Whether it is more appropriate for EMB membership to be a full- time or part-time position will depend on the electoral and administrative circumstances. In a permanent EMB, workloads may be high throughout the electoral cycle, and demand that EMB members be full time and thus readily available for speedy consultation and decisions. Full-time EMB members may be a good option in a situation of recurring activities, such as regular partial or by-elections, voter education, continuous voter registration, or continuing electoral law reforms. In a temporary EMB, the election-period workload may be such that full-time members are preferable. Full-time EMB membership may also be appropriate where there are doubts about the impartiality and skill levels of the EMB’s secretariat.

Some electoral legal frameworks require that EMB appointments be full-time. Other countries appoint full-time EMB members even though it is not a legal requirement. In 2006, all members of the South African EMB but one (a sitting judge) hold full-time office, although this is not a legal requirement.

On the other hand, in countries where election dates are fixed and the EMB has limited responsibility between elections, it may be advisable to have part-time EMB members. This arrangement applies in countries such as Botswana, Cambodia, Croatia, Jamaica, Japan, and Namibia. In some countries, members of the EMB are part-time while the chair and deputy are full-time. Alternatively, members could serve part time in non-electoral periods and full time during electoral periods.

The benefit of having full-time EMB members must always be weighed against the cost of their services, when it may be years before the next election. There is also the risk of a potential conflict between senior members of the secretariat and full-time EMB members, especially when the former begin to interpret the full-time presence of the EMB members as interfering in implementation of policy.