Automated organizational decision systems increasingly shape hiring, task allocation, performance evaluation, scheduling, promotion, discipline, and access to work. Yet employees who question these decisions often confront uncertain authority, opaque criteria, fragmented accountability, and channels designed for human rather than computational decision processes. This Original Taxonomy Article develops a proposed classification of employee responses to such conditions. It integrates scholarship on employee voice and silence, algorithmic management, worker resistance, explanation, formal reporting, work design, and procedural legitimacy. The proposed Employee-Voice Taxonomy distinguishes four strategies: direct contestation, formal escalation, explanation-seeking, and silent compliance. These strategies are differentiated by whether a response is expressed or withheld, whether it targets interpretation or outcome, and whether the dispute remains local or moves to an authorized institutional channel. The article further proposes that employees may move recursively among strategies as perceived error, explanation adequacy, contextual voice efficacy, dependency, retaliation risk, collective support, and prior organizational response change. Governance implications emphasize identifiable human authority, intelligible explanations, correction routes, protected escalation, evidentiary preservation, and reasoned closure. The taxonomy is not presented as a validated causal model, exhaustive classification, or universally effective prescription. Its categories and transition pathways require longitudinal, comparative, experimental, qualitative, and multilevel testing. The contribution is a bounded conceptual vocabulary for examining how employees respond when consequential organizational authority is exercised partly through automated systems.
