Most approval processes fail the same way. Nobody argues with the idea. Then a reviewer is out for two days, three posts miss their slot, and people start asking whether they can just publish it themselves.
So this post is less about switching approvals on and more about running them: who should review what, how long a review should take, and what happens on the awkward Thursday morning when approval lands after the post was due. If you only want to see what the feature does, the approval workflow page is the place for that. This one assumes you have decided to use it.
One boundary first. Approvals are for people on your team, each with a seat. If the reviewer is a client with no account, use a review link instead, covered in how to get client feedback on social media posts.
A worked example: three people, one client
Take a small agency on the Pro plan, which has three seats.
- Maya owns the account and handles billing.
- Dev is the approver. He knows the client’s brand rules and legal sensitivities.
- Sam is a contributor. He writes and schedules most of the client’s posts.
On Tuesday afternoon Sam writes a post announcing the client’s spring sale and schedules it for Thursday at 9:00. Because he is a contributor, the button says Submit for Approval rather than Schedule. The post is saved with its Thursday time, but it carries an Awaiting approval badge and will not go out until someone clears it.
Dev is notified. On Wednesday morning Dev opens the post and spots that the sale ends Sunday, not Saturday. He rejects it and types the reason: “Sale ends Sunday 11:59pm, not Saturday.” The post goes back to drafts with a Rejected badge, and Sam sees Dev’s note at the top of the composer when he opens it.
Sam fixes the date and schedules it again. That counts as a resubmission, so it is pending again and Dev is notified again. On Thursday at 9:20, twenty minutes after the slot, Dev gets to it. This is the awkward case, and here is what happens. Because the time passed more than 15 minutes ago, Dev is asked to choose: Approve and publish now, or Approve and pick a new time. Dev knows the sale email went out at 9:00, so he publishes now.
Had he opened it at 9:10, inside the 15-minute window, approving would have published it straight away with no question asked.
Three things in that story are worth copying: the rejection carried a reason, the reviewer was one named person rather than “whoever sees it”, and the late-approval rule was known in advance.
Decide who reviews what
The question is not “who is senior”. It is “who would be embarrassed if this went out wrong”.
| If the risk is… | Make the reviewer… | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Brand voice and tone | An approver on the content team | They can judge it in seconds and publish their own posts directly |
| Legal, pricing or regulated claims | An admin or the owner | Someone who is accountable for the claim |
| Client-facing accuracy | The account lead, as an approver | Closest to the client’s actual facts |
| New writers | Your most experienced teammate, as an approver | Reviews double as training |
Approvers can publish directly, so people in that role do not wait on anyone. Only contributors go through the gate, and viewers cannot create posts at all. The full role list is in inviting team members and setting roles.
Name at least two people who can approve. With one reviewer, a sick day becomes a content freeze.
Set a turnaround before you set the workflow
Pick a number and say it out loud. “Within one working day” is enough for planned content.
Then work backwards. If a review can take a day, nothing should be submitted less than a day before its slot. A simple convention: submit by end of day, the day before. Anything submitted later is a request for a favour, and everyone should know that.
When a review does run late, the 15-minute rule is your safety net, not your plan. Past that point somebody has to decide between publishing late and rescheduling, and that is a judgement call a reviewer should not have to make at 9:20 with the client waiting.
Write rejections that close the loop
A rejection note is the only feedback the author gets at the moment it matters. It can be up to 2,000 characters and it is optional, so it is easy to leave blank. Don’t.
- Bad: “Not right.”
- Better: “Too salesy for this account. Lead with the customer story, move the discount to the last line.”
- Best: the better version, plus what would make it approvable, so the next submission is the last one.
Rejection is also not a verdict. The post returns to drafts, the author edits and schedules it again, and it goes back for review. Treat it as a round, not a refusal.
Common mistakes
Gating everything. If every reply-style post and every reshare waits for approval, reviewers start approving without reading. Keep the gate for planned, client-facing or regulated content. Let approvers publish the reactive stuff directly.
One approver, no backup. Covered above, and the most common reason a workflow gets quietly abandoned.
Editing after approval without realising. If a contributor changes an approved post and schedules it again, it needs approval again. That is intended. Warn people, or they will think the tool is broken.
Forgetting automation. Recurring schedules and RSS feeds created or edited by someone without publishing rights are set to require approval, even if they try to switch it off. Someone who can publish can turn it off again. If you wonder why a feed’s posts are waiting, start there.
Using approvals for clients. Clients without seats cannot be approvers, and giving them a seat to approve posts wastes one of your three or ten.
Assuming notifications reach everyone the same way. Approval alerts follow each person’s own notification settings, in the app, by email or on mobile. An approver who has muted email may never see a request. Ask them to check once.
Agents and integrations
If scripts or AI assistants create posts for you through the API, a post can be created with requestApproval set to true even when the account holder could publish directly. It then waits like a contributor’s post, and a person decides. This is the simplest way to let automation draft your week without letting it publish unchecked.
Setup checklist
- Count your seats. Free has 1, Pro has 3, Business has 10, and invitations that are still pending count towards the limit.
- Invite people and give each the lowest role that does their job. Contributors for writers, approvers for reviewers.
- Name at least two people who can approve.
- Agree a turnaround and a submission deadline.
- Decide which content skips the gate and tell approvers they can publish it directly.
- Do one test round: submit a post, reject it with a reason, resubmit, approve.
- Check that every approver actually receives the notification.
Pricing for Pro and Business is on the pricing page. The approval process works the same whichever platform a post is going to.
What next
Start with one client or one channel set, run it for two weeks, and see where posts stall. Tighten the turnaround or add a second approver before you widen the gate. When you are ready, start free and add teammates once you move to Pro.