Elop’s history is somewhat checkered considering that he has been in charge of more than one company that was bought up or went bankrupt (Macromedia, Boston Chicken, etc.). It could make you wonder if Elop’s role as CEO of Nokia was to intentionally run the company down and get them into a position to be bought out. Of course that is all speculation, but there is something of a pattern if you look at Elop’s past work.

Elop took over Nokia in 2010 after which they penned a deal with Microsoft to push Windows Phone as their platform. Elop refused to move off of that course even while Nokia was falling apart. This was even after the board and investors suggested that Nokia needed to look at another direction. In fact the partnership between Nokia and Microsoft seemed to grow stronger while market share fell.

Now things surrounding Mr. Elop have grown to soap opera proportions. The board and a few politicians have asked that Elop waive some or all of the pay-off due to his lack of leadership and the drop in company performance. They are also concerned that Elop’s contract was altered just before the Microsoft deal in order to include the pay-off. Elop has refused to waive any part of the money claiming he needs it now due to the fact that he is getting a divorce.

You can draw your own conclusions from the small amount of real facts at hand, but there are a few things that are clear. Elop moved from Microsoft to Nokia in 2010, shortly after arriving he b penned a deal with Microsoft putting Windows Phone as the primary platform for Nokia devices, Elop stands to profit quite nicely from the deal and Microsoft gets a phone making shop already setup for their OS. I do not know about you, but I personally do not believe that this is all just a coincidence.

Tell us your thoughts in our Forum