ill-suited for estimating
the temporal effects of continuous predictors
and of several predictors simultaneously.”
• Uses regression-like models – the dependent
variable is the (log of) entire hazard function
• Assumes a predictor shifts hazard profile up
(RJP = 0) or down (RJP = 1) depending on
predictor scores and that each subject’s
hazard function is some constant multiple of
the baseline hazard function
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 26 ] NOVEMBER 2014
27. PROPORTIONAL HAZARD
BENEFITS
• Can examine multiple predictors (continuous
or categorical) and estimate unique
contribution of each while statistically
controlling other predictors
• Estimated βs interpreted as regression
weights, or transformed into probability
metrics by antilogging
• RJP example: RJP subjects have 0.61 times
the risk of quitting than control subjects (or
hazard decreased by 39 percent)
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 27 ] NOVEMBER 2014
28. HAZARDS OF
PROPORTIONAL HAZARD
• Assumes different predictors all have same
log-hazard shape – Singer and Willett (1991)
found many examples of violations
• Assumes different predictors are constant
over time (parallel hazard profiles)
Investigators should test assumptions of shape
and parallelism (see Singer and Willett, 1991)
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 28 ] NOVEMBER 2014
29. CONCLUSION
Survival analysis and the proportional
hazard model can offer a compelling
alternative to cross-sectional
methodology for investigating
dynamic relations between turnover
and antecedents.
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 29 ] NOVEMBER 2014