Microsoft’s appointment of Asha Sharma as the new head of its gaming division has sparked controversy, with accusations of “Indian nepotism” emerging on social media.
Microsoft announced on Friday that Asha Sharma will succeed Phil Spencer as the executive vice president and chief executive officer of its gaming division. Spencer, who has been with the company for 38 years, is retiring, marking a significant leadership transition for the tech giant’s gaming business.
Sharma, who previously led product development for Microsoft’s artificial intelligence models and services, is stepping into a role that includes overseeing the Xbox brand. Her appointment comes as part of a broader strategy to integrate AI into Microsoft’s offerings.
However, the announcement was met with immediate backlash on social media, where some users criticized the decision to promote Sharma. A vocal minority accused Microsoft of engaging in “Indian nepotism,” a term that quickly gained traction across various gaming forums and platforms like X.
The leadership changes at Microsoft do not end with Sharma. Sarah Bond, who has been serving as president of Xbox, is also set to step down. Matt Booty, the current head of game studios, will transition to the role of chief content officer and report directly to Sharma.
In a company blog post, CEO Satya Nadella outlined the new leadership structure, emphasizing the next phase for Microsoft’s gaming business. Sharma’s experience in building consumer products was cited as a key factor in her selection for the role.
Sharma has a long history with Microsoft, having worked with the company for over a decade. She initially joined the marketing division before leaving in 2013. After spending time at Instacart and Meta, she returned to Microsoft two years ago to take on a senior leadership role focused on core AI products.
Despite her qualifications, Sharma’s promotion has faced scrutiny. Critics on X questioned her lack of direct experience in the gaming industry, with one user stating, “Asha Sharma, the new head of Xbox, is an AI executive with no background in gaming.” Another user linked her promotion to a broader anti-immigrant sentiment, arguing that Microsoft has become synonymous with “Indian nepotism.”
The criticism intensified, with some users pointing to Sharma’s LinkedIn profile to argue that she had never held a position for more than four years, questioning her long-term leadership experience. Others, however, defended the decision, asserting that a chief executive does not need to be a gamer to effectively lead a global gaming business. Some commentators suggested that the backlash against Sharma may reflect underlying racism toward Indians in the tech industry.
The timing of this leadership change is particularly complex for Xbox. Following years of fierce competition with Sony and Nintendo, Spencer acknowledged in 2024 that the Xbox One had “lost the worst generation to lose.” In response, Microsoft has made significant investments to expand its reach, including a $69 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, while also cutting more than 2,500 jobs and closing multiple studios since 2024.
In an email to staff, Sharma sought to reassure employees and long-time players, stating, “We will recommit to our core Xbox fans and players, those who have invested with us for the past 25 years, and to the developers who build the expansive universes and experiences that are embraced by players across the world.” She further emphasized a renewed commitment to Xbox, starting with the console that has shaped the brand’s identity.
The ongoing debate surrounding Sharma’s appointment highlights the complexities of leadership transitions in the tech industry, particularly in a landscape that is increasingly influenced by global talent and diverse backgrounds. As Microsoft navigates this new chapter, the implications of these changes will be closely watched by both industry insiders and consumers alike.
According to The American Bazaar, the reactions to Sharma’s promotion underscore the challenges that come with leadership changes in a competitive market.