After the Crisis - Principles for a New Consulting
In the previous post, “From Firms to Systems: Why the Future of Consulting Is Architectural, Not Organizational,” we argued that consulting’s center of gravity is shifting from institutions to the way knowledge itself is structured and deployed.
This final article steps back to ask a broader question: what kind of consulting deserves to survive this transition?
Every industry that reaches a point of structural crisis faces the same choice: defend what exists, or redefine what matters.
Consulting is no exception.
The pressures explored throughout this series — from eroding business models to shifting client expectations, from AI-enabled transparency to the limits of scale — do not point to the end of consulting. They point to the end of certain practices that once defined it.
What emerges in their place is not a single new model, but a set of principles that separate what remains valuable from what no longer does.
What should disappear
Some practices are unlikely to survive the next decade — not because they are unethical, but because they are misaligned with the context in which consulting now operates.
Among them:
billing structures that equate effort with value,
opacity presented as expertise,
complexity sustained to justify prolonged engagement,
advisory relationships that substitute for internal judgment rather than strengthening it.
These practices thrived in environments of information scarcity and asymmetric expertise. Those conditions no longer hold.
The principles of a different model
Consulting that remains legitimate will not be defined by size or prestige, but by discipline.
Several principles are already emerging as non-negotiable:
Transparency — in methods, assumptions, and trade-offs.
Evidence — recommendations grounded in data, logic, and traceable reasoning.
Speed — not haste, but decisiveness enabled by clarity.
Transfer — leaving behind capability, not dependence.
These principles are not aspirational. They are becoming baseline expectations.
Smaller, clearer, more demanding
Paradoxically, the consulting that survives is likely to be more demanding — of both consultants and clients.
It will require sharper problem definition, clearer accountability, and greater willingness to measure outcomes. It will tolerate less ambiguity disguised as sophistication.
This model may be smaller in scale, but more precise in impact. Less heroic, more systemic. Less performative, more consequential.
The ethical role of the consultant in an AI-assisted world
As technology amplifies analytical power and reduces informational asymmetries, the ethical dimension of consulting becomes impossible to ignore.
When insight is easier to generate, the consultant’s responsibility shifts toward:
framing the right questions,
making assumptions explicit,
and resisting incentives that favor dependence over empowerment.
In an AI-assisted world, ethics is no longer a side consideration. It is embedded in how advisory value is defined and delivered.
Closing: a question for the reader
The consulting industry will change — not because it is under attack, but because its environment has changed.
The real question is not whether consulting will adapt, but who is willing to adapt with it.
Who is prepared to let go of practices that no longer serve clients, even if they once served the business?
Who is willing to be judged not by presence or polish, but by what remains when the engagement ends?
That question now belongs as much to practitioners as it does to the industry itself.
A position, not a conclusion
At GEA, we recognize ourselves in these questions. Not as observers of the industry’s transformation, but as practitioners shaped by it. Our work is guided by the same principles outlined here: transparency over opacity, systems over dependency, and impact over effort.
We believe the future of consulting is not about defending what once worked, but about designing what now makes sense.
