An approval process meant to add control ends up adding three days to every deal instead.
Most approval processes that actually work resolve in one or two steps. A third step needs a specific, nameable risk behind it, not habit. Once a process reaches four or five steps, deal velocity almost always shows the damage, because every added approver is another calendar, another inbox and another chance for a deal to sit untouched over a weekend.
Why over engineered approval processes quietly kill velocity
Nobody designs a five step approval process on purpose in one sitting. It grows one exception at a time. A deal goes wrong, and a step gets added to catch that exact situation next time. Two years later the process has six steps, five of which exist to prevent problems that happened once and never again, and every single deal now pays the toll meant for the rare exception.
The cost shows up as days, not clicks. A step that waits on one manager's calendar adds a day by itself. Three steps in sequence, each waiting on a different person's attention, routinely adds most of a week to a deal that needed none of that scrutiny. Reps learn to pad their forecasts for the delay, which quietly distorts every pipeline report built on top of those numbers.
Design approval steps around actual risk, not habit
Every step in a healthy approval process should map to a specific, answerable question. What exactly are we checking for here, and what is the actual dollar or reputational exposure if we skip it. A discount approval step exists because an under margin deal costs real money. A step that exists because a VP once asked to see something is not a control, it is a habit wearing a control's clothing.
- List every current approval step on a single page, one line each
- Next to each step, write the specific risk it protects against, in one sentence
- If no one in the room can state that risk clearly, that step is a candidate for removal
- For steps that survive, confirm the threshold still matches today's deal sizes, not the ones from when the step was created
Dynamic routing so low risk deals skip the line
A fixed sequence of approvers treats a $2,000 renewal and a $200,000 new logo deal identically, which is exactly backwards. Dynamic approval routing uses entry criteria to send a deal down a different path based on its actual risk profile, so a small, standard renewal can clear in one step while a large or heavily discounted deal still gets full scrutiny.
| Route by | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Discount depth | A deal at list price carries a different risk than one at forty percent off. |
| Deal size vs. the rep's norm | A rep's biggest deal of the year deserves a second look that their average deal does not. |
| Customer type | A renewal from an existing account with a clean payment history rarely needs the same scrutiny as a brand new logo. |
| Skip condition | The clear majority of deals that meet none of the risk criteria should not be forced through every step by default. |
A quick audit for a process that has grown out of control
A control that nobody can justify in one sentence is not protecting the business. It is a toll charged to every deal that passes through it, and the business pays that toll in lost speed, every single week.
Approval steps often get rebuilt in Flow these days. Before you do, read our Salesforce Flow best practices, and if pipeline numbers already look distorted, see Salesforce dashboards leaders actually use.
