Now we have Sinofsky’s word that such is not the case.

Commenting in response to a blog post by a Microsoft employee saying that “Steven had apparently lost recent battles to bring both Windows Phone and the Developer Division under his control,” Sinofsky felt the need to set the record straight, saying he had not tried to take over other executives’ divisions:

Hey there, I find myself feeling [presumably he means 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. Basic organization theory as described by @teyc would support the current state as a practical working model.

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.

But we also have more than just Sinofsky’s own word — we have his boss Steve Ballmer’s “hearty recognition” of Sinofsky’s performance, saying last night at a Churchill Club event in Silicon Valley that “Steve has made one of the most amazing contributions anyone has ever made — to any company.”

That seems to be more than just the boilerplate everything’s-OK-and-we-all-love-each-other statement you typically see in PR coverups.

So perhaps, as some have speculated, there’s room for a second Microsoft act for Sinofsky down the road.

photo credit: BUILDWindows via photopin cc; hat tip: The Verge

The question is, what does that mean for the future of Windows and Surface?

To help answer that question, I talked to Patrick Moorhead of MoorInsights, who has worked with Sinofsky on multiple occasions and talked to others he works with. The upshot is that it’s possible Steven Sinofsky is another Scott Forstall: an ass-kicker who gets stuff done … at a cost.

“He was a very alienating character. He alienated partners, he alienated ISVs, he alienated other people at Microsoft, and left a trail of disenfranchised people,” Moorhead told me.

“It’s very similar to the recent departure from Apple of Scott Forstall,” he added. “I’ve worked for people like this … they end up getting a lot of things done — amazing things, actually — but they hurt a lot of people.”

That’s something others have noted as well, citing a “relentlessly aggressive style.”

Sinofsky was in charge of Windows 7, a massive success that Microsoft badly needed after faltering steps like Vista. And, though it’s too early to say whether Windows 8 is going to be a complete success, there’s no question that Sinofsky has re-imagined the Windows experience. Our own Microsoft expert says that it “stuns and amazes,” even if it does sometime let users down.

Both his work on Windows 7 and Windows 8 gave Microsoft a modern desktop operating system after years spent in the XP and Vista wilderness. And Sinofsky’s work on Surface promises — yes, still only promises – to make Microsoft relevant in the tablet marketplace.

That’s a pretty good record.

And it’s something that former Microsoft EVP and chief operating officer Bob Herbold would seem to appreciate. He was with Microsoft during its period of rapid growth from 1994 to 2001 and is emphatic about ignoring consensus.

“As small organizations start to get large, they make decisions by consensus, which is the kiss of death. Great ideas are made by individuals. Consensus takes a great idea and makes it average.”

That said, Sinofsky’s replacement on the Windows software and hardware side is no slouch: Julie Larson-Green. She led program management for both Windows 7 and Windows 8, which means that all the threads came together through her. Program managers, however, sometimes have the bark without the bite.

And it’s one thing to ignore consensus and charge forward on the path you believe to be right, another thing to be abrasive, difficult, and demeaning along the way.

“This is the very classic story of the autocrat who can get mountains of people to do something, and is not afraid to ruffle feathers,” says Moorhead, “but as companies grow, priorities change.”

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, for one, thinks innovation can happen without the alienation, saying that the company “has more amazing” in it. At the very least, the switch is a chance to prove that you don’t have to be a jerk to get stuff done.

photo credit: Dell’s Official Flickr Page via photopin cc