Senior HR Leader · HR Operations · Reporting & Automation

Human-centered HR leadership, translated into measurable business impact.

I bring senior-level HR judgment across commercial and government-contracting environments, then strengthen the work with clear reporting, executive communication, and practical Microsoft 365 automation.

How I work

Reliable data. Clearer people decisions.

Employee experience and operational accuracy are connected. Clean records, dependable controls, and clear reporting give HR teams more time and stronger evidence to support employees.

Before interpreting a workforce pattern, I check whether the underlying records and measure definitions support the comparison.

Case studies
5 completed
Focus
Onboarding, retention, performance
Tools
Excel, Power Query, Power BI, SQL
Data
Fictional or public sample data only
← All case studies

Case 01 · Data controls

HRIS-to-Payroll Reconciliation

Which differences between the HRIS export and the payroll register need review before approval?

Data
21 fictional employee records from an HRIS export and a payroll register
Method
Full outer join on Employee ID, then status, pay and deduction rules
Tools
Excel, Power Query
Result
7 of 21 records flagged for review

Completed project · Fictional demonstration data

A repeatable Power Query control that converts two workforce exports into a payroll exception report for review.

21Records reviewed
14Passed
7Exceptions
67%Pass rate, rounded

What needs attention

Two employees are missing from Payroll and one Payroll record is missing from HRIS. Three records have differences in salary, hourly rate, or benefit deductions. One employment-status difference needs validation: an active Payroll record for a terminated employee may reflect an authorized final or other post-termination payment.

Exception report

EmployeeExceptionHRISPayrollPriorityRecommended review
E2002Salary mismatch$92,000$94,500HighConfirm approved salary and effective date; correct the inaccurate source.
E2006Status mismatchTerminatedActiveHighConfirm the termination date and whether Payroll remains active for an authorized final, out-of-cycle, or other post-termination payment. If no payment remains due, update Payroll status; otherwise document the reason and expected deactivation date.
E2009Hourly-rate mismatch$24.50$25.25HighConfirm approved rate and effective date; assess retroactive-pay implications.
E2012Benefit deduction mismatch$175$160MediumConfirm election and deduction schedule; determine whether an adjustment is required.
E2015Missing from PayrollPresentMissingHighConfirm payroll eligibility and inclusion in the current register.
E2020Missing from PayrollPresentMissingHighConfirm payroll eligibility and inclusion in the current register.
E2098Missing from HRISMissingPresentHighValidate worker identity and authorization; correct HRIS before approval.

Recommended action

Validate all seven exceptions with HRIS and Payroll owners, document each resolution, correct the appropriate source system, and refresh the reconciliation and exception queries after checking the source paths, before final approval.

How the control works

  1. Import the HRIS and Payroll exports into Power Query.
  2. Trim, clean, and uppercase Employee IDs; assign appropriate data types.
  3. Use a Full Outer join on EmployeeID to retain records from either system.
  4. Check record presence, employment status, pay basis, salary, hourly rate, deductions, and compensation completeness.
  5. Assign Pass or Exception and create a unified reconciliation EmployeeID.
  6. Filter the reconciliation to exceptions for action owners.
  7. Update the source paths for the next period and refresh the affected queries.

What this demonstrates

HR judgment in defining review rules, a repeatable reporting control, traceability to source values, and clear recommendations for leaders.

Independent portfolio demonstration using fictional data. No client-confidential or real employee-identifiable information is included.

← All case studies

Case 02 · Workforce insight

Workforce Metrics Dashboard

What do the core workforce measures show, and which questions should leaders ask next?

Data
Public sample dataset of 1,470 employees
Method
Data model, explicit DAX measures, filter-context testing
Tools
Power BI, DAX
Result
20.6% Sales attrition vs 16.1% overall

Power BI dashboard

Workforce dashboard
Workforce dashboard

Insights case study

Workforce insights, page 1
Workforce insights, page 1
Workforce insights, page 2
Workforce insights, page 2
Workforce insights, page 3
Workforce insights, page 3
Workforce insights, page 4
Workforce insights, page 4
Workforce insights, page 5
Workforce insights, page 5
← All case studies

Case 03 · Data controls

Employee Data Quality Review

Does the review actually catch a problem when one is introduced?

Data
20 fictional employee records
Method
Rule columns, a deliberate blank record, then a retest after correction
Tools
Excel, Power Query
Result
20 / 20 records pass after a controlled retest

In this fictional 20-record exercise, I cleared Avery Grant’s source data while keeping the blank row in the table. The review flagged that row. I then restored the original values and refreshed the summary and exceptions.

Test · source row blank19 Pass · 1 Review Required

The issue appeared in the exception output.

Retest · restored and refreshed20 Pass · 0 exceptions

The corrected record cleared the tested checks.

Test and retest evidence
Controlled test: Review Required 1 and Pass 19.
1. Issue detected: 19 Pass and 1 Review Required in the controlled test.
Retest summary: Pass 20.
2. Correction verified: after restoring the source record and refreshing, all 20 records passed.
Retest exceptions worksheet: headers with no employee rows.
3. Retest complete: the refreshed exceptions query loaded 0 records.

Screenshots are framed to show the results relevant to this data quality test.

What this control supports

HR can review the flagged records, assign corrections to the source-data owner, and rerun the checks before reporting. The rules account for pay basis: a blank hourly rate is expected for a salaried employee.

This is a controlled demonstration using fictional records. Passing means the records satisfy the configured rules. This retest covers the data quality queries only. No time savings or production outcomes were measured.

← All case studies

Case 04 · Workforce insight

New-Hire Onboarding and Retention

Where does the new-hire experience need stronger support?

Data
300 fictional new hires, January 2024 to June 2025, each followed for a year
Method
Cohort comparison, survey analysis, an illustrative day-30 risk score
Tools
Power BI, DAX, Power Query
Result
48% → 26% one-year turnover, before vs after

Early turnover raises a practical question for leaders: where does the new-hire experience need stronger support? This case study examines 300 fictional new hires to compare retention before and after an onboarding program, identify gaps in support, and recommend consistent practices for HR and hiring managers. Every hire had at least one year of follow-up.

300new hires, Jan 2024 – Jun 2025
48% → 26%1-year turnover, before vs after the program
23% → 7%90-day turnover, before vs after
$1.69Mestimated cost of first-year turnover

The question

How did retention differ before and after the onboarding program, and which support gaps deserve closer attention?

What I found

  • No buddy: 53% left within a year, vs 22% with one
  • 0–1 manager check-ins in the first 30 days: 53% left, vs 19% with 3–4
  • Hires flagged High-risk at day 30: 71% left, vs 20% of Low-risk

What I recommended

  • A buddy for every new hire
  • 2+ manager check-ins in the first 30 days
  • A written 30-60-90 plan in week one
The four dashboard pages
Dashboard page 1, What Happened: KPI cards, turnover by hire quarter with a program launch marker, turnover by department and by manager.
1 · What happened. Observed turnover differed across hire quarters before and after the October 2024 launch.
Dashboard page 2, Why It Happened: turnover by buddy, 30-60-90 plan, manager check-ins and equipment delays, plus exit reasons and 30-day survey scores.
2 · Why it happened. Comparisons show associations between onboarding support and turnover; they do not establish why an employee left.
Dashboard page 3, Early Warning: turnover by risk tier and a watch list of current high-risk employees.
3 · Early warning. An illustrative day-30 score identifies employees for supportive follow-up. It is not a validated prediction model or a basis for employment decisions.
Dashboard page 4, Improvement Plan: before and after turnover, three recommendations, cost estimates and targets.
4 · Improvement plan. Three recommendations with owners, scenario-based cost estimates, and proposed targets to track. Differences between groups are observed comparisons, not guaranteed effects of these actions.

Tools & skills

  • Power BI
  • DAX measures
  • Power Query
  • Excel
  • Data modeling
  • Survey analysis
  • Data storytelling

How progress would be assessed

Track onboarding completion, employee feedback, and turnover at 90 days and one year. Review results by department and manager to identify where implementation needs attention and whether improvements persist across later hiring groups.

All data is fictional and created for portfolio use. Hires span January 2024 through June 2025, with outcomes tracked through June 30, 2026. Results show association, not proof of cause. First-year turnover cost covers 112 departures and assumes 33% of starting salary per departure. The approximately $500,000 cost-avoidance figure shown in the dashboard is a comparison scenario, not verified savings. Targets are proposed goals.

← All case studies

Case 05 · Workforce insight

Workforce Attrition Analysis

Which teams are losing people fastest, how early do they leave, and why?

Data
579 fictional employees, 254 exits and 1,491 ratings, 2018 to 2025
Method
CTEs, joins, window functions and date calculations
Tools
SQL
Result
48.3% Customer Support attrition vs 20.1% overall

Completed project · Fictional demonstration data

A fictional growing company, 2018 to 2025: 579 employees across 8 departments, 254 exits with type and reason, and 1,491 annual performance ratings. The data is stored in SQLite and every figure below comes from SQL queries.

48.3%Customer Support attrition, 2025
20.1%Company-wide attrition, 2025
27.1%2024 hires gone within a year
2.73 vs 2.99Average rating, leavers vs current staff

Attrition by department, 2025

Leavers divided by average headcount (start and end of year). Under each team: leavers of average headcount.

Needs actionAbove company rateBelow company rateCompany rate

Key findings

  1. Customer Support has a retention problem. It lost 29 people against an average headcount of 60 in 2025, an attrition rate of 48.3%. That is more than double the company rate of 20.1%, about double Sales (23.1%) and four times Engineering (11.7%).
  2. New hires are leaving early, and it is getting worse. 23.5% of 2023 hires left within their first year, rising to 27.1% of 2024 hires. Roughly one in four new starters is gone within twelve months.
  3. People leave for better opportunities and pay. “Better opportunity” and “Compensation” are the top two voluntary exit reasons in most departments. In Customer Support they account for about half of all voluntary exits (28.9% and 22.4%), with “Career growth” third (19.7%).
  4. Leavers were rated lower. People who left averaged 2.73 out of 5 in performance reviews, against 2.99 for current staff. Lower ratings may signal poor fit, or a lack of support and development before people go, so this is worth investigating before drawing conclusions.

Recommendations

  • Benchmark Customer Support pay. With compensation and better offers driving exits, compare Support salaries with the market and consider a targeted adjustment or retention incentive.
  • Build a visible career path in Support. Define progression steps (agent, senior agent, team lead) with clear criteria, so people can see a future without leaving.
  • Strengthen the first year. Introduce structured onboarding, 30/60/90-day check-ins and a buddy system, and track first-year attrition each quarter.
  • Use exit and stay interviews. Confirm the reasons behind the numbers and reach at-risk employees before they resign.

How the analysis works

  1. Calculate 2025 headcount at the start and end of the year for each department, then divide leavers by the average.
  2. Follow each 2023 and 2024 hiring group for twelve months to measure first-year attrition.
  3. Rank voluntary exit reasons within each department and show each reason’s share.
  4. Compare average performance ratings of leavers with current staff.
  5. Check the data for missing values and stray spaces before reporting.
Sample query: attrition rate by department, 2025
WITH people AS (
  SELECT employees.department_id, hire_date, termination_date
  FROM employees
  LEFT JOIN terminations ON terminations.employee_id = employees.employee_id
),
by_dept AS (
  SELECT department_id,
    SUM(CASE WHEN hire_date <  '2025-01-01' AND (termination_date IS NULL OR termination_date >= '2025-01-01')
             THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS hc_start,
    SUM(CASE WHEN hire_date <= '2025-12-31' AND (termination_date IS NULL OR termination_date >  '2025-12-31')
             THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS hc_end,
    SUM(CASE WHEN termination_date BETWEEN '2025-01-01' AND '2025-12-31' THEN 1 ELSE 0 END) AS leavers
  FROM people
  GROUP BY department_id
)
SELECT department_name,
       (hc_start + hc_end) / 2.0 AS avg_headcount,
       leavers,
       ROUND(100.0 * leavers / ((hc_start + hc_end) / 2.0), 1) AS attrition_pct
FROM by_dept
JOIN departments ON departments.department_id = by_dept.department_id
WHERE hc_start + hc_end > 0
ORDER BY attrition_pct DESC;

What this demonstrates

SQL joins (including LEFT and self joins), aggregation with GROUP BY and HAVING, CASE logic, subqueries, CTEs, window functions and date calculations, applied to core HR measures: headcount, attrition rate, first-year attrition and tenure.

Independent portfolio demonstration using fictional data. Ratings are compared across all reviews on record. Differences between groups are observed patterns, not proof of cause.

The HRM.coach framework

From trusted records to employee experience.

Each stage depends on the one before it. Insight is only as good as the records behind it.

  1. Stage 1

    Fix the data

    Reconciliation, deduction audits, exception checks, duplicates, missing records, and source-system inconsistencies.

    Cases 01, 03

  2. Stage 2

    Automate the reporting

    Repeatable Power Query workflows, exception reports, workforce reporting, and leadership dashboards.

    Cases 01, 02

  3. Stage 3

    Diagnose workforce trends

    Retention, performance, career growth, and manager support interpreted in context. Pay is examined when it helps explain an employee experience question.

    Cases 02, 05

  4. Stage 4

    Improve employee experience

    Engagement, onboarding, manager effectiveness, employee trust, and evidence-informed recommendations.

    Cases 04, 05

The approach

HR judgment first. Technology in service of the outcome.

  1. Understand the human and business need

    Clarify the decision, audience, risk, and experience behind the request.

  2. Build the right HR control or approach

    Apply sound HR practice, documentation standards, and operational context.

  3. Make the work repeatable

    Use reporting and automation where they improve accuracy, speed, and consistency.

  4. Communicate what leaders need to know

    Translate activity into outcomes, implications, ownership, and next action.

Tools

Tools behind the work.

Each case study names the tools it used and the limits of the analysis.

ToolUsed forCases
ExcelRecord review, rule columns, controlled tests01, 03
Power QueryJoining exports, reconciliation and data quality rules, refreshable outputs01, 03
Power BI and DAXData models, explicit measures, filter-context testing, dashboards02, 04
SQLHeadcount, attrition, first-year exits and exit reasons with CTEs, joins and window functions05
Power Automate, SharePoint, VBAWorkflow and reporting automation in day-to-day HR operations–
HRIS and payroll exportsAuthorized XLS, XLSX or CSV extracts as the starting point for analysis01

Developing next Predictive analysis. Future work will show how a model is evaluated, and where its limits are, before its results inform an HR recommendation.

Connect

Hiring for people analytics or HR operations? I’d like to hear from you.

hello@hrm.coach