Is "Why Steven Sinofsky is out at Microsoft" correct?

Solution 1:

I agree that the use of out at in this sense is odd and a tad ambiguous. I suspect that it might be peculiar to American English.

Why Steven Sinofsky is out at Microsoft

If I had not already been aware of Sinofsky leaving Microsoft, I might have interpreted the above headline as:

Why Steven Sinofsky is over at Microsoft

In other words, it sounds as if Sinofsky is over there at Microsoft to do something.

The following are random examples from Google books where out at X is being used similar to over at X:

My husband is as nervous over it as I am, but he is out at his work all day, while I get no rest from it.

"The chief is out at the fire," the dispatcher told him.

Your assistant, Peter, is out at lunch. Leave a message for him, explain what has happened and ask him to cancel your afternoon appointments.

Perhaps it is a naive view and in the summer everybody is out at the pub, or simply, as I read is a growing tendency, just browned off with the box.

The following are random examples from Google Books where out at X is being used in the same sense as out of X:

Republican Osberger is out at Arthur Young.

PD/afternoon jock Tom Bradley is out at WKKX St. Louis. Operations director Russ Schell assumes his PD duties and is accepting T&Rs for the afternoon slot.

There appear to be fewer examples of this sort (which doesn't really say much) and all seem American as well. Perhaps it's a baseball reference?

I agree with the OP that "Why Steven Sinofsky is out of Microsoft" would have been a far clearer choice of headline.