Microsoft CIO Stuart Scott Gets Axed 533
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 ;)
Re:obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty remarkable (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
He got fired because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Typo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:more obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pretty remarkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words: sexual harassment.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He got fired because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ballmer Attitude? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
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.
Re:Ballmer Attitude? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pretty remarkable (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. For one, at that level, or with management in general, it's always sexual harassment. Well, sometimes it's gross incompetence. The harassment I don't get, though. I mean, if they want some free sex, couldn't they just go to a bar and say, "Yeah, I'm a VP of a multi-billion dollar corporation, and I make nine thousand dollars an hour. Let's take my jet and go screw in the hot tub at my 4th summer place."
Nope. It's like it's the opposite of the thrill of the hunt for them, preying on people who (they think) can't really defend themselves.
Plus, you just look at this guy and you know he's a complete pussy hound. The insecure type, that's always chasing it like it's the last piece he'll ever get. Just totally ruled by it, the poor thing.
Then again, I could be completely wrong.
Re:Some information... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Indirect warning, lawsuit avoidance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:google time (Score:1, Insightful)
Strange no one mentioned this (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be totally unrelated, but I noticed no one had mentioned this yet.
Re:Pretty remarkable (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rumor: love affair (Score:1, Insightful)
You guys are nuts! (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, most of the opinions posted here about why the guy was sacked are just plain silly.
Re:Pretty remarkable (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not about hiding it, it's about how MS chose to terminate him, and how, not whether, they chose to publicize it.
Re:EXACTLY! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:EXACTLY! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:google time (Score:5, Insightful)
But, yes crumbling, disaster!!
-David
Re:google time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:google time (Score:5, Insightful)
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.