Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft CIO Stuart Scott Gets Axed
avjt writes "Microsoft has terminated its CIO Stuart Scott for 'violation of company policies'. They won't elaborate. Now what do you think this guy has done?" Ya know, I'm positive someone reading this story knows the answer to the mystery... and they could post it anonymously and be totally fine because there will be a hundred other totally wrong guesses and it would be completely impossible to distinguish the two ;)
No. He bought a Mac.
Usually, at levels this high, executives who misbehave are quietly asked to resign. The fact that his termination was this public and graceless tells me he did something pretty egregious, because Microsoft apparently wants to not just get rid of him but warn other corporations not to hire him. Misappropriation of corporate funds, in some way, seems the most likely candidate to me.
Please note I'm not informed at all, just speculating.
I know several people who currently work at Microsoft. It's not because he installed linux or owns an ipod or some such silliness, since I know these people have done those things. I would imagine that it's actually something more serious, like an inappropriate work relationship (still thinking it's not something they would fire you for, at the CIO level) or divulging info to a competitor or inappropriate use of company funds.
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
More likely he side-stepped some chair related punishment. That's grounds for dismissal at MS I think.
Seriously though, I think considering his level it's possible that it could be in relation to some kind of trading of MS stock. Either himself or someone he knows.
Few people are ever fired for a breach of a minor rule in any corporation. Supposedly minor rules are usually only invoked if the breach is a cause of a wider problem. For example, an unproductive employee might be fired for visiting personal websites during working hours. The cause of the firing is that the employee isn't worth keeping because they (amongst other things) spend all day browsing the web and not working, not that the websites were not work related.
Remember, it kills morale and makes people want to leave if they're in fear of losing their jobs over something other than performance and/or disruptive behavior. It's also expensive - an employee of any worth takes months, sometimes years, to replace, and crucial information is inevitably lost whenever anyone leaves. While corporations suck at the whole morale thing, it's an exaggeration to assume that most people are fired over something "innocuous". Even if the reason given might appear that way, the fact is the corporation wouldn't be firing the person in the first place if there wasn't a good reason to get rid of them.
That said, the reason in this case could be as simple as Scott isn't worth anything close to waht he was being paid and was easily losable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
IANAL, but I strongly suspect that in order of any of these "catch-alls" to be enforceable, they would have to be applied in a demonstratively consistent fashion.
I'm pretty sure most major companies realize that their CIO has enough money and savvy to hire a good lawyer if their grounds for dismissal is questionable. A dismissal like this is going to damage his reputation, and I'm sure if he thinks the reason behind it is BS, he's going to go for damages.
In
And he wasn't necessarily caught by a catch-all. It's also possible he did something legitimately harmful.
I think it's highly likely that he did something most people would agree was "bad." It might have been something personal, like a substance abuse problem, or something professional, like falsifying records. Microsoft wouldn't fire someone this high up without a good reason.
Eh, if you walk around their campus you see iPhones, you see iPods, their employees use Google and GMail.
Now maybe at his level its different, but they are not cold blooded fascists who instill fear in their employees.
Its hard to keep 75k of them if you do.
The poor guy is unemployed and has seven (that we know about so far) children to support.
... like, say, sell one of their yachts ... but this isn't $JOE_DOWNSIZED_TECH_WORKER we're talking about.
The "poor guy" was a top executive for one of the biggest corporations in the world. I can pretty much guarantee you that he and his litter o' puppies aren't going to be out on the street any time soon. They may have to scale down their lifestyle a bit
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Sounds the most plausible explaination I've heard yet. What is completely unfathomable however, is that Ballmer, possibly the dumbest fuck ever to run a hugely powerful corporation still goes on, despite the fact that the entire organization is crumbling under his 'leadership'. Mind you, I suppose Bush is still running the country, so clearly these things have a pattern to them.
Is it a coincidence this happened so shortly after Microsoft finally accepted to comply with the EC's decision in the anti-trust case?
It might be totally unrelated, but I noticed no one had mentioned this yet.
The main thing is that he may have promoted his lover over other more qualified people. By publically terminating him they lower thier risk of suit by employees passed over due to the affair.
You guys are nuts ... for a big company to say that a high-ranking employee was fired for any reason is a pretty risky thing to do from a legal standpoint. They must've had a darned good reason to can Scott. Even when a CXX is caught doing something, it's usually handled much more gracefully - he's allowed to resign "for personal reasons" or "to seek a different position" or allowed to stay on the payroll while he finds another job, even if the true reason was that the guy was sleeping with his secretary or got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He also might've been caught on the losing end of a corporate power play - the folks who report to him and the folks who are his peers are always jockeying for position, looking for an opportunity to look good to *his* boss in case they see an opportunity to set him up to get rid of him...
Regardless, most of the opinions posted here about why the guy was sacked are just plain silly.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
"in a weekend"? That's good?
In Windows, the worst TV tuner (an ATi All in Wonder) took at most 2 hours to set up, and then only because I had to get the video drivers as well. Most TV tuners took less than half an hour from insertion of board to watching TV.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Mark Twann, I think, once said, "it's best to keep your mouth shut an let the world think your a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt." I'm pretty sure I butchered that quote but you should get the point. I would suggest that you take Mark Twann's advice to heart.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Yeah, because quarter after quarter of record revenues AND profits means your company is crumbling. Not to mention their stock is the highest its been in 5 years.
But, yes crumbling, disaster!!
-David
He said he was involved in creating the internet, which had already been created years before his "initiative". That's like Henry Ford claiming he invented the automobile, when it had been invented decades before although he improved the process of manufacturing them.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
In the early-to-mid 1980s when the Internet as we know it was evolving out of the ARPANet, Gore was on the floor of Congress yammering on about how this crazy new tech was going to be important, and the U.S. had to be there first. He argued for vastly more funding to the NSF than anyone thought the Internet needed (it's just some computer geeks linking research databases, right?) I remember reading about his efforts on Usenet back in the late 80s and wondering, "I know why this is important, but how they heck does a politician know?!" In the end, of course, it was more important than either the geeks or the politicians could have predicted.
Go read the Congressional Record for his speeches about the Internet. The funding for the development of all of those low-number RFCs like DNS and SMTP came from projects that Gore pushed as if he actually knew why they were important. Did he? I have no clue, but if I don't give props to the one politician to see the value in the Internet from the start, I'll never convince any politician that doing right by technology is going to help their careers. We have enough of the, "the Senator from Disney," types already, and I'd rather not have more.