The Power of the Internal Review

How to unleash it? Learn from the Dutch

The internal review is one of the most underused transformation tools in political parties. In fact, it is one of the most cynically used – when there is an internal issue that needs to be buried, call an internal review, give it to an ally, drag it out, use vague language and present it to the smallest possible circle before calling it resolved. And whenever someone wants to revisit it, tell them there has been due process. What a waste.

It does not have to be this way.?

Dutch Directness

Dutch liberals D66 suffered an electoral blow at the 2023 general election, losing 15 of its 24 mandates.?

One of the measures they decided on to turn things around was an internal review. Whether or not you agree with the substantive findings is not the point of this blog. It is the methodology. It is not the first time D66 has done this.?

When D66 suffered its worst-ever result in the 2006 parliamentary elections, Gerard Schouw, a senator who agreed to temporarily return as party president to help turn things around, was put in charge to undertake an internal review.

The result was the report 'Ready for the Climb', full of statistics and uplifting graphs.?

No stones left unturned

The essence of ‘Ready for the Climb’ was that D66, which had exhausted itself ideologically at the time, should become a "vibrant party of ideas" again. This meant overhauling the party's organisation, with expert panels to encourage the involvement of people from business and civil society, and a talent-hunting committee to identify high quality potential recruits, who would then be mentored and trained in a 'talent class' for careers in council cabinets and the parliamentary group. D66 would also have to grow from ten thousand to at least fifteen thousand paying members - all concrete goals that were ambitious but achievable. Importantly, the report was ultimately presented at the party convent, to create alignment and accountability.?

The rest is history: 8 years later, in 2014, D66 climbed to its then-historic best election result.

Paper is impatient - when out in the open

In politics they say that paper is patient, especially when it ends up in drawers. But paper can also be rather impatient when it ends up on people's desks or even in the public eye. So transparency is a success factor.

What are other success factors behind the effective deployment of an interval review??

• The right leader: the review should be led by an independent and senior person with no personal ambitions, who is impartial, has no grudges and has good access to all levels, including the party leadership. They should have a strong understanding of transformation processes, having perhaps advised organisations on similar issues in a previous life.

• Sufficient resourcing: the review should be a budget item and get all the resources it needs to succeed.

• Broad remit: There are always multiple factors at play in a crisis situation. Therefore, the remit of the review should not be too narrow and nothing should be taboo.

• Clear timetable: the timetable for the review should be tight, allowing enough time for a full picture to emerge but not too much time for the issues to fizzle out. The timetable should be clearly communicated, including who will be informed of progress and results and when.

• Not too thick, not too vague: the review should be concise, and balance Dutch directness with language that won't be rejected because of grievances. Personal responsibility should be balanced with structural and cultural factors. The review’s recommendations should be concrete, and its objectives clear.

You have positive or negative experiences with internal reviews in your party or organisation? Let me know in the comments!