The document discusses the use of survival analysis and the proportional hazards model to predict employee turnover, highlighting its advantages over traditional cross-sectional methodologies. It covers the concept of censoring in data and how survival analysis generates conditional probabilities and survival rates based on predictor variables. The conclusion emphasizes that this analytical approach offers a compelling alternative for understanding turnover dynamics in organizational settings.

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

2. AUDIENCE SURVEY
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 2 ] 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

5. ROAD MAP
BACKGROUND
WHY
Survival
Analysis
Survival
Analysis
RESULTS
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 5 ] NOVEMBER 2014

6. BACKGROUND
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 6 ] 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

11. WHY SURVIVAL ANALYSIS
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 11 ] 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

22. SURVIVAL ANALYSIS
RESULTS
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 22 ] 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

24. SURVIVAL RATES
1.05
1.00
Survival Rates for New Staff Accountants
Cumulative Survival Rate Tenure (in months)
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
TBRIGGS@GMU.EDU [ 24 ] 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

30. Contact:
Tom Briggs
tbriggs@gmu.edu
Twitter @twbriggs