EMB structures have to be robust enough to deal with real-world conditions that may be disorganized or conflictual. Despite the multiplicity of possible organizational structures for an EMB, there are some general concepts worth considering when developing the secretariat’s structure:

1. Flatter organizational structures (fewer management levels) can deliver services faster, often more effectively, and reduce inefficient empire building.
2. Structures are most effective when they are clearly linked to the EMB’s strategic plan.
3. Outward-looking structures focused on service delivery to stakeholders are better than inward-looking ones focused on management or support functions.
4. Structures need to facilitate both vertical and horizontal communication within the EMB.
5. Clear work output expectations and accountability for services should be designed for each organizational unit.
6. Structures should promote support of operational areas by corporate service (e.g. finance and personnel) areas.
7. Given the prominence in the electoral cycle of the functions of monitoring, evaluation, review and reform, it is appropriate that they are reflected in and supported by the EMB’s structure.
8. In conjunction with that, an independent internal audit function that bypasses the secretariat structure and reports directly to the head of the secretariat or EMB members can help ensure integrity and probity.

Decentralized EMBs need to determine the accountability structure for regional offices. Do they report directly to the EMB members, or to the chief of the national secretariat, which is the more usual route? The situation becomes more complex if the legal framework defines a structure in which there are appointed members of regional EMBs and EMB secretariats at both regional and lower levels. This has been the case in Indonesia, where the appointed regional EMB members report hierarchically to the EMB members at the next- highest geographical-level EMB, and the regional-level secretariat reports to the head of the EMB secretariat at the next-highest level. Such complex and divided reporting arrangements may confuse staff about who ultimately directs them.

Where Independent or Mixed Models are used, there must be clarity regarding the way in which individual members of the policy-making/supervisory EMB are to deal with the secretariat and its staff. If the policy-making body reaches collective decisions that are communicated to the head of the secretariat for action, this minimizes the risk of confused lines of authority. If, however, members of the policy-making body are given separate responsibility for particular key activities, there is a danger that their roles will overlap with those of the heads of components of the secretariat. Such a situation can be especially problematic if the policy-making body consists of or includes political party representatives.

Some EMBs are structured into two main divisions:

1. electoral operations: covering subdivisions such as voter registration, boundary delimitation, organization of voting and vote counting, party and candidate registration, electoral training and development, research, information services and publications, and legal affairs; and
2. corporate services: covering subdivisions such as financial management, human resources management, knowledge management and IT infra- structure management.

However, some functions that do not fit easily into either of these two divisions — such as stakeholder relations, international relations and support for EMB members — may be attached directly to the head of the secretariat’s office. It is preferable that audit and evaluation functions report directly to the chair or members of the EMB for independent EMBs under the Independent Model and component independent EMBs under the Mixed Model, and to the EMB’s chief executive officer for governmental EMBs under either the Governmental or Mixed Model.

This two-division structure may not, however, necessarily fit specific electoral environments. There is great variety in structures deemed appropriate by EMBs, some of which are presented in the case studies. Judgement on an appropriate structure has to be made by each EMB, bearing in mind its environment, functions, priorities and strategy.