>The sexism upon which this statement is partially premised aside...

What?

Why does direct reporting indicate Ballmer is taking a more direct role in Windows management rather than indicating that both Larson-Greene and Reller have been given a degree of authority equivalent to that Sinofsky had?

Sinofsky was reporting directly to Ballmer before his resignation. If he was fired, of course Ballmer fired him himself. Sinofsky was his direct report.

People only report directly to the CEO because they are seen as capable of acting largely with autonomy. It's a sign of trust, not incompetence.

The conclusion that Ballmer would micromanage Larson-Greene is absurd. He doesn't have the technical chops. The suggestion that he would do so with Reller, ignores her demonstrated professional competence.

The most likely case is that Sinofsky is gone so that they could be promoted. This probably wasn't a crisis, but something brewing for a long time. The issues with Office under Windows 8 RT were due to structural issues with Sinofsky's management approach.

It's the "Clearly" that makes it sexist.

CEO removes subordinate and has product heads reporting directly to themselves. Clearly, the CEO wants to take a more active interest in product development.

Point out the sexism.

CEO is female and product heads are male, point out the sexism CEO is male and product heads are male, point out the sexism.

CEO is male, product heads are female. Without any more information then that, you saw sexism. Point out the issue. You are making huge leaps to conclusions that are just not supported by the information given.

Sinofsky reported to Ballmer. His replacement(s) report(s) to Ballmer. How is a more active role by Ballmer "clearly" indicated?

Sinofsky was President of the Windows Division. He is being replaced by two VP's. This implies a removal of one level of management, placing the CEO closer to the product team.

It only places Ballmer closer to the team if one presumes that Sinofsky was not part of the team.

It only implies removal of a layer of management if one doesn't see Reller and Larson-Greene as having been promoted.

The appearance of Larson-Green and Reller on Microsoft's Senior Leadership Page supports my thesis.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/exec/slt.aspx

There are so many alternative explanations for that sentence. Your confidence in your conclusion is shocking, and your willingness to throw around such allegations with so little evidence is repugnant.

I don't know that it's sexist, but it's certainly a non sequitur. Then again, the whole article is devoid of facts, so maybe it's not too surprising that there are some gaps in its reasoning.