Who Signs Off Before Payroll Goes Out? Segregation of Duties in Payroll

One person enters the changes. The same person hits submit. Nobody in between ever sees the number.

That is how payroll runs at more businesses than you would expect, and it usually is not a choice. It is what happens when the software was never built with a second checkpoint in mind. Segregation of duties is a basic internal control everywhere else in finance. In payroll, at a lot of companies, it does not exist.

Last updated: September 2026

The permission that approves your team also edits your own

An 875-employee auto dealership group ran into this configuring manager access. The same permission that lets a manager approve a team member’s time card also lets that manager edit their own. There is no way in the platform to separate the two. The group’s payroll lead described the choice as binary: either accept that managers can self-approve, or strip the permission entirely and route every time card through the business office on payroll day, across seventeen stores.

Neither option is a control. One accepts the risk. The other just moves the same lack of separation to a different desk.

Someone hits submit on six figures and texts the total afterward

At a physician’s group that had just lost its HR lead with no notice, the CEO discovered there was no approval step in the payroll platform at all. The prior process was informal: the person running payroll would text him and the CFO the totals after the run had already gone out. His own words were that a system should not be able to shut the CEO out of final payroll approval. But nothing in the configuration required a second signature before the money moved.

This is not a rare setup. It is the default in a lot of platforms unless someone specifically builds an approval chain, and building one after the fact, mid-transition, is exactly the wrong time to discover it does not exist.

Weak controls do not just risk fraud. They risk simple mistakes

A school employer described an employee who changed their own direct deposit information with no verification step in place, no requirement to confirm with a voided check or a bank letter. The change went through as submitted, and the money went to the wrong account. Nobody did anything malicious. There was simply no control that would have caught it.

That is the more common failure mode than outright fraud. A missing approval step does not usually get exploited. It just occasionally lets an honest mistake become an expensive one, with no second set of eyes positioned to catch it before the money is gone.

What a real approval chain requires

• A distinct submit permission, separate from data-entry access, held by someone other than the person entering changes
• Manager self-approval blocked by role, not just discouraged by policy, so the system enforces the separation rather than relying on trust
• Verification on direct deposit changes, such as a bank letter or voided check requirement, before a new account can receive funds
• A visible pre-submission summary that shows what changed since the last run, not just the final total, so an approver is reviewing something specific
• An audit trail that survives staff turnover, so a new hire inherits a record of who approved what, not a blank slate

The American Institute of CPAs lists segregation of duties among the core internal controls auditors test for, and payroll is one of the highest-risk areas precisely because it moves real money on a fixed schedule with limited time for review.

The fix is a configured approval step, not a more careful employee

None of the failures above came from carelessness. They came from software that let payroll move with one set of eyes on it, in businesses that assumed a second set of eyes was implied. Payroll and tax software that supports a real approval workflow, distinct from data-entry access, closes that gap without requiring anyone to remember to enforce it manually.

Combined with role-based permissions across HR and payroll, a business can require a second sign-off on both routine runs and any direct deposit or banking change, so the control exists whether or not any one person remembers to apply it that week.

Frequently Asked Questions

This guide reflects publicly available product information and independent reviewer data (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, Yelp, Better Business Bureau, Reddit, Software Advice, GetApp) as of 2026. Feature availability and pricing may vary by plan. Contact each provider for current details.

Disclaimer: Any product roadmap or future plans provided herein are for informational purposes only. They do not represent a commitment to deliver any material, code, feature, or functionality. Plans may change without notification. The development, release and timing of any features or functionality described remain at the sole discretion of Netchex, its affiliates, and partners. Netchex does not give legal, tax, or accounting advice. You are responsible for ensuring your use of Netchex product meets your individual business and compliance requirements.

Print this page