See, I would argue the exact opposite. In a feudal hierarchy, the people making the decisions are usually the ones with the least relevant information -- or in the best case, with the most outdated information.
Hierarchies are great at distributing information downward, but not particularly good at aggregating it upward. This is often for power gradient reasons: people enhance the truth to look better when communicating upwards. Even when people communicate honestly, there's a lot of context and nuance that gets lost as a message travels from person to person.
In an actual democracy, you'll generally find that the people with the best view of the information and consequences of the decision (by virtue of being the ones affected by the decision) are the ones to make that decision.
----
Edit: I think I see where the misunderstanding comes from! In your typical corporate hierarchy, the people at the bottom usually don't care about understanding the information that is needed to make a decision -- because they won't be asked to have an input on that decision anyway.
In a sense, the corporate hierarchy is a self-fulfulling prophecy. By dumbing down the role of the employees and preventing them from having any real responsibility, the employees turn into mindless ass-covering robots without responsibility, and then the corporate hierarchist uses the argument that "democracy doesn't work because employees are just mindless robots that cannot take responsibility."
My experience is that when you give people authority over their own selves with a "I dare you to be responsible" what happens is that most people, well, are very responsible.
People get together for common causes and sometimes they need to be reminded what that common cause is, but once they have that in mind, they're fairly good at cooperating productively.
