The Friday afternoon approval nobody can find
A vendor invoice for $8,400 needs sign-off before Friday close. The ops manager forwarded it to the finance director on Tuesday. The finance director replied "looks fine, loop in Sarah" and forgot to actually loop in Sarah. By Thursday the vendor is calling, the ops manager is scrolling three different email threads and a Slack DM trying to find who said yes, and nobody can produce a clean answer to "who approved this and when." This is what a broken approval workflow looks like in most small companies — not a system outage, just a slow leak of trust and hours.
If you run a 15 to 150 person company, you almost certainly have some version of this happening right now — for invoices, PTO requests, discount approvals, contract redlines, or purchase orders. It rarely gets fixed because it never looks urgent enough on any single day. It just costs you a little bit, constantly, forever.
Why your approval workflow ends up living in email and chat
Nobody sits down and decides "we'll run approvals through Slack DMs and hope for the best." It happens by accretion.
Early on, a company has five people and every approval is a five-second conversation across a desk. As headcount grows, that conversation moves online — but it moves into whatever tool people are already using, which is email or Slack. It works fine at first because volume is low and everyone remembers the last three things they approved.
Then the company adds a second location, or a remote sales team, or a second approver in the loop for anything over $5,000. Now the same request touches three or four people, across two tools, and half of them are asynchronous. Nobody redesigned the process for that. It just kept running on the same email-and-chat rails it started on, and those rails were never built to answer "where is this right now" or "who actually said yes."
The deeper reason it persists: approvals feel like communication, not data. A manager thinks of "approve this PO" as a message they send, not a record they're creating. So it lives wherever messages live — an inbox, a thread, a DM — instead of anywhere that can be queried, audited, or reported on later.
Why the obvious fixes don't hold
Most teams try one of three fixes, and each one runs out of road for a predictable reason.
Add a stricter email rule. "CC finance on every approval over $1,000." This works for about six weeks. Then someone forgets, someone replies-all with the wrong context, and a thread gets forked into two separate conversations with two different outcomes. Email has no concept of state — there's no way to mark a request "pending," "approved," or "rejected" that everyone can see at a glance. You're relying on human memory layered on top of a tool built for correspondence, not workflow.
Build a Google Form + Sheet. This is a real improvement over email, and we recommend it as a stopgap for teams under 20 people. The problem shows up once you need routing logic — "if it's over $10,000, it needs a second approver" — or once two people edit the sheet at the same time and overwrite each other's status. Sheets don't lock rows, don't send reminders, and don't connect to the system where the money or the PTO balance actually lives. You end up manually reconciling the sheet against QuickBooks or your HR system anyway, which is the exact busywork you were trying to remove.
Buy a full workflow platform. Companies jump straight to a $30,000/year tool like a heavyweight BPM suite or an enterprise approval module bolted onto their ERP. For a 40-person company, this is usually overkill — you're paying for configurability you'll never use, and someone has to become the in-house expert on a tool with a six-week learning curve. Six months later, half the approvals have quietly moved back to Slack because the "real" system was too much friction for a $200 request.
The pattern across all three: they treat the symptom (messy communication) without fixing what's actually broken, which is that approval status isn't data that lives anywhere a system — or a person — can reliably check.
The real tradeoff: control versus speed
Every approval process is a tradeoff between two things pulling in opposite directions, and most SMBs never name it explicitly:
- Control — knowing who can approve what, at what threshold, with a record you could hand an auditor.
- Speed — getting a decision in minutes, not days, without a five-click form for a $50 reimbursement.
Email and Slack optimize entirely for speed and give you almost no control. Heavyweight BPM tools optimize for control and kill speed. The right answer for most SMBs is a lightweight structured layer that keeps the decision fast but makes the record durable — and that only works if the request lives in a system connected to wherever the underlying data already sits (your accounting tool, your CRM, your HR platform), not in a standalone form that has to be reconciled by hand later.
A practical decision path
Before you touch any tooling, map what you actually have. This takes one afternoon per approval type:
- List every recurring approval type — POs, invoices over a threshold, PTO, discounts, contract terms, expense reports. Most companies find 4-8.
- For each one, write down: who requests it, who approves it (and any second approver), what system holds the underlying record (QuickBooks, the CRM, the HR tool), and the average time-to-decision today.
- Flag anything where you can't answer "who approved this and when" for a request from three months ago. That's your audit-trail risk, and it's usually the first thing that bites you — during a fundraise, an audit, or a dispute with a vendor.
- Sort by dollar or risk exposure, not by annoyance. The approval that annoys people most (PTO) is rarely the one that hurts you most (vendor payments, contract terms).
- Decide, per approval type, whether it needs to live in a system of record or just needs a lightweight tracked form. High-dollar or compliance-sensitive approvals need the former. Low-stakes, high-volume ones can often get by with a structured form as long as it writes back to the source system automatically.
The mistake we see most often is treating this as one project — "let's fix approvals" — instead of triaging by risk first. You don't need the same rigor for a $75 expense report as you do for a six-figure vendor contract.
What "fixed" actually looks like
A working approval system does three unglamorous things well: it shows anyone with permission the current status of a request without asking around, it routes automatically based on rules (amount, department, requester) instead of a human remembering who's next, and it writes the final decision back into the system where the underlying record lives — the invoice in QuickBooks, the deal in the CRM, the PTO balance in your HR tool — so nobody reconciles two sources of truth by hand.
This is also where automation and AI genuinely start to help — but only after that connection exists. An AI assistant that can pre-flag "this invoice is 40% higher than this vendor's typical amount, route to a second approver" is a real time-saver. An AI assistant bolted onto a process where approvals still live in scattered email threads has nothing reliable to read, so it either hallucinates status or just adds another tool nobody trusts. Structure the data and the routing first. The intelligence layer is worth adding second, not first.
Where to start this week
You don't need a six-month project to make progress. Pick the one approval type from your list with the worst combination of dollar exposure and missing audit trail — for most companies it's vendor invoices or contract terms — and fix that one first. Get it into a system that logs who approved what and when, connected to wherever the record actually lives. Leave the low-stakes stuff (PTO requests, minor expense reports) on lighter-weight tools for now. Trying to solve all eight approval types at once is how these projects stall out before anything ships.
If you want a second set of eyes on where your approvals are actually leaking time, we run a free Process Teardown: a 30-minute session where we map one of your workflows and show you, concretely, the hours it's quietly costing each month. No pitch, no obligation. You can see examples of this kind of work — disconnected tools we've connected into one system, with automation and AI layered on top afterward — in our case studies.
0 Comment