i mean, my initial snarky-ness aside, i do understand where you're coming from, and i definitely think you have a point. there is a reason we use abstractions and delegation to reduce complexity and burden of responsibility, absolutely, because it helps us (in my own words):

make things easier to reason about and helps stream-line informed decision making processes, so we are not weighed down by too many, sometimes irrelevant details, which as you have already mentioned, permits us to focus on what matters -- the business logic, etc.. that's the idea, anyway.

but your shortsighted-ness fails to acknowledge the people vocalizing their concerns probably understand this. most in the ‘professional’ world understand this, i think. it's not rocket science nor some hidden gem of understanding, because they experience it every day at their domain -- it’s just par for the every-day course.
however, just because we set ourselves up to ignore std::static_cast<people>(details), doesn't mean we always should. Cleese argues the practice is a major flaw in many business models, especially when it comes to forming new or strengthening existing direction, which as a process involves a lot of creativity and speculation and insights. he doesn’t say that current models or existing models are failing, or are not successful -- obviously there is proof to the contrary -- but he does argue they are fundamentally lacking qualities that can make them better to the benefit of not only the business, but everyone involved.

i am inclined to agree. the current practices, such as the one outlined in your description, are closed loops, only letting in knowledge ‘deemed’ worthy or relevant by some authority, thus limiting possibility -- actually, your view almost describes a caste system in which people should always know their place and never speak "above" their class level. and those that do should be reminded of their place and be told they are not entitled to having such a voice (i hope that is more me reading between the lines because if not, that's an insanely small worldview i fundamentally do not share in the context of what fosters growth, business or humane).

but you are not saying that. you are only kind of saying that. what you are really saying is, by using a bunch of business logic and jargon to dress-up a message:

people are "not entitled" to a perspective because they do not know any better, or could not know any better (ie: lack the capacity to reason about ‘complex’ business matters, which you more or less said yourself), and that the authorities that do know better, that are capable, should simply, and always, ignore said people and not ‘cave’ to such uninformed/uneducated/whatever voices (as if some of the say, engineers, managers, researchers, scientists, product developers, salesmen and women, and other ‘boots on the ground’ could never have any insights into direction, customer satisfaction, product development etc. etc. etc.).

this is gate-keeping. specifically, a power-move steeped in ego and an (overly) inflated sense of one’s self. it’s also more dismissive than it is understanding and implies you believe the perspective is not worth having, or worth sharing, which is just a marginalization of the vocal demographic. hell, i'd even go so far as to say it also demonstrates a total lack of respect for your fellows and what they can potentially offer you and your business, hence my reason(s) for linking the above video -- you’ve created so many barriers between you and your employees, for the sake of your business, you’ve totally lost touch.

it also seems as though you never bothered actually going through the list of people who are 'speaking' and their roles, which is fine. you are entitled to do whatever you want. but if you did, then you are being disingenuous at worse, and (i repeat) short-sighted at best.