Blog › Product
Content review for teams: roles, approvals and who signs off
How to set up content review in a team: four roles, who approves what, how to route a draft to the right person, and how to stop review becoming a bottleneck.
· 5 min read
Content review in a team works when everyone knows three things: who can draft, who can approve, and who decides when there is a disagreement. Four roles cover almost every team: member, reviewer, admin and owner. Give most people the ability to draft, a trusted few the ability to approve, and make sure nobody approves their own work. That is the whole structure.
Why teams need defined roles
With one person, review is a habit. With three or more, it has to be a system, because otherwise:
- Two people publish conflicting messages on the same day.
- A new colleague posts something well meant and wrong.
- Everyone assumes someone else checked.
- Nobody is sure whether they are allowed to press publish, so nothing goes out.
Roles replace assumptions with rules.
The four roles
| Role | Can do | Typical person |
|---|---|---|
| Member | Create drafts | Writers, subject experts, new joiners |
| Reviewer | Create drafts, approve or reject | Editors, team leads |
| Admin | All of that, plus invite people and change roles | Marketing manager, operations |
| Owner | Everything, including closing the workspace | Founder or department head |
Start people at the lowest role that lets them do their job. It is easier to raise a role than to lower one.
The principle: separation of duties
The person who writes should not be the only person who approves.
It is not about trust. Authors read what they meant to write, not what they wrote. A second reader catches the wrong date, the ambiguous sentence and the joke that does not travel.
For members, this should be a hard rule enforced by the tool. For reviewers, admins and owners in a small team, self-approval is sometimes practical, and it is better as a conscious exception than a habit.
Who approves what
Not every piece needs the same reviewer. Write the routing down.
| Content | Approver |
|---|---|
| Routine social posts | Any reviewer |
| Product announcements | Product lead |
| Pricing, legal or security | A named senior person |
| Hiring and people posts | People team |
| Replies to complaints | Support lead |
| Anything during an incident | The incident owner |
A short table like this prevents most "who should look at this?" delays.
The flow
- A draft is created, by a person or by software.
- It waits, marked as awaiting approval. It cannot be published in this state.
- A reviewer is notified.
- The reviewer reads it, edits if needed, and approves or rejects with a reason.
- Approved content is published at its scheduled time.
- If it changes after approval, it returns to step 2.
Step 6 is the one teams forget, and the one that matters on the day someone "just fixes a word".
Keeping review fast
A slow review is a broken review, because people route around it.
- Agree a turnaround. "By the next working morning" is reasonable.
- Notify reviewers where they will see it: in the tool, by email, in chat.
- Review in batches at set times.
- Let reviewers edit instead of sending drafts back.
- Name a backup for every reviewer.
- Approve in bulk when several routine items are ready.
If drafts regularly wait more than a day, you have too few reviewers, or too many drafts.
Giving feedback that improves the next draft
- Reject with a reason. "Tone too salesy" teaches. Silence does not.
- Fix small things yourself.
- Turn repeated corrections into rules. If you remove the same phrase three times, add it to the style guide.
- Be specific and brief.
Onboarding someone new
- Give them the member role.
- Share the voice guide and three examples of approved posts.
- Review their first ten drafts closely, with comments.
- Promote to reviewer when their drafts stop needing edits.
Everyone starting as a member is not a slight. It is how they learn the voice with a safety net.
When AI is drafting
Software that drafts is, in effect, a very fast member. The same rule applies: its drafts wait for a reviewer.
Three additions for AI drafts:
- Check facts harder. Models state things confidently whether or not they are true.
- Check for sameness. If every draft has the same shape, vary the brief.
- Keep money and messaging with people. Ad spend and messages to customers should not be started by automation.
More in human in the loop: when to approve and when to automate.
How team workspaces work in FinalPost AI
FinalPost AI's team workspaces use exactly these four roles.
- Members create drafts with agents. A member cannot approve their own work, and that is enforced on the server.
- Reviewers, admins and owners can approve or reject team drafts, including their own.
- Admins and owners invite teammates and change roles. Only the owner can delete the workspace.
When a member's agent runs, the draft lands as awaiting approval and appears in a Needs your review panel at the top of the Publish Queue for every reviewer, admin and owner, with a preview and who wrote it. Reviewers can edit before approving, and approve or reject one at a time or in bulk. Someone who reviews for several workspaces sees all their pending reviews together.
To route a draft to one person, add a Review step to a workflow and assign it to a named teammate, or leave it at "notify any reviewer".
Creating a workspace is a Scale feature, and Scale includes three seats: you and two teammates. Only the owner needs Scale. Joining someone else's workspace is free on any plan.
Frequently asked questions
How many reviewers does a team need?
At least two people who can approve, so one can cover for the other. A common ratio is one reviewer for every three or four people drafting.
Should managers approve everything?
No. That creates a bottleneck. Managers should approve high-risk content and delegate routine approval to trusted reviewers.
What is the difference between a reviewer and an admin?
A reviewer approves and rejects content. An admin can also invite people and change their roles. Keep the two separate so that approving content does not require control of the team.