Regression modeling is one of the most valuable techniques in people analytics, enabling HR professionals and data analysts to uncover relationships, make predictions, and provide data-driven insights for decision-making. Whether you're predicting turnover, analyzing engagement, or evaluating performance, regression models can help you understand how different variables impact employee outcomes. However, as with any powerful tool, it's easy to make mistakes that can lead to flawed or misleading results.

In this article, we will explore the most common mistakes made in regression modeling in the field of people analytics, why they matter, and how you can avoid them. By understanding these pitfalls, you can ensure that your analysis is accurate, reliable, and actionable.

1. Ignoring Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity occurs when two or more predictor variables in a regression model are highly correlated, making it difficult to isolate their individual effects on the outcome. In people analytics, variables like tenure, age, and experience often show a high degree of correlation. Ignoring multicollinearity can result in misleading conclusions, as the model struggles to determine which variable is responsible for the observed effect.

How It Impacts Your Model

Multicollinearity inflates the standard errors of the affected predictors, making it harder to determine whether those predictors are statistically significant. Additionally, it can lead to unstable coefficients, where small changes in the data cause large swings in the model’s predictions.

How to Avoid It

• Use a correlation matrix to check for high correlations between predictor variables before building your model.
• Calculate the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for each predictor. A VIF value above 10 is a sign that multicollinearity may be a problem.
• If multicollinearity is present, consider removing or combining correlated variables (e.g., creating a composite score for tenure and experience) or using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of your data.

2. Overfitting the Model

Overfitting happens when your model is too complex and captures the noise in the training data rather than the underlying pattern. This typically occurs when you include too many predictors or add unnecessary interaction terms. While the model may perform exceptionally well on the training data, it is likely to perform poorly when applied to new data, resulting in inaccurate predictions.

Why It’s Problematic

A turnover prediction model that’s overfitted to one department may not work well when applied to the organization as a whole. This can lead to poor HR decisions and wasted resources on interventions that don’t work outside the original dataset.

‍How to Avoid It

• Simplify your model by including only the most important predictors that are relevant to the problem you're solving. For example, if you're predicting turnover, focus on key drivers like engagement, tenure, and performance ratings rather than adding numerous demographic or job-related variables.
• Use cross-validation to evaluate how well your model generalizes to new data. By dividing your dataset into training and testing subsets, you can assess whether the model performs consistently across different segments of your data.
• Apply regularization techniques like Ridge or Lasso regression to penalize overly complex models and shrink the coefficients of less important predictors.

3. Misinterpreting Coefficients

The coefficients in a regression model represent the relationship between the predictor variables and the outcome. However, many analysts fall into the trap of misinterpreting these coefficients, especially in more complex models involving interactions or standardized variables.

Common Pitfalls

• Scale differences: If your predictor variables are measured on different scales (e.g., age in years versus engagement scores on a 1-5 scale), the magnitude of the coefficients will vary, but this doesn’t necessarily mean one variable is more important than the other.
• Interpreting interaction terms: Interaction terms in regression models (e.g., tenure * engagement) complicate the interpretation of individual coefficients. The coefficients for the main effects (tenure, engagement) are no longer standalone—they must be interpreted in the context of the interaction.

How to Avoid It

• Standardize your predictors if they are on different scales. Standardization involves subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation for each predictor, which allows for easier comparison of the coefficients.
• When working with interaction terms, remember that the coefficients represent conditional relationships. Be cautious when interpreting them, and ensure you understand how the interaction between two predictors changes the effect of each one.

4. Relying Solely on p-Values for Decision-Making

In regression modeling, p-values are often used to assess whether a predictor variable is statistically significant. However, relying too heavily on p-values can lead to faulty conclusions, especially in large datasets where even small, trivial effects can produce statistically significant p-values.

Why p-Values Can Be Misleading

• Large datasets: In people analytics, where datasets can be large (e.g., employee engagement surveys with thousands of responses), even small differences can result in statistically significant p-values. However, statistical significance does not necessarily imply practical significance.
• Multiple comparisons: If you're testing many hypotheses at once (e.g., comparing turnover rates across multiple departments), you increase the risk of finding a statistically significant result purely by chance—a problem known as the multiple comparisons problem.

How to Avoid It

• Look beyond p-values and consider the effect sizes of your predictors. Effect sizes, such as Cohen’s d or odds ratios, tell you whether the effect is large enough to be practically meaningful.
• Use confidence intervals to assess the precision of your estimates. If the confidence intervals for a predictor variable are wide, it suggests a high degree of uncertainty in the prediction, even if the p-value is below 0.05.
• If you're running multiple tests, adjust for multiple comparisons using techniques like the Bonferroni correction to reduce the likelihood of false positives.

5. Including Too Many Predictors

It’s tempting to include as many predictors as possible in a regression model, especially in people analytics, where HR data can include demographic information, job satisfaction metrics, performance scores, and more. However, adding too many predictors can lead to overfitting, increase multicollinearity, and make the model harder to interpret.

The Problem of Dimensionality

When you include too many predictors, you risk creating a model that’s overly complex and difficult to generalize. In people analytics, this can result in conclusions that don’t apply across different employee groups or time periods.

How to Avoid It

• Keep your model simple by focusing on the most important variables. For example, if you're predicting turnover, prioritize key drivers like tenure, engagement, and compensation rather than including numerous demographic factors.
• Use stepwise regression or regularization techniques (such as Lasso regression) to select the most important predictors while eliminating less relevant ones.

6. Failing to Check Model Assumptions

Regression models rely on several key assumptions, including linearity, independence of errors, homoscedasticity (constant variance of errors), and normality of residuals. If these assumptions are violated, the results of the model may be biased or inaccurate. Unfortunately, many analysts overlook these assumptions, leading to flawed models.

Why This Matters

If your model violates key assumptions, the coefficients and p-values may not be valid, leading to incorrect interpretations and misguided HR interventions. For example, if the residuals (errors) are not normally distributed, your p-values may be too low, giving you false confidence in your results.

How to Avoid It

• Linearity: Ensure that the relationship between the predictors and the outcome is linear by plotting residuals versus fitted values. If you see a curve, consider using polynomial terms or transforming the predictors.
• Independence of errors: Use the Durbin-Watson test to check for autocorrelation in the residuals.
• Homoscedasticity: Check for constant variance in the residuals by plotting residuals against the predicted values. If the variance is not constant, consider transforming the dependent variable.
• Normality of residuals: Use a Q-Q plot or histogram to check for normality in the residuals. If the residuals are not normally distributed, consider transforming the predictors or using a different type of model (e.g., generalized linear models).

7. Ignoring Interaction Effects

In many cases, the effect of one predictor on the outcome depends on the value of another variable. For instance, the impact of employee engagement on performance may vary depending on tenure—engagement might have a larger impact on newer employees compared to those with long tenure. If you ignore interaction effects, you may miss important nuances in your data.

Why It Matters

Ignoring interaction effects can lead to oversimplified models and incorrect conclusions. For example, you might conclude that engagement has no effect on performance across the entire workforce when, in reality, the relationship varies significantly between departments or employee tenures.

How to Model Interaction Effects

Include interaction terms in your regression model to capture the relationship between two or more predictors. For example, if you're studying the relationship between engagement and performance, include an interaction term between engagement and tenure to see how tenure moderates the effect of engagement on performance.

Conclusion

Regression modeling is a powerful tool for people analysts, but it’s easy to fall into common pitfalls that can distort your results and lead to flawed HR decisions. By understanding and avoiding these common mistakes - such as ignoring multicollinearity, overfitting the model, misinterpreting coefficients, and relying too heavily on p-values - you can build models that are both reliable and actionable.

For HR professionals looking to create models that inform strategic decisions on engagement, retention, performance, and more, mastering these pitfalls is crucial for delivering meaningful insights and fostering a data-driven culture in your organization.

If you're ready to deepen your understanding of regression modeling, DataSkillUp offers personalized coaching and training programs to help HR professionals master these techniques and thrive in people analytics. Reach out to learn more!

Book a 60-minute discovery call to learn how we can help you achieve your People Analytics goals here.

Learn more about our coaching programs here.

Connect with us on LinkedIn here.