Skip to content
BiasMedium

Whose Voice Survives the Summary? A Voice-Retention Audit of LLM Employee Listening

Occurred
Sep 30, 2026
Published
Sep 30, 2026
Source
arXiv

Summary

Organizations increasingly route employee feedback to leaders through large language model (LLM) summaries, an unaudited layer that silences already-spoken voice. We introduce a Voice Retention / Representation Ratio metric for representational bias in summarization and apply it to a bilingual (English/German) corpus of 2,586 free-text responses from a global professional service company. First, employees supply criticism more reliably than praise (withholding praise is 82 times more common). Second, across 45 leader-summaries the pipeline filters by popularity, not sentiment: criticism survives, yet a concern voiced once is dropped 86% of the time, with short and German-only content lost on the same axis (theme retention 0.14 vs 0.74; German directional). Controlling for frequency, sentiment has no independent effect; the harm is prevalence-driven, which sentiment-only audits miss. A targeted prompt recovers only named themes. We contribute the metric, field evidence, and a disaggregated voice-retention card.

Classification

Category confidence: 90%
Severity confidence: 85%

Rationale: The study documents representational bias in LLM summaries where minority language content and single-occurrence concerns are systematically filtered out.

Classifier: Qwen/Qwen3.5-35B-A3B-FP8

Visit source