Many people believe that Asians excel in science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) occupations in the United States. And indeed, there are lots of people of Asian descent on the country's university campuses and in its STEM workplaces and federal laboratories. In 2009, Asians — defined as people from the Far East, southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent — made up 78% of doctoral recipients with temporary visas who were planning to work in the United States1. One could expect, then, that Asian men and women would be represented in similar proportions at the highest levels of STEM industry, academia and the federal workforce. But the data tell a different story.

Across all sectors, Asians in US STEM careers are not reaching leadership positions at the same rate as white people, or even as members of other underrepresented groups2. In academia, just 42% of Asian men are tenured, compared with 58% of white men, 49% of black men and 50% of Hispanic men. Just 21% of Asian women in academia are tenured, the lowest proportion for any ethnicity or gender. They are also least likely to be promoted to full professor.

Credit: GETTY/MATT KENYON

The industrial and federal workforces reflect similar numbers. Asian men are doing better than Asian women in reaching managerial positions in industry, but their numbers are lower than those for men of other races and ethnicities. Just 4% of Asian women in industry and 28% in the federal workforce hold managerial positions, again the smallest percentage for any ethnicity or gender.

Asians are almost absent at the very top of US companies. The company Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, based in Los Angeles, California, reported3 in 2010 that there were just ten Asians or Pacific Islanders among the chairs, presidents and chief executives of the 500 biggest US firms; only three of them were women.

Why the disparity? It may be down to cultural behaviours, and Western interpretation of these behaviours. Asians are often stereotyped as a 'model minority': hardworking and patient, family oriented, good at maths and science and having a strong work ethic, but also humble, non-confrontational and lacking the passion to be charismatic leaders. Worse yet, a work group of the US government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports4 that Asians are often perceived as 'forever foreign', which can affect how others assess their ability to communicate, their competence and, more importantly, their trustworthiness.

Good leadership has a cultural dimension. In east Asia, for example, effective leadership is measured by what managers do rather than by what they say, no matter how passionately they speak. A manager in charge of bringing out a product there would work day and night to get it out on time and free of defects. Communication skills are generally less important in this model. The idea in the United States that east Asians lack passion and opinions comes from cultural perceptions of their behaviour: in discussions, east Asians tend to respond slowly, taking time to listen to what is being said and thus giving the appearance to Americans that they are not engaged, are passive and have no opinion. These differences can easily lead to unintended biases.

The problem may go beyond verbal communication. Grant applications to the US National Science Foundation from Asian principal investigators between 2004 and 2011 have been consistently funded in lower proportions than those from black, Hispanic and white principal investigators5, which suggests that differences in writing styles may lead to biases. For example, east Asians' humble demeanour could cause them to describe the implications of their research in modest terms, which might bring them lower ratings from reviewers.

The idea of what makes a good leader in the United States needs to be re-examined. Cultural differences in communication style need further study; peer-review panels, managers and others should be trained to avoid biases. One model is the Strategies and Tactics for Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence programme at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Such programmes help scientists and engineers to be more effective in global collaborations and careers. At the same time, Asians need to recognize that hard work is not enough; they should seek training in communication, assertiveness and leadership skills.

The inequalities that mark the career arcs of Asian scientists and engineers in the United States are not widely discussed; the science community needs to bring greater attention to the data. We also need to look at whether Asians are recognized for their achievements, and whether they are receiving awards and becoming members of the US National Academies in numbers roughly equivalent to the proportion of Asians who rise to the level of full professor.

Diversity is said to be a strength of the United States. If cultural differences are recognized and respected, the country's scientific enterprise is sure to benefit.