Randomized trial demonstrates predictive performance in employee attrition, suggesting enhanced HR decision-making.
Employee attrition is a significant organizational challenge associated with substantial financial costs and the erosion of institutional knowledge. This study presents an AI-based Management Information System (MIS) that integrates machine learning (ML) models to forecast employee turnover and support technical interpretability for HR decision-making. Using the IBM HR Analytics Dataset comprising 1480 employee records with 38 features, we implemented a rigorous preprocessing pipeline—including Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) applied exclusively within training folds to prevent data leakage, one-hot encoding, Z-score normalization, and mean-value imputation. Four ML classifiers—Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), and XGBoost—were evaluated under a stratified 80/20 split with 5-fold cross-validation. XGBoost achieved the highest performance, attaining an accuracy of 87.83%, a ROC-AUC of 0.94, a PR-AUC of 0.96, and an F1-score of 93.04%, attributed to its sequential boosting mechanism and built-in L1/L2 regularization. Beyond predictive performance, the system incorporates SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) to deliver feature-level transparency, enabling HR professionals to engage in proactive, informed retention interventions while retaining full decision-making authority. Within-dataset comparisons confirm that the proposed framework outperforms prior methods evaluated on the same benchmark; cross-study accuracy comparisons are reported as contextual reference only, given differences in datasets and experimental protocols. The system facilitates human oversight by positioning AI as a decision-support collaborator rather than an autonomous replacement in workforce management. Future work will address real-time deployment, controlled user studies with HR practitioners, and validation with actual organizational HR data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rashid et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: