Remote Team Onboarding Sentiment Scores
This dataset provides comprehensive sentiment and engagement analytics for new remote hires during their onboarding process, including scores, feedback, and retention risk indicators. It enables HR teams to monitor employee experience, identify areas for improvement, and proactively address potential turnover risks. The data supports actionable insights for optimizing remote onboarding strategies and enhancing workforce retention.
Sample rows
preview · 8 of 70 rows · all 17 columns| onboarding_sentiment_idinteger | engagement_scorefloat | retention_risk_flagboolean | location_countrystring | employee_idinteger | employee_namestring | emailstring | hire_datedate | onboarding_start_datedate | onboarding_end_datedate | departmentstring | manager_idinteger | sentiment_scorefloat | survey_datedate | location_citystring | location_statestring | feedback_textstring |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 82.5 | false | USA | 101 | Samantha Roy | samantha.roy@ | 2024-02-20 | 2024-02-21 | 2024-03-05 | Engineering | 201 | 0.76 | 2024-03-03 | Austin | TX | Onboarding was structured and welcoming. Remote setup went smoothly. |
| 2 | 44.9 | true | USA | 102 | Miguel Alvarez | miguel.alvarez@ | 2024-01-30 | 2024-02-01 | 2024-02-14 | Sales | 202 | -0.15 | 2024-02-10 | San Diego | CA | Faced delays in getting access. Communication could be improved. |
| 3 | 75 | false | Canada | 103 | Emily Zhang | emily.zhang@ | 2024-03-05 | 2024-03-06 | 2024-03-20 | Marketing | 203 | 0.63 | 2024-03-19 | Toronto | ON | Great onboarding sessions, felt connected with the team. |
| 4 | 38.2 | true | UK | 104 | Rajesh Patel | rajesh.patel@ | 2024-01-15 | 2024-01-16 | 2024-01-30 | Finance | 204 | -0.3 | 2024-01-29 | London | London | Process felt rushed. Some documents were missing. |
| 5 | 95.2 | false | USA | 105 | Ava Williams | ava.williams@ | 2024-04-02 | 2024-04-03 | 2024-04-17 | Human Resources | 205 | 0.91 | 2024-04-16 | Seattle | WA | Best onboarding experience so far. Supportive HR team. |
| 6 | 61.7 | false | Germany | 106 | Lucas Schmidt | lucas.schmidt@ | 2024-03-20 | 2024-03-21 | 2024-04-04 | Engineering | 201 | 0.34 | 2024-04-03 | Berlin | Berlin | Remote equipment arrived late, but overall good experience. |
| 7 | 48.3 | true | UAE | 107 | Fatima Hassan | fatima.hassan@ | 2024-01-25 | 2024-01-26 | 2024-02-09 | Support | 206 | 0.12 | 2024-02-08 | Dubai | Dubai | Felt isolated during virtual onboarding. Needed more team interaction. |
| 8 | 70.8 | false | USA | 108 | Jack Murphy | jack.murphy@ | 2024-02-10 | 2024-02-11 | 2024-02-25 | Engineering | 201 | 0.52 | 2024-02-24 | Boston | MA | Enjoyed the technical sessions, wish there were more team calls. |
| 9 | 50.2 | true | China | 109 | Yu Chen | yu.chen@ | 2024-03-10 | 2024-03-11 | 2024-03-25 | Sales | 202 | -0.08 | 2024-03-24 | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | Had some trouble with remote tools, but manager was helpful. |
| 10 | 78 | false | Australia | 110 | Olivia Brown | olivia.brown@ | 2024-02-05 | 2024-02-06 | 2024-02-20 | Marketing | 203 | 0.67 | 2024-02-19 | Sydney | NSW | Interactive onboarding sessions. Clear expectation setting. |
| 11 | 66.4 | false | Poland | 111 | Marta Kowalski | marta.kowalski@ | 2024-04-01 | 2024-04-02 | 2024-04-15 | Finance | 204 | 0.41 | 2024-04-14 | Warsaw | Mazowieckie | Thorough documentation and friendly HR. A few system issues. |
| 12 | 42.7 | true | UK | 112 | David Turner | david.turner@ | 2024-03-15 | 2024-03-16 | blank | Human Resources | 205 | -0.47 | 2024-03-29 | Manchester | England | Onboarding incomplete. Missing access to key systems. |
| 13 | 53.1 | false | Spain | 113 | Natalia García | natalia.garcia@ | 2024-01-12 | 2024-01-13 | 2024-01-27 | Support | 206 | 0.21 | 2024-01-26 | Barcelona | Catalonia | Team was available for questions, but resources were scattered. |
| 14 | 27.6 | true | UK | 114 | Brian O'Connor | brian.oconnor@ | 2024-02-28 | 2024-03-01 | 2024-03-15 | Sales | 202 | -0.62 | 2024-03-14 | Edinburgh | Scotland | Very little interaction with team. Felt unsupported. |
| 15 | 72.1 | false | USA | 115 | Jasmine Lee | jasmine.lee@ | 2024-03-18 | 2024-03-19 | 2024-04-02 | Engineering | 201 | 0.59 | 2024-04-01 | San Francisco | CA | Onboarding was well coordinated. Appreciated the mentorship. |
| 16 | 49.8 | true | France | 116 | Pierre Dubois | pierre.dubois@ | 2024-02-18 | 2024-02-19 | 2024-03-05 | Marketing | 203 | 0 | 2024-03-04 | Paris | Île-de-France | Not enough training provided for remote tools. |
| 17 | 62.5 | false | USA | 117 | Grace Miller | grace.miller@ | 2024-01-17 | 2024-01-18 | 2024-02-01 | Finance | 204 | 0.42 | 2024-01-31 | Chicago | IL | HR team was responsive, but some onboarding steps unclear. |
| 18 | 45.3 | true | Egypt | 118 | Ahmed El-Sayed | ahmed.elsayed@ | 2024-03-22 | 2024-03-23 | blank | Support | 206 | -0.39 | 2024-04-04 | Cairo | Cairo | Onboarding ongoing. Some sessions rescheduled. |
| 19 | 85.7 | false | Canada | 119 | Chloe Martin | chloe.martin@ | 2024-02-08 | 2024-02-09 | 2024-02-23 | Engineering | 201 | 0.68 | 2024-02-22 | Montreal | QC | Technical onboarding was excellent. Team very helpful. |
| 20 | 69.4 | false | Mexico | 120 | Diego Fernandez | diego.fernandez@ | 2024-04-10 | 2024-04-11 | 2024-04-25 | Marketing | 203 | 0.56 | 2024-04-24 | Mexico City | CDMX | Onboarding materials were clear, helpful team. |
What the 70 rows show
from the 70-row sample- 27%retention_
risk_ flag = true - 67.0median engagement_
score - 9departments
- 0.42median sentiment_
score
Median 67.0, from 27.6 to 99.2.
- string 7
- integer 3
- float 2
- date 4
- boolean 1
Columns
17 columns in four groups| column | type | description | example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text 7 columns | |||
employee_name | string | Full name of the employee | Samantha Roy |
email | string | Employee's email address | yu.chen@ |
department | string | Department the employee belongs to9 departments | Engineering |
feedback_text | string | Open-ended feedback provided by the employee about onboarding experienceoptional | Onboarding was structured… |
location_city | string | City where the employee is basedoptional | Austin |
location_state | string | State or region where the employee is basedoptional | TX |
location_country | string | Country where the employee is based | USA |
| Numbers 5 columns | |||
onboarding_sentiment_id | integer | Unique identifier for each onboarding sentiment recordunique | 1 |
employee_id | integer | Unique identifier for the employee | 101 |
manager_id | integer | Unique identifier for the employee's manageroptional | 201 |
sentiment_score | float | Overall sentiment score (e.g., -1 to 1) derived from onboarding feedback-1 to 1 | 0.76 |
engagement_score | float | Quantitative measure of employee engagement during onboarding (0 to 100)0 to 100 | 82.5 |
| Dates and times 4 columns | |||
hire_date | date | Date the employee was hired | 2024-02-20 |
onboarding_start_date | date | Date the onboarding process started | 2024-02-21 |
onboarding_end_date | date | Date the onboarding process endedoptional | 2024-03-05 |
survey_date | date | Date the sentiment survey was completed | 2024-03-03 |
| True or false 1 column | |||
retention_risk_flag | boolean | Indicator if the employee is at risk of leaving based on sentiment/engagement analysis | false |
Use it for
A human resources dashboard
The retention_
risk_ flag rate, engagement_ score and a breakdown of location_ country. Excel, Power BI or Tableau. Why do 19 of 70 rows have retention_
risk_ flag = true? A class exercise
Hand out the rows and one question. Everyone works from the same 70 rows.
- Rows70182.5false244.9true438.2true
A software demo
Believable rows with employee_
id, employee_ name and email to fill a screen in front of a buyer.
blueprint · remote-team-onboarding-sentiment-scores
Behind this dataset
Same schema. As many rows as you need.
These 70 rows came out of a blueprint — 17 columns with generation rules behind each one. Open it in Data Factory to retune a column, add your own, wire in foreign keys, and run it at the size you actually need.
- Each row represents a new remote employee onboarded in the past 90 days.
- Sentiment score derived from weekly feedback surveys, scaled 1-10.
- Includes onboarding activity completion rate (percentage).
- Flag if employee requested additional support or resources during onboarding.
- Categorize by department and job role.
1 credit per row. New accounts start with 25 free credits.
- Exports
- CSV, JSON, JSONL, Parquet, SQL, Excel, TSV, XML
- Licence
- yours to use, including commercially
- API slug
- remote-team-onboarding-sentiment-scores