Gender and Leadership in Executive Roles: Addressing Paradoxical Tensions in Collaborative Networks

Executive positions are often described as being based on objective success criteria and key performance indicators (KPIs) serve as primary metrics—for example in science publications and third-party funding, primarily secured through project leadership. However, such criteria have been proven to be biased. While institutional gender equality, equity, diversity and inclusion (GEEDI) strategies to overcome biases and barriers are well-documented, particularly within permanent structures, little research examines how gender equity is implemented, governed, and sustained in professions relying on networks of interrelated projects, where executive leaders must navigate competing priorities, divergent expectations, and complex stakeholder landscapes. The complexity of GEEDI implementation stems from the hybrid nature of project-based professions, involving temporary structures, diverse national and institutional frameworks, and distributed governance mechanisms leading to specific challenges. We argue that these challenges are best understood as paradoxical tensions—persistent, interrelated contradictions that cannot be resolved through traditional approaches but require continuous negotiation and adaptation. Drawing on paradox theory, we analyse GEEDI implementation through five paradoxes: the difference paradox (standardisation vs. flexibility), the distance paradox (temporary projects vs. permanent organisations), the identity paradox (individual vs. collective identities), the learning paradox (new knowledge vs. institutional inertia), and the temporal paradox (past experiences vs. future aspirations). We apply this analytic lens to explore governance and leadership of the Human Brain Project and EBRAINS2.0 to exemplify the theoretical framework and derive actionable recommendations for academia and project-based professions in general. Our findings highlight that recognising and constructively engaging with paradoxical tensions, including those embedded in biased evaluation systems, is essential for improving gender equity in executive roles.