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 ;)
But for someone at CIO level to get canned it was either something that borders, or is just straight up illegal that MS is trying to keep under wraps primarily because it would damage their reputation, whether it was something tacitly approved by them or completely unknown to them. Or, possibly, they had it out for him and used some minor infringement as the basis for letting him go. Something like "Sorry, the company limit on gifts from vendors and suppliers is $50, and that widget was clearly $51 after tax!"
Either way I'm sure he has some majestic golden parachute that will help ensure that neither he nor his family could potentially go hungry for the next 5 generations if they're marginally competent at managing money, provided he never talks about it...of course.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
There's a few dangers with this approach...IANALB...
#1, if he can prove in court that Microsoft wasn't actively supporting this policy at all times and simply used it as an excuse to dismiss him, Microsoft would be legally liable. Same with using him as a scapegoat or as an example; disproportionate application of corporate policies is a big no-no. Varies by state-to-state of course.
#2, just because a corporation has an HR policy does not necessarily mean that its legal. This is somewhat less likely since I'm sure MS has lawyers who review these things (especially since they've been nailed for this in the past), but we'll know how 'fair' his dismissal was if this ends up in court.
My wild-ass guess would be something incredibly stupid or personally dumb happened, like using corporate resources to download pr0n or warez, or liasons with staff members, etc. On an outside chance, he might have pursued a strategic policy that was against the mandate of the board of directors (e.g. "he's our plan for segregation applications from O/S releases" board "you aren't supposed to do that"). Either way we're not meant to know, unless this ends up in court.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
I somehow find it hard to believe that MS would want to warn other corporations about hiring him.
It could also be a problem that other MS employees are aware of, and the public termination sends a notice to employees who would cross the same lines he did. Plus, it sends the message that the highest-ups face consequences for their actions, and thus can be good for company morale among the drones.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Microsoft basically paid for the new members in the Swedish OOXML vote and a subsidiary of Microsoft in Hungary was raided by the police in July. I have no knowledge that it is related to either of this, an out-right firing of such a high level person usually means basically stealing money. Not even a sexual harassment scandal would do that, just a quiet resignation.
- Only a few of us know the truth, posting the truth is a good way to violate company policies, and you see what happens when you violate company policies, so even anonymous posting just means pressure is applied to
... let's just say a few ... people until it is determined who the one is and BOOM, job over
- We don't like really like slashdotters that much, so we don't care if you never know the real reason
- The truth is not exciting or anything...it's just mundane policy violation...so posting it is less enjoyable than reading all the wild-ass guesses
- Halloween is over
I'll never tell. Even if I did, you'd be all "Meh" and say the idea that he was bangin' Melinda or selling Microsoft secret plans to Google is much more intriguing. So, sure, he was a Google mole. Just run with that one.what about if he was involved in that Nigeria student laptop mess?
...and caught one of them using Google. When asked 'shouldn't you be using Live?', the answer I received was 'Ya, but I want to find something...."
Slashdot makes be feel uncomforable posting as AC when the CAPTCHA is 'tracking'.
http://www.pollsb.com/polls/poll/3617/microsoft-fires-cio-stuart-scott-possibly-for-inter-office-affair-with-his-subordinate
Insightful comment above. For a "Chief Anything Officer" to be terminated the behavior must have been directly offensive to the CEO and/or the Board of Directors. Stealing their money is one, but I think it unlikely in this case. For one, you can be criminally charged for that, and why would they let him off so easy?
My guess is that he disclosed, to a third party, some information about Microsoft that, while not on the level of corporate espionage, was something Microsoft wanted kept secret. You know, something like "Vista was written in XCode on a iMac".
Says here 'Scott was charged with the distribution of Microsoft products among employees.'
So, was he bootlegging Halo betas?
I cant see them firing him for giving out copies of Vista.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microsoft-executive-fired-violating-company/story.aspx?guid=%7B3C9D5FC9-8119-4559-93AE-8FA7ED975002%7D&dist=hplatest
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
Stupidly quoting myself but...on second thought, the rumour is not "sexual harassment", but at least the first word was involved.
Apparently he was having an affair with a direct subordinate.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
How does a CIO get fired "after an investigation for violation of company policies"?
He came to Microsoft in 2005 so he's not a long timer in the company. If Microsoft is trying to push him out, then we'll see if he responds with a lawsuit.
When a business wants to hide the wrong-doing of an executive, they buy them out and everyone keeps their mouth shut. One publicly terminates an executive when one wants to send a public message. Often the message is that the business is responsive to a situation. So if the executive is harassing someone, or committing a crime, the business can try to limit its liability by showing that it took all possible steps to remedy the situation.
Also, at the executive level, ticky-tack reasons for firing someone aren't really applicable. If the CEO doesn't like the CIO, he just cans him and brings in his own guy. This can be a kind of message too...fire a rival and consolidate power. And if that turns in an employment lawsuit, a little gift violation is not going to stand up in court.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Can that really be the case?
More to the point, was Melinda French a direct subordinate of Bill Gates?
FWIW, I honestly don't know and seriously wonder. The Wikipedia article on her just says she was the "unit manager" (huh huh - insert humorous comment here) for several Microsoft products (Publisher, Bob, Encarta, and Expedia).
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
Go watch Idiocracy and then tell me your opinion of geeks having seven kids. It's up to the geeks to save the world!
Yeah but this guy was boning someone other than his wife who directly reported to him AND was expensing his love nest. That's a lot of no-no's including the big one, misappropriation of company funds.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Nope. If we believe the ValleyWag on this one (uh oh...), the lady in question is a VP there at MS HQ herself. His underling, yes, but VPs just don't take that kind of crap at all. Sexual harassment necessarily involves pressuring somebody into sexual behavior, and you don't much pressure VPs -- they know they can hand your ass to you in court.
;-)
And neither it is about them having an affair per se (although it must have seemed like a very awkward PR/gossip disaster waiting to explode), it's about them both having lied about "emergency family leave" they took at the same time to go humping together somewhere. Or maybe more realistically a combination of the two...
So who would it be, then? Go figure...
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/default.mspx?group=A-D
One of those and a VP directly under CIO. If we believe the 'Wag, that is.
So, like another poster some way above very illustriously did, I'll just wrap this up by stating "Of course I could be completely wrong" so I'll too get the +5 Insightful for that bit alone
...I think that this particular post happens to be particularly insightful. If I was betting money on the reason for him getting fired, it'd be on that.
is still pretty derideable. Not so much because he's running microsoft into the ground or anything. Overall, Microsoft is doing pretty well, and I'd probably say their stock and outlook is a bit undervalued by most people.
However, he's screwed up on two major fronts and kind of failed to repent on at least one of them.
1. He let the vista development get strung out like it did. This probably isn't largely his fault, but as CEO he should have realized something was going very wrong and forced the development team to start removing features instead of pushing back the launch date. Windows is still Microsofts most important product, and he should have kept a better eye on it.
2. He seems to have some vendetta going with Google, for reasons that are totally beyond me. I honestly don't see how or why Microsoft and Google are in competition, and I tend to think that Microsoft is wasting a lot of money pretending that they are a serious search and ads company like Google or Yahoo. Maybe they'll prove me wrong in the long run, they did with the XBox, but I tend to see their web initiatives as a distraction from more promising products.
3. He seems to have encouraged a very inefficient corporate culture with a lot of levels of management and lots of meetings. I don't think the Google style flat management structure is an appropriate approach for a company the size of Microsoft (or a company the size of Google for that matter), but I think that something has to be done to address how sluggish the company has gotten. Something like Apple style skunkworks projects for some of their key projects would probably make sense.