What to remember
- Every post needs one owner and one person with final approval authority.
- Statuses should represent decisions, not vague percentages of completion.
- Risk-based review prevents ordinary posts from waiting on unnecessary stakeholders.
- Record the approved version and published URL so the workflow can support learning later.
LinkedIn approval workflow CSV
Import the template into Google Sheets, Excel, Notion, Airtable, or your project system. It includes a sample row and the fields described below.
01Use states that make the next action obvious
A status should tell the team what decision has been made and who acts next. Avoid labels such as 80% complete or almost done. They describe effort, not responsibility.
The five-state model below is enough for most teams. Add a separate Legal or Compliance review only when the subject matter requires it, not as a default stop for every post.
- 1
Brief
The audience, angle, source, author, and desired outcome are defined.
- 2
Drafting
One named writer owns the working version and resolves factual gaps.
- 3
In review
The draft is frozen for a review round with a deadline and named approver.
- 4
Approved
The final copy, assets, mentions, and publishing identity are explicitly accepted.
- 5
Scheduled
The approved version has a confirmed date, time zone, and publisher.
02Separate authorship, editing, and approval
One person may hold several roles on a small team, but the responsibilities should still be explicit. The author owns the ideas and final voice. The editor improves clarity and structure. The approver accepts business or reputational risk. The publisher confirms the final scheduled item.
Avoid collecting equal-weight opinions from a large group. Invite subject-matter comments where they are needed, then give one person authority to resolve conflicts and approve the final version.
Author
Owns the expertise, point of view, examples, and permission to publish under their identity.
Editor
Improves clarity and structure while preserving the author's meaning and recognizable voice.
Approver
Makes the final go/no-go decision and resolves conflicting feedback.
Publisher
Checks the approved version, media, mentions, time zone, and final destination.
03Review against a shared standard
Comments become easier to resolve when reviewers use the same questions. Separate required corrections from optional preferences. Required changes cover truth, permission, clarity, voice, and risk. Optional suggestions should never silently become blockers.
Truth
Are every claim, number, quote, and implication supportable?
Permission
Can the author share the customer detail, internal decision, screenshot, or result?
Clarity
Can the intended reader understand the point and know why it matters?
Voice
Would the named author say this, and have they approved the final wording?
Risk
Does the post introduce legal, compliance, confidentiality, employment, or reputational risk?
Action
Does the close fit the value of the post rather than forcing an unrelated pitch?
04Set review deadlines and escalation rules
A review process without a response window is only a waiting room. Agree on a normal review time, an expedited path, and what happens when the approver misses the deadline. Never assume silence means approval for sensitive content.
Track first-pass approval rate and time in review. If most drafts require several rounds, inspect the brief and source quality before blaming the editor. Rework often begins upstream.
A practical starting rule
Allow two working days for standard review, require explicit approval, and route only high-risk claims to an additional specialist reviewer. Adapt the timing to your team rather than treating it as a universal benchmark.
05Implement the template in 30 minutes
Download the CSV and import it into the system your team already checks. Replace sample names, define the allowed status values, and create filtered views for each author, reviewer, and publishing week.
- 1
Name the decision owner
Assign one final approver for each author or client before the next draft enters review.
- 2
Define risk levels
List the content categories that require an extra legal, compliance, customer, or leadership check.
- 3
Set status rules
Document who may move an item into review, approved, and scheduled.
- 4
Choose a deadline
Add normal and urgent review windows, including the time zone.
- 5
Run a retrospective
After ten posts, remove unused fields and fix the handoff that created the most delay.
Frequently asked questions
How many people should approve a LinkedIn post?
Most standard posts need one final approver. Add specialist review only when the content contains risks or claims that require that expertise.
Should the author approve the final version?
Yes. When a post publishes under an individual's identity, that person should see and approve the exact final wording and supporting media.
What is the difference between feedback and approval?
Feedback proposes a change. Approval is an explicit decision that the current version may proceed to scheduling or publication.
Can this template work for agencies?
Yes. Add client, workspace, and client approver fields, then create filtered views so each client only sees the posts and deadlines relevant to them.