Seena Mojahedi

The harder fight is persuading leadership to spend the next months on governance instead of new features.

• Governance stays invisible until it is missing, and by then the team is fixing the same problems again.
• Mojahedi’s method is to require cross-functional impact reviews before configuration reaches production: document the impact, communicate it, and test it.

A director of HRIS tells Seena Mojahedi that the hardest part of cleaning up Workday was convincing the CHRO to spend months two and three on governance rather than features—and that those months kept the team from ending up back where it started. Mojahedi also describes tracking changes and consultant cleanups during a year when the team stayed in a break/fix pattern.

Read original

HRIS teams become the last check on numbers before managers act on them, while finance keeps private copies because reports need explanation.

• That checking never reaches a roadmap because it looks like ordinary good service.
• Mojahedi argues that automation runs faster on whatever foundation is already in place—and answers with the same confidence either way.

An audit almost always finds three things, according to Seena Mojahedi: reports that disagree with each other, configuration nobody on the team can explain, and integrations that run cleanly into work the business has already replaced. A monitor may report success while someone downstream has rebuilt the number by hand and never checked back.

Read original

The Workday implementation is complete and the capabilities are in the tenant, but the team works around them. Mojahedi treats handing control back as a separate piece of work with its own schedule, not something that happens automatically once the system is live.

In their first week at Slack, Seena Mojahedi sat in a room with 15 Workday consultants billing $300 an hour.

• None asked what the internal team actually needed; they asked about configurations, timelines, and data migration specs.
• Three problems tend to outlast that meeting: configuration built to pass a test rather than to be changed, capability the team was never shown, and ownership that was never handed over.

Read original

The real comparison is structured design work versus continued firefighting on a system the company has already paid to implement once. Mojahedi frames the decision around whether the configuration still fits how the organization operates.

Eight months after a Workday go-live, a VP of Finance opens a meeting with: "I don't think the problem is Workday.

• I think the problem is us."
• The screen shows 47 position types, 8 approval workflows, and layered restrictions.
• The company has 2,000 people and reorganizes every quarter, but the structure was built for a 10,000-person enterprise.
• Seena Mojahedi estimates a redesign would take 12 to 18 months, close to the original implementation, against another 24 to 36 months of firefighting.

Read original

Those answers matter as soon as something needs to change. A team that cannot explain the design will not touch it, so changes happen only when somebody outside the team requests them.

One person on an HRIS team had been through the original implementation.

• When that person took two weeks of leave, three routine requests sat untouched until they returned.
• Seena Mojahedi also points to small inherited problems: an approval step that adds three days and a restriction that never matched the job.
• Nobody ignores them, Mojahedi says; the team lacks a safe way to change something inherited without knowing the reasoning behind it.

Read original

A Director of HRIS tells Seena Mojahedi that the hardest part of cleaning up Workday was not the cleanup.

• It was persuading the CHRO to spend months 2 and 3 on governance instead of new features.
• Features are visible to leadership; governance is invisible until it is missing.
• Mojahedi describes a rule from their own HRIS team: before moving Workday configuration to production, understand cross-functional impacts, document and communicate them, and test them.
• Payroll, headcount, and org planning can all depend on Workday data, so ungoverned changes can break more than one system.
• The post also mentions a tally of changes and consultant cleanups that kept the team in a break/fix pattern.
• Its core argument: most rescues fail in month 2, when leadership wants the next feature rather than a stronger foundation.

For brands planning a campaign

For a Workday consultancy or implementation partner, the clearest content hook is to sell governance as a scheduled phase with named deliverables, not as an abstract virtue. A co-marketing article or webinar could contrast a cleanup-only rescue with a governance-first plan for months 2 and 3, including cross-functional impact reviews, change logs, and test criteria.

The post is useful when the campaign question is not whether to add technology, but whether the underlying Workday environment can support it.

Mojahedi starts from Workday's own description of providing trusted HR and finance data and asks whether the tenant underneath that claim has earned the word 'trusted.' The gap costs managers time as they act on numbers the HRIS team would check first, while finance keeps its own copy of a report and the team absorbs the checking work every week.

• That work does not reach a roadmap because catching a wrong number looks like ordinary good service.
• Mojahedi lists three things an audit almost always finds: reports that disagree with each other, configuration nobody on the team can explain, and integrations that run clean into work the business already replaced.
• The closing argument: automation runs faster on whatever is already there and answers with the same confidence either way.

For brands planning a campaign

This post gives a partner a practical entry point for an AI or automation pitch in HR technology: start with a tenant diagnostic before promising faster answers. A co-marketing webinar could use the three audit findings as an assessment framework, then show how governance work makes later automation safer to buy.

It shows why buyers should care about governance after go live.

The post cites Gartner's 2025 HR priorities research: only 24% of HR functions are maximizing business value from HR technology.

• The Workday implementation is complete and the capabilities sit in the tenant, but the team works around them.
• Mojahedi describes a first week at Slack, sitting in a room with 15 Workday consultants billing $300 an hour.
• None asked what the team actually needed; they asked about configurations, timelines, and data migration specs.
• Three problems tend to survive that room: configuration built to pass a test rather than to be changed, capability the team was never walked through, and ownership that was never handed over.
• The post treats handing control back as its own piece of work, with its own schedule.

For brands planning a campaign

For a consultancy or implementation partner, this is a direct case for a handover and operating-model offer. A co-marketing article could use the three survivors of a typical implementation room as a checklist, while a webinar could show what a post-go-live ownership handover looks like across people, process, and system access.

Eight months after a Workday go live, a VP of Finance opens a meeting with: 'I don't think the problem is Workday.

• I think the problem is us.' The screen shows 47 position types, 8 approval workflows, and layered restrictions.
• The company is 2,000 people reorganizing every quarter, but the structure was built for a 10,000-person enterprise.
• Mojahedi says a redesign would take 12 to 18 months, close to the original implementation, while the alternative is another 24 to 36 months of firefighting on a system already paid for once.
• Every quarterly reorg hit a structure that could not absorb it, so the team absorbed exceptions by hand and rebuilt the same things every 90 days.
• The post frames repair or redesign as a diagnosis, not a preference.

For brands planning a campaign

This gives a partner a strong diagnostic offer for Workday cleanup and recovery. A co-marketing article or webinar could present a repair-versus-redesign decision framework, with signs that a tenant needs structural change rather than another round of fixes, and cost comparisons that finance and HR leaders can act on.

One person on the HRIS team had been through the original implementation.

• When she took two weeks of leave, three routine requests sat untouched until she was back.
• Mojahedi uses that example to make a broader point: a team can run reports, process transactions, and follow every process it was handed, but still cannot explain why any of it was built that way.
• Those why questions matter the moment something needs to change.
• A team that cannot explain the design will not touch it, so the only changes that get made are the ones somebody outside the team requested.
• The post names small inherited problems: an approval step that adds three days, a restriction that never matched the job.
• Nobody is ignoring them; without the reasoning, there is no safe way to change something inherited.

For brands planning a campaign

For a partner selling governance, documentation, or managed Workday support, this original names the human dependency that creates risk. A co-marketing piece could focus on knowledge transfer and change ownership, showing what happens when one person holds the implementation history and how documentation and cross-training reduce single-person risk.

They describe a director who had to convince a CHRO to spend months two and three on governance rather than features, and who said those months kept the team from returning to the same problems. Mojahedi frames governance as invisible until it is missing, then visible in repeated firefighting.

Document cross-functional impacts, communicate and test them, and track changes and consultant cleanups to make recurring patterns visible.

For brands planning a campaign

A Workday implementation partner can use this as the basis for an article or webinar on why post-go-live governance deserves its own schedule, with a practical checklist for months two and three.

Examples: Source 1

They recount sitting in a room with 15 Workday consultants billing $300 an hour and noting that none asked what the internal team needed. They point to configuration built only to pass a test, capabilities never walked through, and ownership never handed over as common outcomes.

For brands planning a campaign

This gives a consultancy a concrete assessment or change-management angle: identify licensed Workday capabilities that go unused or unexplained, and make the handover its own workstream.

Examples: Source 1

They describe managers acting on numbers the HRIS team would check first, finance keeping a private copy of reports, and teams absorbing verification work that never reaches a roadmap. Their audit lens flags reports that disagree, configuration no one can explain, and integrations that run cleanly into work the business has already replaced.

Audit the tenant for conflicting reports, unexplained approval steps, restrictions, calculated fields, and integrations whose downstream work has changed.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner can build content around data trust and automation readiness, showing how to diagnose foundation problems before adding AI or self-service layers.

Examples: Source 1

I think the problem is us,' then showing a structure of 47 position types and 8 approval workflows built for a larger company that no longer matched the organization. They frame the choice as 12 to 18 months of structured redesign versus another 24 to 36 months of firefighting, and argue that repair or redesign is a diagnosis, not a preference.

For brands planning a campaign

This is a strong webinar or article topic for a Workday partner: how to distinguish repair from redesign using operational evidence, and what that decision means for budget and team workload.

Examples: Source 1

They describe a team that can run reports and process transactions but cannot explain why the configuration was built that way, so changes happen only when someone outside the team asks. Inherited approval steps and restrictions remain because the team has no safe way to change them without understanding their rationale.

For inherited designs, reconstruct and document the reasoning, then create a safe path for the team to make changes in production, not only in a sandbox.

For brands planning a campaign

A partner can use this for content on operating models and post-go-live ownership, with a practical exercise to identify inherited rules the team can explain and those that need reconstruction.

Examples: Source 1

The posts target HRIS and People Systems leaders and return to the same promise: stop firefighting and put the team back in control of Workday.

Pair a personal or reported anecdote with a short diagnostic list and a clear next step.

Publication dates are not provided. Ask for them to assess how the content has changed over time.

For brands planning a campaign

A co-marketing article or webinar can follow the same structure and connect to an existing lead magnet instead of starting with a generic thought-leadership format.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3 · Source 4 · Source 5

The post describes their first week in the role but does not say when it ended; ask for the dates of their Slack tenure.

View example

The citation supports the post’s argument; it does not state a commercial relationship.

View example

The writer describes time on an internal HRIS team running Workday and quotes Workday’s own product description. Ask whether they have an employment, client, or partner relationship with Workday.

View example

The posts promote the guide but do not say whether the writer owns or authored it, or promotes it for someone else; ask about their relationship to it.

View example

Goumas argues that a controlled Workday AI pilot can help define data cleanup; Mojahedi argues that teams must schedule governance and handover before introducing new features.

Goumas concentrates on Workday AI agents, data quality and platform releases. Mojahedi focuses on governance, rescue and inherited configuration.

Read original · Original 2

Stuardo discusses SuccessFactors, talent intelligence and project failure research; Mojahedi discusses Workday governance and rescue.

Stuardo focuses on SAP SuccessFactors and talent transformation, including podcasts and conference material. Mojahedi focuses on Workday governance and rescue in short LinkedIn posts.

Read original · Original 2

MacKinnon surveys product marketers about failed feature launches and release volume; Mojahedi reports HRIS experiences and cites Gartner data on Workday value.

MacKinnon writes about B2B SaaS product marketing and launch prioritization, not Workday or HRIS operations.

Read original · Original 2

Seena Mojahedi’s posts show a deliberate change of position: after previously arguing that data should be fixed before anything is built on top, the post from 22 September 2026 argues the reverse for small HRIS teams — pick one narrow use case, a small tester group, approved sources, people who can verify answers, no automated changes, then trace wrong answers to causes such as an outdated policy, a missed country exception, a wrong employee location, or information the assistant never found.

• A partner selling an agent pilot, a self-service rollout or a testing-led way to locate data problems would get a sharper contributor here.
• The post names the delivery order (Self Service, then Deployment Agent, then Adoption Agent) and gives the mid-market team a way to start without waiting for a data cleanup it cannot scope.

The tradeoff is a direct conflict in the argument the partner would be paying for.

• Chris Goumas writes that a controlled pilot can show where the dirt is and questions whether cleanup must finish before learning begins; Seena Mojahedi’s published position is that automation does not repair a foundation and runs faster on whatever is already there.
• A consultancy selling structured rescue and governance would be funding a message that starts with an AI pilot, whose central scene is a three-person team being told to get data ready — the opposite of a director fighting for months two and three of governance.
• The tone is also more first-person and platform-forward, with heavy emphasis on Workday Build, Extend, Orchestrate, Flowise and Flex Credits.
• That suits a technology-audience piece but gives a rescue webinar fewer concrete governance scenes for a live diagnostic.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts show a decade-plus SuccessFactors position, a doctorate researching why HR technology projects fail, and a podcast conversation covering starting with clarity rather than technology, outcome-driven change management, the Talent Intelligence Hub as a foundation rather than a magic button, Job Profile Builder as a governance challenge, and where AI is taking talent technology.

• Governance is genuinely part of that discussion, so a partner whose offer is skills-based organization design, job architecture or change management on SuccessFactors could build a stronger co-marketing piece here than with Seena Mojahedi.
• The second post shows an active community presence around SAP events, which matters to a partner weighing introductions and event programming.

The tradeoff is platform mismatch and thinner evidence.

• Neither post walks through a Workday rescue, a Workday tenant or the post-go-live schedule that the consultancy’s work concerns; a SuccessFactors audience would need translating to Workday, while a Workday audience would not be served by the platform specifics.
• The posts are also largely promotional and conversational — a podcast announcement and a conference post naming people to learn from — rather than the close, scene-level accounts of governance failures in Mojahedi’s posts.
• Before treating the doctorate research as demonstrated depth, a partner should ask for the underlying podcast conversation or written work on project failure.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

The posts report a survey of 100 B2B SaaS product marketers: 55% traced an underperforming launch to missing problem, demand, ICP or market validation before the build, and the 18 July 2026 post isolates 66 respondents at companies of 50 to 999 employees, where high-volume release teams reported 85% versus 38% overload and half said release volume was diluting core positioning. That quantified, sample-based material is directly citable by a partner selling validation research or launch support, and the narrative arc from unchecked internal idea to postmortem is easy to reuse in a webinar.

The tradeoff is a different buyer and a competing vendor message.

• The audience is B2B SaaS product marketing, not HRIS or people-systems leadership, so an HR technology consultancy would be buying reach outside its decision-makers unless the campaign is deliberately cross-functional.
• Both posts end with a call to use the author’s own research product, and the second names it directly, putting a co-marketing piece alongside a funnel the partner does not control.
• The field evidence is survey percentages and quoted respondent comments rather than close readings of individual systems work, so there are no Workday governance scenes, tenant details or rescue schedule to anchor the partner’s offer.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2