I believe that we simultaneously have given too much and not enough power to experts these days. This is because society is not homogenous, and as a result, there are many separate groups of people and organizations that give varying amounts of power to various experts. For example, look at the various opinions that people post on social media. Some people give so little power to experts that they end up ignoring them entirely, or intentionally doing the opposite of what they advise. Such groups as this include the flat earth community and the anti-vaccination community. These are groups who have heard what experts have said, and have completely ignored it. I would say that these groups give too little power to experts.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are groups that give far too much power to experts, such as overly-hierarchical organizations, or any organization that acknowledges seniority. In these situations, these organizations give too much power to experts, because acknowledging seniority, especially when making decisions, can frequently lead to a decision being made simply because someone has been in the field longer, rather than by analyzing whether or not it is the best decision. This causes a multitude of problems. For one, if the junior had the quantifiably better idea, yet got snubbed due to seniority, the junior is less likely to present ideas in the future, knowing that they will not be taken seriously. Also, since seniority is valued, the idea that is presented could fail to account for recent changes in the field, making some expert opinions more likely to be outdated, and therefore not ideal.
In conclusion, I believe that as a whole, we average a decent balance of power in regard to experts, but on a more individual level, most organizations are unbalanced on one side or the other.