Microsoft Fires Chief Information Officer Stuart Scott

When a major company fires a major executive, it's major news, and that's just what software giant Microsoft did on Tuesday, November 6. The company announced that it had fired its chief information officer, Stuart Scott, for violating company policies.

"Stuart Scott's employment with Microsoft was terminated after an investigation for violation of company policies," said spokesman Lou Gellos in a company statement read to the Associated Press.

To me, Chief Information Officer sounds like someone who's responsible for communicating information about the company, more like a chief of public relations. However, a chief information officer is actually the person who is in charge of a company's information technology (IT) department. In Stuart Scott's case, he was a corporate vice president acting in this capacity.

According to Microsoft's website, Scott joined Microsoft in July 2005, after 17 years as a CIO for several divisions of General Electric. Originally, he shared CIO duties with Ron Markezich, who was responsible for overseeing the actual IT infrastructure of the company, while Scott was responsible for business processes and applications (see article on Microsoft website). In 2006, the entire responsibility for IT functions was placed under Scott's responsibility, and Markezich moved on to a position as vice president of Managed Solutions at Microsoft.

The unspecified violation of company policies is leading to speculation on the internet about the real reason for Scott's firing. Valleywag has published a rumor (unverified), provided by a tipster, that Scott was having an affair with a VP-level employee who reported directly to him. According to the tipster, Scott and the other employee both recently took emergency family leave time, which was actually a cover-up for an affair.

If true, is it really important for Microsoft to police employee bedrooms? Well, let's see. If these employees actually used family leave time to have an affair, that would be cheating the company (especially if it were paid time off). I'd have a big problem with that. Also, most organizations do have policies about relationships between employees who are actually connected in the organizational chart. For instance, if I were a manager in a company that I didn't own, I probably wouldn't be allowed to be my husband's boss, and if I were single, I probably wouldn't officially be allowed to date someone I directly supervised. It's a very common policy.

What about anything else that might be a violation of company policy? Microsoft's Standards of Business Conduct state that employees should manage the company's business "in compliance with laws and regulatory requirements." A violation of the law could certainly be grounds for dismissal, but there's been no indication of that so far in Scott's case. Other possibilities might include industrial espionage or compromising data security, but we have no indication of that either. Spokesperson Gellos said in his statement that Microsoft has "no further information to share." That's as it should be. Personnel decisions are supposed to be confidential - another common company policy.

What's certain is that Microsoft will soon be looking for a new CIO. For now, Gellos says that Scott's duties will be shared by Alain Crozier, another corporate vice president, and Shahla Aly, a general manager in the services group.

SOURCES:

Associated Press, "Microsoft Dismisses Chief Information Officer", The New York Times
Microsoft, Stuart L. Scott executive bio, Microsoft.com PressPass
Microsoft, "Q&A: IT Veteran Brings Innovation, Leadership to Microsoft CIO Partnership", Microsoft.com PressPass
Microsoft, Ron Markezich executive bio, Microsoft.com PressPass
Owen Thomas, "Microsoft CIO, Underling Took Family Leave Before Firing", Valleywag
Microsoft, "Microsoft Standards of Business Conduct", Microsoft.com