Is it appropriate to design a lifecycle state that uses a single 'Active' state for all non-terminated employees?

Designing a lifecycle state that uses a single 'Active' state for all non-terminated employees can lead to confusion, as it lacks the clarity provided by differentiating between various types of active statuses. Different types of roles, responsibilities, and security clearances could be associated with employees who are all categorized as 'Active.' Without distinct states, it becomes challenging for administrators to manage access rights, enforce compliance, and monitor user activities effectively.

For instance, employees may be in different phases of their employment, such as full-time, part-time, on leave, or probation. Each of these situations might necessitate different access permissions and security protocols. Not recognizing these distinctions may result in security vulnerabilities or compliance risks, as individuals might have access to resources that do not match their current employment status.

Additionally, having a single active state can negatively impact reporting and analytics. It would make it difficult to identify trends, manage resources, or make informed decisions about workforce management. Overall, clarity in lifecycle states facilitates better governance and operational efficiency, contributing to improved security posture and compliance adherence.