Sequential vs. parallel approvals: which workflow should you use?

Sequential approvals send a request to reviewers one after another. Parallel approvals send the same review stage to several people at the same time. Choose sequential routing when a later decision depends on an earlier one. Choose parallel routing when reviewers can assess the same version independently.

That dependency test matters more than speed. A parallel route can create rework when one reviewer changes the request while others review it. A sequential route can add days of waiting when each specialist could have acted independently.

Source review: August 9, 2026. The examples in this guide illustrate workflow design. Your finance, legal, compliance, security, and operational leaders should set the authority and completion rules for your organization.

Sequential and parallel approvals work differently

In a sequential approval workflow, each stage waits for the required outcome from the stage before it. A finance director may review a purchase only after the budget owner confirms the business need.

In a parallel approval workflow, multiple reviewers receive work at the same stage. Legal, security, and privacy teams can review one software request independently, then the workflow joins their decisions before it continues.

Official Salesforce approval guidance uses the same distinction: serial steps start in order, while parallel steps can begin together. Microsoft’s approval documentation adds a second design choice inside a parallel stage: whether everyone must approve or the first response completes the stage.

Use four questions to choose the route

Do not ask which route looks faster in a diagram. Ask how the decisions depend on one another.

1. Does a later reviewer need an earlier decision? If yes, use sequential stages for that dependency.
2. Can reviewers assess the same version independently? If yes, they can work in parallel.
3. Can one review change what another person must assess? If yes, sequence those reviews or define a clear re-review rule.
4. What exact result lets the workflow continue? Define whether all reviewers, any one reviewer, a quorum, or one named authority must approve.

This method often produces a hybrid route. That is a useful result, not a design failure. Most enterprise decisions contain both independent reviews and authority dependencies.

Choose sequential approval when order changes the decision

Use sequential approval when each stage creates information, authority, or a version that the next reviewer needs.

Sequential routing fits these cases:

• Authority rises with a threshold. A budget owner confirms the need before a finance leader approves a larger commitment.
• One review changes the artifact. Legal revises contract terms before the executive sponsor accepts the final agreement.
• A gate must pass first. Operations verifies that a request is complete before specialist review begins.
• Later reviewers need the decision record. A final authority reviews earlier comments, exceptions, and conditions before signing off.
• A rejection should stop the route. The workflow should not ask more people to spend time on a request that has already failed a mandatory gate.

The tradeoff is accumulated wait time. Keep the chain as short as the policy allows. A title is not a reason to add another approval stage. Every reviewer should own a distinct decision.

Choose parallel approval when reviews are independent

Use parallel approval when reviewers can assess separate criteria against the same evidence without waiting for one another.

Parallel routing fits a security review, legal terms review, and data privacy review of the same vendor package. Each team owns a different question. None needs the other team’s answer to begin.

Before launching the stage, define its completion rule:

Parallel does not mean “email everyone.” The workflow still needs named roles, deadlines, rejection rules, delegation, and an event that joins the separate decisions.

A hybrid workflow often matches the real decision

A hybrid approval workflow combines parallel and sequential stages. Use it when some reviews are independent but the final authority depends on all required findings.

Consider a software purchase:

1. Validate the request. Operations checks the business owner, budget code, vendor, data type, contract term, and supporting documents.
2. Run specialist reviews in parallel. Security assesses technical risk, legal reviews the contract, and privacy reviews personal-data handling.
3. Join the decisions. The workflow waits until every mandatory specialist records an outcome. A rejection stops the route or returns it for revision.
4. Apply sequential authority. The budget owner approves the business commitment. A higher finance authority acts next only when the amount crosses its threshold.
5. Record the final state. The requester sees approved, rejected, or returned, plus any next action they own.

This route overlaps independent wait time without hiding the authority chain. It also makes rework explicit: if the vendor changes a material contract or security term, the workflow sends the new version back to the affected reviewers.

Define the roles, thresholds, evidence, delegation, and escalation rules in an approval matrix before you configure the route.

Build the route from states, decisions, and join rules

A reliable design needs more than a list of approvers. Write down the data and events that move the request.

• Give every stage a state. Use labels such as Pending security review, Pending finance approval, Returned for changes, Approved, and Rejected.
• Keep decisions separate. Store each reviewer’s outcome, comments, identity, and decision time instead of overwriting one shared field.
• Define the join. State the exact condition that closes a parallel stage.
• Define rejection behavior. Decide whether one rejection stops the route, returns it to the requester, or sends it to an exception owner.
• Control revisions. Mark which changes require a fresh review and which do not.
• Set delegation and escalation. Name the backup role, the time limit, and the owner of stalled or disputed requests.

Formaloo’s current dual-approval guide documents a sequential pattern with separate approver fields and On update rules that advance or reject a request. Its multi-reviewer scoring guide documents the parallel pattern: separate reviewer decisions feed Advanced logic, which evaluates the final state after every required review exists.

Operations teams can adapt those building blocks with admin-only decision fields, assignee fields, Advanced logic, and Table or Kanban views. Keep configuration details in the workflow record, then test what each requester and reviewer can see.

Avoid these routing mistakes

• Running dependent reviews in parallel. If legal changes the contract, security may need to assess a different version.
• Sequencing independent reviews. Waiting for brand review before security starts adds idle time without improving the security decision.
• Leaving “parallel approval” undefined. All must approve, first response, and quorum create different outcomes.
• Using one shared status for every reviewer. You lose the separate decisions and cannot tell which review remains open.
• Ignoring rejection and revision paths. An approval diagram that covers only the happy path is not ready to build.
• Adding senior reviewers by default. Route to the lowest role with enough authority, then escalate by threshold or exception.
• Not naming the final authority. Specialist agreement does not automatically answer who can commit the organization.

Test the workflow before people depend on it

Run test requests through every meaningful branch:

• A sequential approver approves and the next stage starts.
• A sequential approver rejects and later stages do not start.
• All parallel reviewers approve and the join closes once.
• One parallel reviewer rejects and the workflow follows the documented rule.
• A reviewer asks for changes and the new version returns to the correct roles.
• A threshold boundary sends the request to the expected authority.
• An approver is unavailable and the approved delegate receives the work.
• A deadline passes and the request follows the escalation path.
• Requesters see status without seeing admin-only comments or unrelated requests.
• The decision record shows every required outcome and the version reviewed.

If your current requests still move through inboxes and spreadsheets, start with the warning signs of a broken approval workflow. Then map dependencies before choosing a routing model.

The right answer is rarely “parallel everywhere” or “sequential everywhere.” Put dependent decisions in order, run independent reviews together, and define exactly how the branches rejoin.

Book a demo to build and deploy a governed enterprise approval workflow in Formaloo.

Sources

• Formaloo: How to build a dual-approval request workflow
• Formaloo: How to build a multi-reviewer scoring portal
• Formaloo: How to build an approval workflow
• Salesforce: Approval workflow types
• Microsoft: Configure preset approvals
• IBM: Approval management solution