Expertise vs. Empowerment: Comparing Classical and Systemic Approaches to Organizational Consulting

Abstract

This paper compares two fundamental approaches in organizational consulting: classical expert consulting and systemic consulting. Based on an extensive literature review, it examines their theoretical underpinnings, methodological differences, and practical applications. Classical expert consulting is defined by a hierarchical structure in which external consultants diagnose problems and deliver predefined solutions. It is particularly effective in technical or time-sensitive contexts but risks creating organizational dependency. In contrast, systemic consulting focuses on facilitating self-reflection and resource activation within the organization. It views problems as interconnected and dynamic, promoting sustainable change through participative processes. While more time-consuming, it strengthens organizational resilience and internal problem-solving capacities. Case examples illustrate the advantages and limitations of each approach. The study concludes that both models have specific strengths and that their effectiveness depends on the context and consulting goals. A situational or combined application may offer the most value in addressing complex organizational challenges.