Home Blog Which approval trap is your business stuck in?

Accounts Payable Accounting & Finance

Which approval trap is your business stuck in?

Most finance teams know their approval process is broken. What they don't always know is which kind of broken - and that makes all the difference when it comes to fixing it. So in this blog's set of scenarios - which one feels the most familiar to you?

5 min read •

April 20, 2026

There's a pattern we see again and again when talking to finance teams at growing businesses. The approval process is painful - everyone knows it - but the problem gets described differently depending on who you ask. One director says they're drowning in invoices. Another says everything disappears into email. A third admits they've been meaning to fix it since last year.

The same underlying dysfunction, showing up in four very different ways. And each one has its own cost, its own risks, and its own fix.

We've spent years talking to finance directors, ops managers, and business owners about exactly this. The four patterns that keep coming up are so consistent we've given them names: the Keyholder, the Inbox Optimist, the Spreadsheet Hero, and the Next Month Manager.

Here's what each one looks like - the one that sounds most familiar to your typical workday is probably the one to fix first.

“The Keyholder”: control that becomes chaos

This one starts with the best intentions. The CEO or finance director wants oversight. They want to know where the money goes. So they put themselves in every approval chain - every invoice, every purchase order, every expense claim.

It works, briefly, when the business is small. But then the volume scales faster than anyone expected.

One director of a business with operations across the UK and Nigeria put it plainly:

"Almost everything goes to either me or the CEO, so we're like a bottleneck. If you're busy travelling, you don't have time, so it's always a rush where 'oh, we need to pay this' and you end up just approving things. You're not really paying attention."

The knock-on effects ripple outward. A not-for-profit processing around 150 bills a month described the real cost: "150 bills means 150 times two, sometimes times three, emails backwards and forwards. That's where the time's being eaten." The approval itself takes seconds. The chasing, the follow-up, the "did you see my email" conversations? Those take hours.

At a multi-site healthcare group, the operations director was blunt about the cultural damage: "The second you start introducing me needing to approve everything, that's when you introduce bottlenecks and that's when people are going to get frustrated." Staff learn that nothing moves without the boss. So they stop trying to move things independently.

And at a 10-person tech startup, the founder discovered invoices sitting untouched for weeks: "Sometimes it's two to three weeks down the line. It's basically just me having to go down and kind of hold people." That's a founder spending time chasing approvals instead of building product.

What "the Keyholder" is actually costing

The obvious cost is late payments. One director admitted openly: "Definitely we have missed payments. A lot of late payments." Late payment fees and damaged supplier relationships are the tip of it.

The less obvious cost is decision quality. When every payment lands on one desk, the person behind that desk stops reviewing and starts rubber-stamping - paying whoever shouts loudest rather than applying real scrutiny. That's not what financial control should look like. Instead the finance team is working reactively to quell the noise.

Then there's the opportunity cost. A director reviewing 150 invoices a month is not spending that time on strategy, fundraising, or hiring. You're paying a senior leader's salary for them to be a human approval stamp.

And when auditors arrive, "the director approved everything from their phone in a taxi" is not the trail anyone wants to produce. The control you thought you had was never really there.

What fixing it looks like

The end state isn't "nobody approves anything." It's structured delegation. Invoices under a certain threshold get approved by the relevant team lead. Anything over that goes to finance. Only genuinely significant spend reaches the director's desk - and when it does, they have the context and headspace to review it properly. Suppliers get paid on time, staff stop chasing, and the director gets hours back every week.

Your first move

Pick one category of spend - the one that generates the most chasing - and write down who currently approves it and who should. That gap is your starting point.

“The Inbox Optimist”: email was never built for this

Somewhere in your inbox, between a meeting invitation and a newsletter you'll never read, there's an invoice that was supposed to be approved last week. You forwarded it. Someone replied. But the thread has forked into three conversations and one attachment might be the updated version - or might be the original.

This is what happens when email gets pressed into service as an approval system, a document repository, and an audit trail. It can't do any of those jobs reliably. But by the time you realize that, your entire AP process is buried in threads nobody can untangle.

A consultancy processing around 400 AP invoices a month described it clearly:

"It's very much a case of emails, email approvals. And it's so easy for data and information to get lost in the ether."

When your audit trail is someone's inbox, it exists only as long as they don't archive, delete, or simply miss the message.

The real damage shows up in the time it eats. At the same firm, the impact on one team member was staggering: "A good 50% of his day is spent processing invoices, chasing approvals, trying to find the trail of when they last chased them." Half a working day, every day, spent navigating email threads.

A manufacturing business with multiple departments saw the security angle too: "Operational expenses are typically done by email. From a security point of view and traceability, it's terrible." Anyone can forward an invoice. Anyone can reply "approved." There's no verification that the right person approved the right version of the right document.

At a construction company, the burden fell on one person: "We haven't been able to enforce anything because Amy's managed it through her emails. Quite a bit of a burden on Amy having to chase everyone all the time." When one person holds the process together through sheer force of memory and follow-up, you don't have a system. You have a single point of failure named Amy.

And for some businesses, the reckoning comes from outside. A KPMG auditor told one securities firm directly that automated approvals would be in scope for their next review. At that point it was no longer optional.

What "the Inbox Optimist" is actually costing

Every email-based approval carries hidden costs. There's the labor: someone has to send the email, chase the response, find the thread, confirm the version, and manually update the accounting system. There's the compliance risk: email doesn't record who opened an attachment, whether they reviewed it, or whether the person who replied "looks good" actually had authority to approve that spend. And there's the error rate: invoices paid twice, or not at all; amounts transposed between the email and the accounting system; approved invoices sitting in someone's inbox because nobody pushed them through to payment.

What fixing it looks like

The goal isn't to eliminate email from your business. It's to stop using it for something it was never designed to do. In the fixed state, invoices arrive and get routed to the right approver automatically. The approver sees the invoice, the supporting documents, and the relevant context in one place. They approve or reject, and the decision is logged with a timestamp and a name. No chasing or forwarding or "did you see my email?"

Your first move

Search your inbox for "invoice" or "approve." Count how many threads from the last month involve chasing, clarifying, or re-sending. That number is your business case.

“The Spreadsheet Hero”: one person, one point of failure

The spreadsheet has fourteen columns, color-coded status labels, and a set of conditional formatting rules that only one person fully understands. It's a work of art, honestly. It's also the only thing standing between the business and complete financial chaos - and if that person gets sick, goes on holiday, or decides to leave, the entire process goes with them.

The spreadsheet hero pattern usually belongs to an office manager or finance assistant who has quietly built an elaborate tracker in Excel or Google Sheets. It sort of works. But has a good chance of breaking at any point.

One office manager at a media company walked through the full cycle:

"I do everything manually. I keep a spreadsheet of all our expenses. Literally Alan will send me an invoice and I will write it all down in the spreadsheet. I forward the invoice, wait till it comes back, then change its status to approved and then send the table of approved invoices to my boss who sends me the money and I pay each person individually."

Every step is manual, every handoff is an email and every status update is a cell someone has to remember to change.

The real danger is what falls between the cracks. A construction company found the gap the hard way: "The process is very manual. Invoices come through the accounts email and then I plot them on a spreadsheet. Sometimes there's one that we missed. It was approved in the spreadsheet but wasn't pushed through to Xero. That's why it wasn't paid." The spreadsheet said approved. The accounting system said nothing. The supplier said unpaid.

At an entertainment company, the chaos multiplied with scale: "All these different spreadsheets and then people keeping track and then sending it through email and then some of them are missing approvals." When every department runs its own tracker, nobody has a single view of what's been approved, what's pending, and what's been missed.

A furniture manufacturer working across three offices in three time zones described the workaround: "I have to literally copy and paste the screen off Xero. It's quite cumbersome." When your process requires copying data between systems by hand, errors become a certainty, not just a risk.

And for those who've lived through it long enough, the fatigue is real. A finance manager at a biosecurity not-for-profit summed it up: "Saves me having to have yet another Excel spreadsheet or another manually managed process. I've become a bit of a slave to the Xero reports."

What being a “Spreadsheet Hero” actually costs

The Spreadsheet Hero's time is the most visible cost - hours spent updating cells, chasing approvers, cross-referencing between the tracker and the accounting system, and fixing entries that got out of sync. Less visible is the reconciliation problem: when the spreadsheet and the accounting system disagree (and they will), someone has to figure out which one is right, rebuilding the timeline of what actually happened. And then there's the key-person risk. The spreadsheet works because someone built it and maintains it. None of that logic is documented. When they're not available, nobody else can run the process.

What fixing it looks like

The spreadsheet doesn't need to be bigger or better. It needs to be replaced by a system designed for the job - one where invoices are tracked automatically, approvals are captured in real time, and the accounting system is updated without anyone copying and pasting between screens. Invoices enter the system once, get routed to the right approver based on rules you set, and flow straight into your accounting platform once approved. No spreadsheet to maintain. No manual status updates. No gap between "approved" and "paid."

Your first move

Open your tracking spreadsheet and count how many invoices from last month required manual follow-up because the status was wrong, incomplete, or out of date. That's your error rate - and your case for change.

"The Next Month Manager": the fix that never gets fixed

You know the approval process is broken. You've known for months. You've researched solutions, bookmarked a few product pages, maybe started a business case document that's sitting in draft. But there's always something more urgent - a board pack to finish, a month-end to close, a hire to onboard.

The fix keeps getting pushed to "next month." And next month never comes.

A finance lead at a care organization summed it up:

"It depends on workload. Whenever good times are, basically if my boss goes on holiday and I have some quiet time to look at projects."

The improvement only happens when there's nothing else to do. Which means it almost never happens - even as the team chases approvals daily.

Some organizations wait until the process becomes genuinely unsustainable. At a museum, the finance manager described a system that was decades past its useful life: "When people ask me, I tell them it belongs in a museum. It was created in about the 1980s." Everyone knows it's broken. Nobody has carved out the time to fix it.

Sometimes the trigger is a crisis. At a charity, the decision to automate came only after two finance assistants resigned in the same month: "I need to automate as much as possible to cover that." By then, the project was reactive, not planned - less time to evaluate, less time to implement, more pressure to get something in place.

The instinct to phase things gradually is understandable but often backfires. One consulting firm tried to take it slow: "We don't want to do everything at the same time." Then subcontractors were "on the phone immediately screaming and shouting, 'why have I not got X?'" The partial fix created new problems because the old process and the new one were running in parallel.

What being a “Next Month Manager” actually costs

Delay has a compounding cost. Every month without automation is another month of manual processing, late payments, missed approvals, and audit risk. And when the trigger finally comes - a resignation, an auditor flag, a supplier escalation - decisions get made under pressure. The proper evaluation gets skipped. The configuration gets rushed. Six months later, manual workarounds are back because the solution wasn't set up right the first time.

The irony is that implementing approval automation takes far less time than most people assume. Setup takes hours, not months. The ongoing cost of not doing it - measured in time, errors, and risk - dwarfs the setup effort within the first month.

What fixing it looks like

The fixed state is one where approvals happen automatically, in the background, as part of normal operations. Finance staff aren't chasing. Managers aren't overwhelmed. Auditors get clean documentation. And when someone leaves, the process keeps running because it's built into the system, not into a person. The key insight is that you don't need to fix everything at once - start with one workflow, get it running, then expand. The phased approach works, but only if you actually start.

Your first move

Block 90 minutes in your calendar this week. Not next week. Use that time to start a free trial of ApprovalMax and set up one approval workflow for your highest-volume invoice category. That's it: one workflow. Then "next month" becomes "already done."

So which one are you?

Most businesses recognize elements of more than one pattern. A key-holder setup often creates inbox optimism downstream. Spreadsheet heroes usually emerge to manage the chaos that email approvals produce. And next month managers are often sitting in the middle of all three, intending to fix things when they get a quiet moment.

The quiz cuts through that. Six questions about how your team actually handles invoices and approvals - not how it's supposed to work, but how it works on a Tuesday afternoon when someone is chasing a payment. The result tells you which trap is your primary one, and what to do about it.

Find your approval blind spot → take the quiz

The actual cost of waiting

So what’s the cost of prolonging? Here's the honest version of the "fix it later" calculation:

Every month of manual processing costs roughly $8,000+ in avoidable labor (for a 1,000-invoice business)
Every month of error exposure means more duplicate payments, more reconciliation time, more audit risk
Every month of retrospective reporting means decisions made on stale data
Every month of manual drudge work chips away at the team you're trying to keep

The busy season will end. It always does. But the cost of the process you're running has already started.

The question isn't whether you have time to look at this. It's whether you can afford to wait until you do.

The costs of a broken approval process add up quick

If you want to put a number on what your current process is costing: run it through the ROI calculator.

What "fixed" actually looks like

The finance teams who've closed this gap describe success in remarkably consistent terms. The general outcome for them is the sound of silence. The constant ping of 'Where is this invoice?' stops. The month-end scramble vanishes. Instead of chasing ghosts in an inbox, they finally have the quiet headspace to actually look at the numbers, rather than just surviving them.

"Invoices just move. I don't chase anymore."

"I handed the auditor a login and said everything's in there."

"Month-end isn't a weekend project."

That's what the other side of the fix looks like. And the process of getting there - implementing approval automation that routes invoices automatically, enforces policy, and builds an audit trail as a natural by-product of the work - doesn't take as long as most finance leaders expect.

ApprovalMax gives SMB finance teams control over every stage of outbound spend: from capture to approval to payment. Built on the most sophisticated approval intelligence in the market, it ensures every dollar leaving the business is verified, visible, and accounted for.

Every spend that leaves your business should leave with your permission. If that's not how it works right now, the solution is easier to fix than you might think.