Blog Post

Sinofsky strikes back, says there was no power grab at Microsoft

Steven Sinofsky, the former Windows poobah at Microsoft(s msft) has apparently heard enough about a power grab being the reason for his departure and wants to set the record straight.

Most of the reports  (including my own) about Sinofsky’ sudden and tersely worded departure from Microsoft(s msft) Monday centered on the notion that he wanted more power and that he resisted top management  ie. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. (Microsoft has offered very basic comments on his departure and last night at The Churchill Club, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer lauded Sinofsky’s contributions to the company.)

But still, most people — including many Microsoft insiders — were shocked at his exit and posited that he wanted more power at the company. That’s perception sparked his response to a blog post by former Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Hal Berenson who wrote:

“Steven had apparently lost recent battles to bring both Windows Phone and the Developer Division under his control.  I suspect that he saw those loses [sic] both as a roadblock to where he wanted to take Windows over the next few years, and a clear indication that his political power within Microsoft had peaked.  At the very point where he should have been able to ask for, and receive, almost anything as reward for his proven success he got slapped down.  And so he chose to leave.”

A commenter who identified himself as Sinofsky (and who appears to be the real deal as Berenson’s response to him shows) wrote:

“I find myself feeling [needing] to offer some insight — relative to what you say above, I never initiated any discussions to bring together the organizations/products you describe and no one ever approached me to manage them as part of Windows 7 or 8.”

Sinofsky also maintained that at during his tenure at Microsoft he resisted attempts to take more teams under his purview:

“If we had worked together you would know that historically, very few things moved into teams I managed as (you’ve no doubt seen in internal blogs) and when they did I usually pushed back hard looking for a cross-group way to achieve the goal (in other words, decide open issues rather than force an org change to subsequently decide something). it is far better to collaborate with the org in place and avoid the disruption unless it is on a product cycle boundary and far better to plan and execute together than just organize together.”

Feature photo courtesy of Flickr user ToddABishop

6 Responses to “Sinofsky strikes back, says there was no power grab at Microsoft”

  1. Microsoft is going to win big this time around. Its not the same organization it used to be a few years ago. The transformation is remarkable. I am writing this comment from my MacBook Pro with Galaxy S3 sitting next to me, but can tell you that when Surface Pro is here, I wouldn’t hesitate to make the switch.

    I am not loyal to any product/company, my loyalty is towards innovation, and at the moment I fing Microsoft pushing the boundaries better than anyone else in the tech industry. Hats off, never expected this from them and I can imagine how difficult such transformation is for an established company.

    • Dr James Cain

      You are right, I am a tech with a PhD in Computing. I’ve got loads of Apple kit, but Win 8 with touch on an Ultrabook is inspired. I have programmed MS products since 1990, and I’ve never been so impressed – combined with some super Stella tech (have you seen what SMB3 over Infiniband can do?), they are back – in a big way!

      • I dont think so, M$ has no compelling reason to try to lure its customer base to the new OS. I have been on board since DOS and even when the train wreck transition to Vista was at least adopted by enterprise, there was some reason to adopt!

        Win 7 is so good and the tablet outside the iPad is so superfluous that in a tough economic environment that we will face now and in the future, calling DOA on 8 is an easy assessment!

        They will see some upgrade but easily miss their target by at least a factor of 4.