Without access to a parallel universe generator, I don't see how you could. All I'm asserting is that I think that you can't reliably say that management or workers/employees are consistently in a better position to understand the best path forward for a company. Either one can be overly focused on replicating past success; either one can be wrong about opportunities for growth.
It could be put to the test if more industries, such as tech, experimented with unions, or otherwise empowering employees to share in decision-making.
It is rather strange that in a field where there are all sorts of autonomous movements such as open source projects or hacker collectives, there is still the hierarchical belief that the managers knows best. Ah, well FOSS always do have their share of Benevolent Dictator for Life positions.
Employees can become managers. This class divide is so much less relevant today than it was due to startup culture. Funding is not that hard to come by.
If the divide is not great, there's no reason why collective representation of employees would "distort market forces." If c-suite can represent themselves, no reason why engineering guilds shouldn't have the power to determine the outcome of their companies. Especially if the class divide is not as great, as you say, then the employees would have similar incentives to that of management.
But as there are not many tech companies with unions, co-ops, or other structures with more employee power, that test does not exist and the current success and failure of companies is immaterial to this debate. The experiment has not been started in full, other than a few isolated causes such as Kickstarter (which was only inaugurated recently).