I’ve been readng with some interest all the rumors coming out about Stuart Scott, Microsoft’s former CIO.  For those of you that have been living in the dark, Scott was recently released by Microsoft only two years after hiring him in 2005.  What’s unique about this situation is that Microsoft has publicly said:

“We can confirm that Stuart Scott was terminated after an investigation for violation of company policies, and have no further information to share.”

Of course, the rumor mill is churning about the myriad of different reasons that could have triggered this and the one with the most sticking power seems to be that Scott was having an affair with one of his subordinates, and perhaps that woman received positive reviews and/or a promotion because of her relationship with Scott.  Definitely possible, although it seems somewhat unlikely to me that it would have been handled like this and not as a structured settlement with Scott’s resignation.  Leads me to wonder if it’s not an issue business ethics, such as accepting bribes, favors, or something outside the norm.

What seems weird to me is how many people have come out suggesting that “we” the public deserve to know the whole story, and I’m not sure that I agree with that.  What’s happened, especially if it’s of a personal nature, is between Microsoft and Scott – what gives “us” the right to know anything more than he’s left Microsoft under unfavorable circumstances?  Even that means that his business life is fractured and the chance of him getting another opportunity like this is likely gone.  With a wife and seven kids – whose right is it to know anything more?  My thought – give the man some space, save him whatever small amount of dignity he has left.

~geek