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 ;)

Comments

Re:Pretty remarkable

[Red Flayer]

The fact that his termination was this public and graceless tells me he did something pretty egregious

I agree, but I think the reasons for public termination may be different. Possibly harassment or discrimination or something like that. Pay off harassed employee, with public termination of the harasser as a condition of the settlement.

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.

two wild guesses

[mzs]

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.

A couple of problems

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a couple of problems with the theory that a Microsoft insider would anonymously post the truth behind Stu's termination:

1. 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
2. We don't like really like slashdotters that much, so we don't care if you never know the real reason
3. 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
4. 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.

Distributing Microsoft Products?

[starman97]

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

Re:Pretty remarkable

[Idaho]

That's the rumour indeed. It's unlikely that this will be "officially" confirmed by any of the parties involved.

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.

Re:google time

[monkeyboythom]

How does a CIO get fired "after an investigation for violation of company policies"?

1. Misrepresented himself. Is his resume completely honest? Some have been canned for claiming work that they didn't do or graduated from schools when they didn't,
2. Tried to his station/authority to manipulate or obfuscate reporting numbers for a false picture of the company's standing or fiscal health. Did he misreport the Vista numbers, inflating them artifically (or report lower)? Any monkeying with reports to make himself look better or others look worse can get you fired in a Sarbanes-Oxley world.
3. Personal conduct. From HP spying on fellow board members and employees to outright unfavorable corporate behavior (e.g. being sleazy to the point of lawsuits) is yet another way of getting fired.

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.

Probably not trying to hide something

[snowwrestler]

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.

Re:Pretty remarkable

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Apparently he was having an affair with a direct subordinate.

Um... I have to ask these questions, even though I know the 'turfers are going to pound me for it with negative mods.

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).

Re:google time

[afidel]

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.