By DAVID WESSEL

Brian L. Frank for The Wall Street Journal

Joy Ying Zhang, working Tuesday in his office at Carnegie Mellon’s Silicon Valley campus, says he doesn’t plan to return to China.

Most foreigners who came to the U.S. to earn doctorate degrees in science and engineering stayed on after graduation—at least until the recession began—refuting predictions that post-9/11 restrictions on immigrants or expanding opportunities in China and India would send more of them home.

Newly released data revealed that 62% of foreigners holding temporary visas who earned Ph.D.s in science and engineering at U.S. universities in 2002 were still in the U.S. in 2007, the latest year for which figures are available. Of those who graduated in 1997, 60% were still in the U.S. in 2007, according to the data compiled by the U.S. Energy Department’s Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education for the National Science Foundation.

Foreigners account for about 40% of all science and engineering Ph.D. holders working in the U.S., and a larger fraction in engineering, math and computer fields. “Our ability to continue to attract and keep foreign scientists and engineers is critical to…increase investment in science and technology,” Oak Ridge analyst Michael Finn said.

“Data for all available cohorts indicate that ‘stay rates’ of foreign science and engineering doctorate recipients in 2007 are slightly higher than they have been in recent years,” Mr. Finn said. His findings, which use tax data to track graduates over time, cover the years before the U.S. plunged into a recession that damped job prospects in many U.S. industries and universities.

Other analysts see signs that recent foreign grads are increasingly likely to return home, particularly in today’s weak job market. “I have no doubt that the 2009 data will show a dramatic shift,” said Vivek Wadwha, executive in residence at Duke University’s Pratt School of Engineering, who has been warning loudly about the threat that trend would pose to innovation in the U.S. In October 2008, Mr. Wadwha and others used Facebook to question 1,224 foreigners studying at U.S. institutions at all levels. More than half the Indians and 40% of the Chinese said they hoped to return home within five years.

Separate NSF surveys show the fraction of foreign Ph.D.s planning to stay in the U.S. dipped in the years following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack and then rebounded. Nearly 80% of those with temporary visas surveyed in 2007 said they planned to stay; more than half had definite plans to do so.

Joy Ying Zhang, the son of a primary-school teacher and a college professor, left China’s Hunan Province in 1999 for Detroit’s Wayne State University, where he arrived with two suitcases and $2,000 in cash. He later transferred to Carnegie Mellon University, which awarded him a Ph.D. in computer science in 2008.

Four or five of his friends have returned to China, he said, and he has discussed doing so. But Mr. Zhang, now a research assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon’s Silicon Valley campus, has decided stay. “I have spent 10 years here already,” he said. “It took me some time to get used to American life. Now, it’d be hard to get used to China. It’s called ‘reverse culture shock.’ ” Mr. Zhang, 35 years old, has a brother who works for a pharmaceutical company in the U.S. and a sister who is a physician in China and close to their parents.

In recruiting for Carnegie Mellon, he finds young Chinese less eager to come to the U.S. than those of his generation. “Life in China is getting better. There are research alternatives in China—like Microsoft China,” he said. “They can get good mentoring and advice there, instead of coming to the U.S.”

In 2007, foreign citizens accounted for 16,022 of the Ph.D.s awarded in science and engineering in the U.S., or 46% of the total, according to the Oak Ridge data. In contrast, the class of 1997 had 12,966 foreigners, or 30% of the total.

Graduates of Ph.D. programs in the physical sciences and computer science are more likely to remain in the U.S. than those in other fields, Mr. Finn said. Those programs are popular with Chinese and Indian students, who are more likely to remain in the U.S. after completing studies than those from Taiwan, South Korea and Western Europe. Among 2002 graduates, 92% of the Chinese and 81% of the Indians were in the U.S. after five years; in contrast, 41% of South Koreans and 52% of Germans were.

Aranyak Mehta, 31, came from India nearly a decade ago to study the science of algorithms at Georgia Institute of Technology and earned a Ph.D. in 2005. Today, he is a research scientist at Google—and planning, for now, to remain in the U.S. “There’s always a trade-off—family, culture, and all that,” he said. “One of the most important things with an academic background is the work that you do, and is it exciting? I’m not saying there is no exciting work in India. Many people have gone back and started companies.”

Using the LinkedIn online network, Mr. Wadhwa identified 1,203 skilled Indians and Chinese who had returned home. Three-quarters said visa issues weren’t a factor. Rather, career opportunities, quality-of-life concerns and family ties were major factors. Some 70% of the Chinese and 61% of the Indians said opportunities for professional advancement were better at home.

The NSF recently said the number of foreign science and engineering students enrolled in graduate programs of all types hit 158,430 in April 2009, up 8% from the year before.

Write to David Wessel at capital@wsj.com

By SARAH E. NEEDLEMAN

With prospects for new jobs or promotions still looking grim, many workers are struggling to take their careers to the next level. Some, though, have found ways to cope and make themselves more marketable for when companies start hiring again.

“You don’t have to be stuck,” says Dory Hollander, a workplace psychologist and founder of WiseWorkplaces, a career coaching and executive-development firm based in Arlington, Va. “You can be an active player in shaping your own future.”

Indeed, there are a number of ways workers can bolster their résumés in preparation for when the job market ramps up. These include volunteering to gain new skills, building a wider network of contacts and moving into a parallel position within their company.

One of the reasons many people may be feeling like their careers are at a standstill: decreasing voluntary turnover. Between January and November of 2009, 19.6 million workers quit their jobs, an amount fewer than any during that period since the U.S. Labor Department began tracking the data in 2000.

“To get a promotion, somebody has to leave,” says Steve Gross, a senior consultant for New York-based consulting firm Mercer LLC. But fewer “people are quitting and [fewer] people are retiring.”

What’s more, many workers didn’t receive pay increases last year, and some even saw their salaries shrink. Of 555 large and midsize U.S. employers polled by consulting company Hewitt Associates Inc. in October, 48% said they froze wages in 2009 and another 10% cut salaries. And while many firms expect to reinstate raises this year, the average increase will be just 2.5%, the second-lowest level on record, reports Hewitt. The worst year for raises: 2009, when salaries dipped to 1.8%.

Once the economy improves, some 60% of more than 900 U.S. workers surveyed between October and November 2009 said they plan to pursue new job opportunities, reports Right Management, a talent and career-management consulting firm in Philadelphia.

Meghan Stinton felt her career had hit a wall early last year while she was working as an event and fund-raising coordinator for a national nonprofit’s Denver branch. After a colleague was laid off in March, the 25-year-old says she had to do that person’s job—program coordinator—on top of hers, despite not being given a raise or title promotion.

She kept her eyes open, but says she never saw any positions in her field open up above her at the organization. She also looked for jobs at other nonprofits but failed to find anything that matched her skill set and background. “I was pretty much at a standstill,” she says.

Ms. Stinton decided to make the most of her situation. She began doing volunteer work in public relations—a field she wanted to move into—for three nonprofits that weren’t hiring. She also joined two trade groups to expand her network, including the Colorado Women’s Chamber of Commerce.

Later, when a manager position opened up in the chamber’s public-relations department, she applied by emailing her résumé to the membership director—one of several staffers she got to know on a first-name basis from networking. She landed the job in December, increasing her annual income by 20% to $32,000.

Another way to make yourself more marketable during a career slowdown is to see about transferring into a position at the same pay grade within your firm but in a different area—the classic lateral move. “You’re still learning and growing,” says Cindy Nicola, vice president of talent acquisition for Electronic Arts Inc., a videogame company based in Redwood City, Calif. “Broad-based experience can ultimately position you to move up.”

In late 2008, Kate Pullman, 31, moved into a director position at Prudential Financial Inc. in Newark, N.J., after about a year working at the same level but in a different niche within the financial-services firm’s human-resources department. “I thought it was better to move laterally than to wait for an opportunity to move up,” she says.

Though her salary remained flat, she got to supervise employees with different work styles than those she previously managed, plus she oversaw a company-wide initiative for the first time. She says the move paid off. In November, she was promoted to vice president of staffing operations and received a 12% raise.

Keep in mind that before moving sideways within a firm, it can be wise to research the opportunity to make sure it won’t only benefit your career later on, but that you’ll also enjoy it. You can do this by meeting with colleagues in the department you’re targeting to find out what the culture’s like, what they find most challenging and others insights they might have that could help you decide whether moving there makes sense for you.

Chris Karel, 35, wishes he took this step. In 2005 he switched to a director job in the passenger division of British Airways from a director job in the cargo area to expand his knowledge of the business. “The end goal was to be able to choose which side I ended up in at the (vice-president) level,” he says.

But he didn’t research the culture of the company’s passenger side and was disappointed to learn that it “wasn’t as entrepreneurial” as the cargo area, he says. The following year he quit the company.

Offering to take on extra responsibilities at work that will allow you develop a new skill or gain experience in a new area may also be a way to bolster your résumé, says Margaret-Ann Cole, a senior consultant at Towers Watson, a human-resources consulting firm based in New York. Just be sure to limit your efforts to a specific time frame such as six months to avoid being taken advantage of, she advises. Also, make sure what you’ll be doing will help you move up later on by first running the idea past someone in your target job, a mentor or a career adviser.

If you think the additional work might overwhelm you, see if you can delegate some of your primary duties to a junior colleague who could benefit in the same way, says Ms. Cole. “Managers love when you say, ‘Here’s my plan to take on more and not leave myself to suffer,’ ” she says.

Finally, consider enrolling in workshops or classes on a subject pertinent to your goals, and once you’ve finished, add them to your résumé, says Ms. Hollander, the workplace psychologist.

“It negates the idea that you’re lazy and just biding your time,” she says. “It shows you’re taking charge and no matter what the market’s doing, it’s not going to stop you from reaching your goals.”

Write to Sarah E. Needleman at sarah.needleman@wsj.com

By TOM L. FREUDENHEIM

Spies in the House of Art

Metropolitan Museum of Art, through August 26

Playing House

Brooklyn Museum, through August 26

***

New York

‘Artists are the secret constituency of museums.” That’s the opening textual salvo in the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s incoherent photography exhibition “Spies in the House of Art.” It also has little to do with the show’s other claim—that the exhibition demonstrates how “artists explore the secret life of museums and their collections.” Museums are filled with secrets, among them attribution disputes, art deaccessions and exchanges, unsavory provenance issues, and power struggles within and between trustees and staffs.

At best, the argument that this show “surveys various ways museums inspire the making of works of art” is evident in a few of the photographs on view—most notably the large Cindy Sherman portrait that conjures up an Old Master painting (and wonderfully confuses you as to precisely which one it might be). But, by their very celebrity, Ms. Sherman and other oft-seen artists in this show have long disposed of the notion that they constitute a secret museum constituency.

That art galleries provide grist for artists’ comment mills is no special revelation. Giovanni Paolo Pannini, in the 18th century, may have been among the most prolific of those who showed us paintings on collectors’ walls, while Samuel F.B. Morse’s iconic painting “Gallery of the Louvre” (1833) was an important attempt to bring the glories of European culture to our shores. The noted caricaturists Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin depicted both the art and the raucous crowd of viewers at a Royal Academy exhibition in their satirical work “The Exhibition Room at Somerset House” (1800). So it’s difficult to be overwhelmed by the contrasting gallery views by Candida Höfer and Thomas Struth in this exhibition.

The high-definition pictures of both of these accomplished photographers regularly provide us with insights into scale and space: Ms. Höfer is interested in the mysterious nature of space itself, while Mr. Struth suggests the tension between people and the places they inhabit. But their work appears incidental and trivialized in the context of this show. Francesca Woodman’s majestic photo-collage “Blueprint for a Temple” (1980) may or may not reference museums, which are only one of many “temple” types; the intriguing scale combined with the elusive medium and subject matter of Woodman’s image remind us of the artist’s precocious power, and her tragic early death in 1981 at age 22.

In my experience, artists are often a museum’s most enthusiastic and sophisticated audience, rather than “spies.” And as consistent visitors, they may infuse their own work with visions expanded by regular encounters with art. So it does artists an injustice to suggest, as this exhibition does, that they are simply cynical critics looking down their noses at the masses crowding today’s museums. Andrea Fraser does this in a sarcastic and pretentious performance video of the artist as museum guide, “Museum Highlights: A Gallery Talk” (1989), while Lorna Simpson, in a text/photo combination, “Parts” (1998), makes no secret of her negative view of museum visitors and how they really don’t understand what they are viewing; the photo of a vitrine containing “Bronze period” bones, presumably in a natural-history museum, is accompanied by a snooty text that includes the comment, “their [i.e., the visitors'] gaze and pace was guided by the [audio] tapes.”

***

Brooklyn, N.Y.

In what is probably coincidental scheduling, the Brooklyn Museum recently invited several artists to create “activations” (the museum’s language) in some of their wonderful American period rooms. This may be a far more interesting place to get a sense of how artists can creatively interact with museums, although the results of these interventions are not always successful. The star of this exhibition is Betty Woodman (the mother of Francesca), also the lead artist here, who invited the others to participate. Ms. Woodman has collaborated with Anne Chu to add an array of decorative objects to the late-18th-century Cane Acres Plantation room—one of the earliest examples of a separate dining room in such a house, with a long dining table and sideboard. Among the works included are ceramic takeoffs on traditional objects that might have graced such an interior. Most of them are characteristic of Ms. Woodman’s visual puns on traditional art—strategically positioned on the center table, sideboard and mantle. The total effect, along with Ms. Chu’s elaborately cut-out floor coverings (referencing early American floorcloths, while suggesting bits of Frank Stella and Elizabeth Murray) combine to make an opulent abstract composition enriching both the old and the new.

Ann Agee is far more in-your-face when her work takes over the mid-19th-century Milligan Parlor and Den, filling the already dense American Victorian neo-gothic aesthetic with a cacophony of handmade and found objects and kitschy wallpaper. It doesn’t quite work. Far more subtle and refined interaction with the art of the past is evident in the six videos that Mary Lucier has strategically placed in the rooms of the two Schenck Houses, which span almost a century of construction beginning in the early 18th century, presenting among the most austere interiors of those at the museum. Using carefully edited and spare re-enactments (such as cooking and dining), the artist reimagines what might have taken place in these rooms at an earlier time. There’s a reminder here of Shimon Attie, whose projections on European buildings conjure up their pasts. But these are Brooklyn ghosts summoned up by an artist personally connected to her intervention as a descendent of early Dutch settlers in New York.

Watching artists interact with art and its institutions and contexts can be illuminating. Artists are occasionally invited to roam a museum’s storeroom and select an exhibition, which can provide an insightful understanding of both the art and the artist. The timely juxtaposition of the Met and Brooklyn exhibitions may tell us more about the curatorial decisions within these two institutions. While the Met show includes some accomplished artists whose interesting ideas about museums never actually develop, the Brooklyn room interventions are much more respectful of both the museum’s holdings and the ability of artists to add value to our understanding of what we see.

Mr. Freudenheim, a former art-museum director, served as the assistant secretary for museums at the Smithsonian Institution.

A version of this article appeared March 13, 2012, on page D6 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: When Artists Take On Museums.

Brent Sherwin, a Schwan Food Co. manager, used to believe that he enjoyed a four-star reputation there. He never suspected that he was as known for his sharp tongue as his strong results.

“When top-level executives made poor decisions, I was very quick to let them know,” he recalls.

Like countless others who turn a blind eye to their faults, Mr. Sherwin did not realize how close he came to derailing his promising career.

His wake-up call came in December 2009, when his boss warned his advancement would stall unless he could work better with colleagues. Schwan arranged coaching for him from PDI Ninth House, a leadership consultancy. He soon won two promotions and is now a senior vice president of Schwan’s consumer-brands unit.

Fixing Your Flaws

You can correct your hidden flaws without an executive coach, experts say.

Request suggestions every month or two from a few coworkers who know you well, suggests David Brookmire, president of Corporate Performance Strategies Inc., a coaching firm.

“Find people you trust as a peer and don’t see you as a competitor,” advises Bob Rogers, president of Development Dimensions International, a leadership consultancy.

If colleagues resist, Mr. Brookmire recommends emphasizing your commitment to improving. You also will increase your credibility when you “act on the feedback,” he says.

One sales vice president at a global software company coached by Mr. Brookmire received 360-degree feedback from his fellow executives after he’d been passed over for promotions twice.

It turned out colleagues believed he cared solely about his team. So, Mr. Brookmire prepared a 17-step remedial plan. The plan included such directives as “Develop a more personable and approachable style.”

Determined to keep his coaching lessons handy, the executive keeps the plan inside a leather portfolio he takes everywhere.

The list represents “things I am working on to make sure I am a good business partner,” he tells colleagues. He got promoted in December.

–Joann S. Lublin

The Dow Chemical Company

Mark Henning, Global General Manager for Dow Microbial Control, found ways to delegate better and give employees greater latitude.

Many executives risk getting demoted or dismissed because they rate their leadership skills higher than their boss or co-workers do, several recent studies have found. In a 2011 study of 29,231 U.S. managers by PDI Ninth House, such so-called “self promoters” were six times more likely to derail.

“They are cruising for a bruising,” warns Louis N. Quast, the study’s lead author.

Even those considered high performers by their bosses risk losing promotions or their jobs if they fail to recognize — and address—their faults, adds Dr. Quast, a University of Minnesota professor of organizational leadership and vice president of PDI Ninth House.

Experts say ambitious executives should pay closer attention to fixing flaws because businesses, after trimming leadership-development efforts during the downturn, have lately raised the bar on management performance.

To stay on course, engage an executive coach or seek frank and frequent feedback from work allies, say experts.

Some top executives would fare better if they believed less of their own good press. Sixty-five chief executives of underperforming public U.S. concerns got dismissed after subordinates, board members and rivals repeatedly flattered them about their flawed strategy, according to a study of 451 CEOs published last year.

The study, which involved surveys between 2001 and 2007, focused on businesses with more than $100 million in annual sales. It measured flattery by how often “potential ingratiators” complimented the chief in a way that slightly exaggerated his or her insight about a strategic issue.

The dismissed chiefs also assessed their abilities higher than others did, researchers found. “Overconfidence increased their tendency to avoid strategic changes needed to fix their employer’s financial performance,” explains Ithai Stern, a study co-author and assistant professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

Hewlett-Packard Co.

fired Leo Apotheker last year after just 11 months at the helm because directors had grown frustrated with his reductions in its financial outlook, failure to rally troops and tendency to only consult a few associates, according to people familiar with the situation.

Mr. Apotheker lacked adequate “self awareness around his limitations,” suggests R.J. Heckman, CEO of PDI Ninth House. Mr. Apotheker declined to discuss his H-P tenure, but in response to an e-mailed question asking whether a lack of self awareness about his shortcomings contributed to his ouster, he says, “I’m not perfect, and who is.” An H-P spokesman declined to comment.

To fix his imperfections, Schwann’s Mr. Sherwin went through a rigorous performance appraisal known as “360-degree feedback” that included customers’ reaction. Hearing that others saw him as a fast-acting but arrogant cowboy “was a two-by-four between the eyes,” he says.

Mr. Sherwin soon learned to be candid without offending anyone. For instance, his coach proposed that he give higher-ups hard data rather than “tell them that they’re blankety blankety idiots,” Mr. Sherwin says.

Mark Henning, global general manager of a Dow Chemical Co. unit, says he was equally humbled during his own recent assessment and coaching experience. Though his business unit was seeing strong growth at the time, his boss insisted he get coaching because “my leadership style needed improving,” Mr. Henning recollects.

A PDI Ninth House coach hired by Dow counseled Mr. Henning for a year through last June. Though he initially resisted change—claiming his highly driven style was vital to his success—he also felt frustrated on the job. “I worked harder than I should have,” he says. “I was trying to do it all myself.”

Mr. Henning finally realized he needed to solicit staffers’ ideas before expressing views during meetings.

“You have two ears and one mouth for a reason,” the 51-year-old executive notes now.

Today he leads dialogues rather than immediately putting his stake in the ground—a positive switch, says Bryan Kitchen, business operations director at the unit run by Mr. Henning. And where he once micro-managed, “he gives me enough rope to do my job,” Mr. Kitchen adds.

Mr. Henning benefitted, too. He says he received a decade-high performance rating and bonus last year.

Write to Joann S. Lublin at joann.lublin@wsj.com