You can view them on LinkedIn.

If you do NOT have LinkedIn Recruiter, but are hiring for a role, please send me a message on LinkedIn with a job description and I will be happy to provide a copy of my resume & a personalized cover letter.

I've spent most of my career in client-facing remote roles, often in environments where maintaining clarity and follow-through is critical. Early in my career, I worked in operations-focused positions handling scheduling, logistics, account support, and customer communication across multiple systems simultaneously. Those experiences developed my ability to remain composed under pressure, communicate with precision, and maintain documentation that ensures continuity.

As my work transitioned to fully remote environments, the core responsibility remained consistent: ensuring clients and teams have clear visibility into status and next steps. I've supported clients directly while coordinating with cross-functional teams, including designers, developers, marketers, and operations staff, using tools such as Google Workspace, ClickUp, Asana, Monday, Trello, HubSpot, Salesforce, and Zoom. The specific platforms are less important than maintaining accurate, current information within them.

In remote roles, I'm typically the person ensuring follow-through occurs, expectations remain aligned, and minor issues are resolved before they escalate. My objective is to reduce operational friction so clients feel confident in the support they're receiving and teams can maintain focus on quality execution.

I worked with a client who was frustrated with early campaign results and concerned about data quality and overall value. The situation was sensitive because expectations were misaligned, and the client felt her concerns hadn’t been fully acknowledged, which put trust at risk.

I approached the situation by slowing things down and focusing first on listening. I reviewed the campaign data, prior communications, and internal notes to understand both the technical details and the context behind her feedback. I then scheduled a direct conversation to walk through her concerns, validate what she was experiencing, and explain the factors contributing to the initial results.

From there, I took ownership of next steps. I clarified what could be adjusted immediately, what would take additional time, and what constraints existed so expectations were realistic going forward. I coordinated internally to review list quality and campaign structure, addressing both the client-facing concerns and the underlying operational issues. Throughout the process, I communicated proactively so the client never felt left in the dark.

By the end of the engagement, the client felt heard, supported, and confident in the plan forward. The relationship stabilized, the tone shifted from frustration to collaboration, and she chose to complete the remainder of her contract feeling positive about the experience.

When stepping into a new industry with regulatory requirements or high ethical standards, I take a deliberate and careful approach. I don't make assumptions or overpromise early on. Instead, I focus on understanding the rules, constraints, and approval boundaries that shape how work can be done and communicated.

My first priority is learning the landscape. That includes reviewing documentation, internal guidelines, training materials, and escalation paths so I understand not just what's allowed, but why. I'm especially mindful of how information is framed and shared, ensuring accuracy and consistency while I build deeper subject-matter knowledge.

I pair that learning phase with strong documentation and clear communication. I ask clarifying questions early, surface risks before they become issues, and align expectations so teams and clients aren't put in compromised positions later. This approach allows me to operate independently while maintaining trust, compliance, and high standards of integrity.

I focus on matching the level of structure to where a team actually is, not where someone wishes it were. Not every process needs heavy tooling or automation. When teams need flexibility, I use lightweight systems, simple tracking, and adaptable workflows that can evolve as circumstances change. When a process is mature and well understood, I'm more comfortable adding structure, automation, or guardrails that support scale without creating friction.

I'm intentional about using tools for what they're designed to accomplish. Data gets tracked in systems built to handle it, documentation lives where people will actually reference it, and automation is only introduced when it reduces effort rather than adding maintenance burden. Within budget, that might mean simple integrations, clear templates, or selective use of AI to support analysis, documentation, or quality checks without removing human oversight.

The goal isn't to over engineer. It's to reduce rework, prevent confusion, and keep work moving forward. When structure reflects how people actually work, it accelerates teams rather than slowing them down.