99% of tech startup leaders in Norway are men. I “leaned in” and the treatment I got was brutal.
A critique, of public interest, following an extensive process to alert relevant decision-makers.
“You can’t respond to sexual harassment as if it were just any conflict,” I answered.
Egil Skibenes, board director and investor in the Norwegian startup company Volusense, had calmly explained to me that indeed you can.
“When two people can’t work together, it’s normal for the board chairman to resolve this by firing one of them.”
He felt that the chairman’s prioritization made sense, especially now that he knew about his conflict of interest linked to a possible multi-billion kroner deal.
I answered that conflicts of interest should be managed cautiously. That pragmatism has its limits — ethical and legal ones. That it will be difficult to move on to other leadership positions in the Norwegian medtech sector, if central actors are allowed to behave this way. Given my painfully acquired experiences I will not be willing to work with these same persons in the future.
Skibenes then advised me that, for someone with my skills and experience, there are good opportunities in fish culturing.
Fish culturing…
Egil Skibenes insisted on paying for lunch that day, and gallantly opened the door for me on the way out of the restaurant that I had invited him to.
No chance as leader and woman in a Norwegian start-up company.
What you just read was my summary of just one disturbing conversation amongst many similar meetings with persons in positions of authority.
I had just been dismissed as the CEO of medical technology company Volusense, with the formal rationale being budget cuts. “Coincidentally” I had also recently discontinued a collaboration due to sexual harassment and abuse of power. More on this below.
My very first meeting with the Volusense board was at a conference centre. That meeting began with board member and investor Jan-Olaf Tønnevold approaching me to ask if I was the one serving coffee and tea at the venue. I, who sat there far from the serving station with my laptop and a pile of papers. “No.” We were there for the same meeting and I was there to propose the company’s strategy moving forward.
There is a poetry in this, I guess. To begin and end with sexism.
The following story is my description of my situation as I experienced it. My story concerns misogynist attitudes in an important pocket of Norwegian society where a mere 0.99% of founders and leaders are women. It demonstrates what such attitudes can result in. While this specific story is mine and unique, I am not alone in dealing with such issues.
This is a translated article. Hyperlinks to Norwegian content throughout.
About the incident where Bill Kridel locked my suitcase in his hotel room, and more.
My role as CEO of Volusense was to develop the company and its products, and prepare for an eventual company sale. A specialized international investment bank, Ferghana Partners, was brought on to contribute to this process.
Bill Kridel was owner and managing director at Ferghana Partners, and their project leader for this process.
After I had presented the company to Kridel, he looked around the room and pointed at a meeting participant. He told me I needed a person on the team who “looks like him”. The archetypal “white-man-50-years-old-in-a-suit”.
He also joked that he would gladly follow me to the ladies room, along with other “humorous” remarks.
I presumed, at the time, that he would get his act together. He did not.
Instead, he started to badger me about following him to his apartment, and about visiting me at home for a weekend, rather than meeting at the office.
Once he locked my suitcase into his hotel room and tried to pressure me to follow him there to collect it.
The board of directors was betting on this man to sell the company. Now what?
I repeatedly discussed these sexual harassment episodes with the board chair at Volusense, Sveinung Hole.
Sveinung Hole was managing partner at Sarsia Seed, an investment fund focused on medical and energy startups. Sarsia Seed is by far the largest investor in Volusense and has the decision-making power corresponding to that position.
Hole and I coordinated responses to Kridels behavior, with the intention to send a clear message while avoiding to impair the collaboration:
“Bill, be professional.”
The issue faded into the background when operational challenges at Volusense led to a delay in the plans to sell the company. In the summer of 2015 we were back on track and ready to resume the process.
Trouble began again when, in a board meeting, Bill Kridel made a point of talking over my head to my male colleague, Torgeir Vaage. As usual, I was the only woman at the meeting. Kridel ignored me, pretending that Vaage held my position in the company.
Sveinung Hole corrected Kridel in the meeting and redirected Kridels communication to me as the company CEO. Hole and I discussed Kridels behaviour afterwards.
Clearly, the issue remained prominent and would have to be handled before the sales process for Volusense would start in earnest.
Sidelined with dismissive attitudes.
Around this time, something else happened outside of work: I was date raped and suffered a severe blow to my well-being. I communicated this to chairman Hole, and urged that “We have to talk about how we handle Bill Kridel. I cannot afford to ignore any further violation of my personal boundaries, verbal or otherwise.”
The reaction from the chairman was along the lines of “Of course you can’t, and you won’t need to. The others and I will work with him.”
His solution, effectively, was that I as CEO should sit in the hallway during the process of seeking an acquisition of the company. Because a man in a position of power, through sexual and other harassment, prevented me from doing my job.
Around this same time, chairman Hole’s tone and demeanor towards me changed. He delivered a series of overbearing statements:
“Don’t think difficult thoughts.”
“I do not fix my problems, I fix my thinking”
“Choose your battles.”
“The world is still exactly the same.”
“Think simple thoughts.”
He also uttered inappropriate “encouragements” about how he still viewed me as attractive, appealing and distracting, and that I still had many good years ahead of me.
I conveyed to Hole why sidelining of the person being harassed is neither a good nor acceptable response to harassment. I also gave him feedback on his comments.
I chose to assume that he responded to the best of his abilities, and that he intended to arrive at good solutions and support me. But Hole did not take on the problem with Kridel, and this evolved into a serious issue.
Clear demands, Kridel withdraws.
After difficult months without real support, I put my foot down more forcefully. I demanded that Kridel transfer his role to senior colleagues at Ferghana.
Chairman Hole could elect to deliver this message by phone. Alternatively I would send this notification myself. In writing. As company CEO. Cc’ed to an attorney.
I contacted an attorney for support as needed.
Hole rang up Kridel. Hole angled the message in this way: He noticed that the collaboration didn’t go well and that something was the matter. He had asked me and asked me again. Eventually I had told him everything. He told Kridel that his behavior was completely unacceptable, and Kridel would have to withdraw from the project immediately.
Kridel admitted that he had crossed a line and that he owed me an apology. He withdrew from the project and transferred his responsibilities to his managing director colleague.
I was grateful that Hole had finally taken steps to handle this, and the response was as expected: Kridel grasped the opportunity for a quiet retreat, while the collaboration with the investment bank continued.
However, not OK was Hole’s portrayal of me akin to an insecure little girl. As a person who, over a long period, did not dare to speak out. Who allowed a collaboration that was central for the company to deteriorate, without sounding an alarm. Who had to be rescued by the one and only superhero chairman Sveinung Hole.
This did not reflect reality.
The angle he took was even more unpalatable in context of his earlier attempts at sidelining me, combined with the messages to “fix my thinking” and similar.
I therefore called a meeting with Hole to discuss his views and approaches, “so that I am met with respect also/especially when I put in my best efforts for the company while traumatized after rape.”
We spoke for a long time and Hole listened, making an effort to understand. I was willing to let the topic be.
Exhausted and on sick leave.
For several months I had prioritized functioning as best as I could manage at work given the circumstances, while on partial sick leave.
I had reported rape to the police, with absolutely zero effect. (A story in itself.) I had met a public attorney with long experience in assisting rape victims who, among other disturbing views, believed that some men and women “like violence” — and that “no” and “stop” therefore are unclear for poor confused menfolk. People close to me had questioned whether I acted decently or had provoked it. Rape had also left a deep impact that proved impossible for me to just shake off.
I was tired and shaken.
Chairman Hole and I, along with my physician, agreed that I would take 100% sick leave for a while to focus on myself and regain my strength.
Healthier and shown the door.
When I started to feel better a few months later, it became clear that I was not welcome back at work.
Hole sent me a message saying that the company was heading towards a shutdown. There was a crisis, and we had to review my contract.
This was surprising and parts of his message seemed incoherent with what I knew about the company. When I asked Hole for more information to contribute to solutions, I did not receive a reply.
I contacted a colleague for more information, and participated in a board meeting to get up to speed. The reality appeared to be that there were just some minor issues at Volusense.
Nothing indicated that the company was crashing.
A few weeks later Hole indicated that the development and sale of the company was delayed, that more capital was needed, and that this would be very difficult to achieve. In addition, they had “calculated how much having you going around on sick leave costs us”, and they “found a way to give you your notice even though you are on sick leave”.
A few days later I was given a notice of termination on grounds of economic necessity.
In Norway, sick leave is paid for by the government. The board had volunteered a top-up to maintain my wage level.
Kridel again. And attempts to sell Volusense without telling the CEO.
Along the way I found out that Bill Kridel was back on the team. The board and my colleague Torgeir Vaage had started the sales process for Volusense, and had sent cheerful information to the company’s investors. Some of these agreed to invest more.
Around this same time, I was informed that the company was in crisis and moving towards a close-down, and soon after they decided to fire me.
I was not informed that the company sales process had started, despite my position as CEO (on sick leave) and despite the “future” company sales process having been a topic of conversation between me and chairman Hole.
The sales process was kicked off with an information memorandum. In this document, Kridel is listed as contact person number one, and the team is presented without a CEO.
Sveinung Hole has attempted to convey that Kridel’s return was insignificant and unsubstantial. When he was confronted with facts and documentation, Kridel’s return was justified by his “American contacts that are valuable”, and that he owns the investment bank Ferghana Partners.
“But listen up. He owns the company Ferghana Partners. So he exists.”
Hole insisted that this was a non-issue, since Kridel was not to have any direct contact with me and since we had agreed that I would engage with his colleagues only.
A rewrite of history, and not a subtle one.
I was also contacted by a woman from an international company that had considered acquiring Volusense. They were interested and had hired a financial valuation consultant to assist them. But then they met with Bill Kridel. He acted inappropriately towards her. She then received support from her superiors to not pursue this acquisition opportunity further. A realistic opportunity to sell Volusense was thus jeopardized as a result of Kridel’s behavior towards a female representative of a potential acquirer.
In parallel, Kridel and his company were engaged in a sales process for another Norwegian company. Sveinung Hole represents, as fund manager, ownership stakes in this company with a combined potential value estimate of well over a billion Norwegian kroners.
This paints a picture where I am misled about the company I was the CEO of, and then fired, in the hope of landing deals and profits for Sarsia and other owners. Alliances with power brokers trump other considerations. Sexual harassment by men with power is something to just accept. Or count on retaliation.
Coffee, lunch and dinner with persons in positions of authority.
I arranged a series of meetings with board directors in the startup company Volusense and investment partners at Sarsia Seed, the investment fund that owns half of Volusense.
Egil Skibenes, he of the well wishes for a fish culturing career, was one of them.
If my experiences so far sound severe, I can tell you that the sum of the responses when reaching out made this situation even worse.
If Sveinung Hole had supported me, this story would have played out very differently.
When both Kridel and Hole behaved problematically, the right course would be for the board of directors in Volusense and the partners in Sarsia Seed to start inquiries and a cleanup, as a suitable response to getting alerted about a serious and unjustifiable situation. That too would have been tolerable.
But here every link in the chain failed, and the evasion of responsibility by all concerned has been tough to deal with.
I’ve spoken to many people, but here I am naming only those in positions of authority. Support and understanding often seemed inversely proportional to the degree of responsibility. I guess one can have some sympathy for this. No-one likes to engage with problems. But that’s not good enough for persons who took on the duties of a board director, board chair or fund manager.
I have had good working relationships, for many years, with most of the people whom I name below. I can say the same about Sveinung Hole. (And this hurts.)
“We would never permit this here,” insisted Jon Berg, investment partner at Sarsia Seed. I had just explained that yes, this happened and was permitted with Sarsia Seed’s Sveinung Hole in the driver’s seat. Berg would address what I had told him with the managing partner at Sarsia Seed, Erlend Skagseth. (Spoiler: they do permit this here.)
No response from Skagseth. Around the same time Skagseth also received a question from an acquaintance on how I was doing. The answer was brief: “That’s an HR case.”
From an earlier dialogue I knew that Hans Hekland (another Sarsia manager) was effectively of the same opinion as Egil Skibenes: the person who “wins” when sexual harassment is revealed will necessarily be the person expected to add the most value to the company.
The specific context was that Hekland congratulated me when Kridel was asked to leave, because “clearly that must mean that you are worth more to Volusense than Kridel.” I asked if that meant that if I were a secretary rather than CEO, I would have to put up with such behavior. Hekland got worked up about my response, and called me “unrealistic, and way too idealistic”. I then asked Hekland why I should bear to work in a workplace with such discriminatory attitudes towards women. Marit Wick (various roles at Sarsia) sat in my office and listened to the dialogue. Wick stated, to Hekland’s visible relief, that she to the contrary experienced Sarsia “as a workplace where they don’t see gender”.
During the time where I was clearly affected by the rape while also struggling with getting my rights acknowledged at work, Hekland also made remarks such as “I thought you were strong”. After months of ceding neither this nor that right of mine, he sighed: “Isn’t it about time to stop fighting windmills?” “Maybe they are windmills,” I responded, “but I have a sizeable horse.”
Later on, in a conversation shortly after I was fired, Marit Wick felt hurt, because I spoke to her as a newly appointed investment partner in Sarsia Seed and as a newly elected board director in Volusense, with associated responsibilities, “rather than to her as a friend.” “I guess I’ll have to prepare for a court case then, won’t I,” she said, with tears in her eyes and accusation in her voice, and got up and left. “I came here to listen, out of respect for you, and never asked for any role in this.” Right. Well then.
Kjell Øygarden, board member and founder of Volusense, sent me a text message following our conversation about this entire situation:
“I agreed to listen to you. That was ok. But today you started to make demands. I cannot accept that. I am the one to decide what I will and will not do. I therefore withdraw from any further discussions with you.”
I could not recall making any demands on him other than a general expectation that he and everyone else on the board would address this issue with appropriate attention and diligence. I asked him to elaborate. “If you cannot understand that you made demands you have to think it through.” Were my expectations that my rights would make it onto the board agenda unpalatable perhaps? We live and learn.
Arne Grip, board member in Volusense, could not find time nor reason to meet with me.
Jan Olaf Tønnevold, board member and investor in Volusense, met with me and listened, but he was mostly concerned with me finding a certain email for him. I explained to him that the access to my email archives had been cut off. I also told him that this was something I had requested undone, in vain, to illuminate this entire situation from my perspective. Tønnevold sent reminders about the email he needed.
Farzad Abdi-Dezfuli, investment partner at Sarsia Seed, understood why it was impossible for me to accept the current situation. He showed respect for my determination to take the case to court if no one would address these issues. Thank you, Farzad.
I also invited the board chairwoman of Sarsia Seed, Wenche Rolfsen, to a dialogue. The invitation was declined. She assessed that the situation was handled in the best possible way by Sveinung Hole, Sarsia Seed’s representative. “Unfortunately it is not, and this is not a trivial matter. This is precisely why I am reaching out to you.” I sent her documentation about the situation. Nope.
“You exaggerate your own importance,” was the feedback from Øivind Enger, investment partner at Sarsia Seed, when I met him. That right there was a damn ugly statement, I responded. He answered that he should be allowed to express his opinion. He repeated that I exaggerate my own importance, and added that I should moderate my vocabulary.
Earlier in the conversation, Enger attempted to disqualify and dismiss my representation of reality as one-sided. A queue of derailing statements, and criticizing form rather than content is of course a classic. I was fed up with being met in this way. I proposed that someone should write a fucking essay about how this situation could possibly be navigated as a female manager, and left without greeting.
Innovation Norway, a public institute, regulates and provides 50% of the investment capital for several early-stage investment funds, including Sarsia Seed. Volusense also receives direct funding from Innovation Norway. The Norwegian Venture Capital Association is an interest organization and self-regulating authority for seed- and venture funds. I informed the leaders of both organizations about the situation.
Both responded that they take this situation very seriously, but that there is little they can contribute with. Innovation Norway did write that they would “review how we can connect conditional demands to our funds, to contribute to a change in culture and actual change.”
Formal procedures.
I informed the (new) attorney who worked on the rape reporting process about this entire situation, and he has assisted me in this process also.
Volusense engaged one of the most high-earning attorneys in town. Their version is that I did a great job for them, and that the cause for my notice of termination was purely economic (and the board cleverly cut other costs also). Regretfully, this was necessary despite my sick leave, which had a serious cause unrelated to Volusense. They further emphasize that I was hired by contract and not as an employee, and insist that this represents a regular business contract cancellation. They claim to have been fully supportive throughout.
My “raising suspicions” about the termination of my contract and my “accusations about attitudes and the working climate” are described as strange and disappointing.
They write that they “will gladly engage in further dialogue about any circumstances that Vogels has experienced as hurtful and difficult in relation to Ferghana and Kridel. This is however not something to mix up with getting her notice of termination. These matters have precisely nothing to do with one another.”
Kridel’s apology, which was previously relayed without reservations, became “an apology based on her perceptions and feelings about certain events.”
The recent harassment was ignored. Earlier incidents with Kridel were incorrectly portrayed as a closed chapter which I at my own request had handled myself, and which was re-opened and addressed only due to “the psychological effects” of rape.
They use my rough time after rape as an argument to trivialize and dismiss criticism against both their own and Kridel’s misogynist actions.
In addition, they call for “calm around Volusense. Completely unfounded notices of legal procedures can disturb the sales process. This will also damage Rianne Vogels.”
I was advised to stop talking about this situation with persons connected to Volusense and Sarsia. Chairman Hole: “I obviously don’t want to say anything that might harm you. (…) But that is of course not so simple when many people come to me, saying that you contacted them and told a story that they don’t.. that they think sounds completely.. well, that they don’t understand.” Hole suggested that there was no point in having these conversations either, because “all of them come back to me, wondering what’s going on.”
I answered that I in that case, if the situation is still unclear to them, could follow up and show them the facts. And that I do not accept a rewrite of this history.
Hole then laughed and said: “That obviously does not make it better.”
“The message to you, Rianne, is just this: If finding a solution is a wish and a goal for you, then you have to think.” “If you want a solution, then this is perhaps not the smartest thing to do. But this will obviously be your decision.”
They repeatedly emphasized that they have only ever given me positive reviews and spoken in complimentary terms about me, my work and skills, our close working relation and my professional opportunities. They therefore feel that my response to this situation is very difficult, unfair and unreasonable.
They are nevertheless willing to support and help me, using their professional network and access to opportunities in terms of securing a new job, “but then we need to be able to rely on a trusting relationship and communication that is positive.”
“We wish that we could bury the hatchet, to then be able to focus on other things. Where do we see new assignments that we could work on together? We have multiple portfolio companies that we know could use your knowledge.”
I’d rather be fish culturing.
Legal protection sums to zero.
As my objections were repeatedly met with rejection, I became more and more determined to take this case to court. For myself, but also because this case is bigger than me. Such attitudes should elicit a forceful response.
The Norwegian equality and anti-discrimination ombudsman is irrelevant for a series of reasons. Their assessments are unenforceable and can take several years to produce. They have no sanctioning authority. Nor do they have any mandate to voice opinions regarding sexual harassment.
Only courts can assess these. On my dime. My lawyer advised me that the financial risks and personal burdens of a court case in no way would be commensurate to the result that can be achieved, even in a best scenario.
For a lawsuit, we can’t be sure that a judge will be willing to overrule a united board of directors that argues that this organizational change was an ordinary cost cutting necessity. We also cannot be absolutely sure of the interpretation of the Norwegian Working Environment Act §14–12, which stipulates rights on par with direct employment for my contractual situation. A judge who partially agrees will probably not issue a legal conviction. My attorney could, for strong, structural reasons that had little to do with the situation itself, not recommend that I take this case to court.
There are, in fact, extremely few legal rulings to be found. Between 2001 and 2008 only six cases relating to sexual harassment were heard in Norway’s district courts, appeal courts and High Court together. Between 2006 and 2014, again just six such cases were heard in courts. Amongst these last six, only one of the women received some compensation, plus reimbursement of her legal fees.
In short, the Norwegian legal system provides no real protection nor any effective sanctioning possibility for persons subjected to sexual harassment, or retaliation in a context of sexual harassment. If I would initiate legal proceedings regardless, I might, in the worst case, have to cover both my own legal fees and those of the counterparty.
Volusense offered a meagre 1 month of additional pay, with the justification that I was on sick leave when I received my notice, plus 4 months extra should the company be sold.
My legal fees (currently 95,000 Norwegian kroner) are not covered by anyone. Their attorney is funded by those who invested in the medical startup company Volusense.
At the urging of my attorney and after an extremely rough time on all counts, in a tired moment, I accepted these economical terms.
I defined prerequisites to the agreement, including written pre-approved references regarding my work, and written pre-approved communication regarding my departure to the company’s investors. 81 Norwegian investors had thus far only been informed that I was on sick leave, that I was fired while my colleague Torgeir Vaage would be engaged further in a similar role, and that I contested my dismissal. Their impression may well be that I can no longer handle the job and am moreover difficult to get rid of.
My requirement was and still is that the company investors are informed about my reasons to contest my dismissal. The agreement has now ruptured on this point. I will not collaborate in whitewashing this situation for Volusense or Sarsia.
Meanwhile, Sarsia Seed has been selected by Innovation Norway as fund manager for a new nationwide seed fund of 300 million kroner, of which 150 million are public funds. Sveinung Hole now manages a couple billion kroners in research- and development funding assets for a private charity fund, is a board director for Sarsia Seed and for the Norwegian Venture Capital Association, and is still board chairman for Volusense. Bill Kridel is surely acting just as before. How Volusense is doing is somewhat unclear.
The road ahead.
I will gradually figure out what to do next. First I am taking a break until my work motivation and enthusiasm return. Ohne Leidenschaft, keine Genialität. Without passion, no genius.
I am in Argentina for the time being, swirling around on the tango floors, calling this my midlife crisis. And I guess it is. It takes time to readjust.
Also, as you may have noticed, I grabbed a hold of my freedom of speech.
Despite my recent hardships I am privileged in that I am able to take time off, to afford an attorney or two, and in being able to regard this as an opportunity to contribute to a change in attitudes.
I have assessed different approaches and have concluded that public disclosure via independent publication is the way to go. Publication and sharing via social media provides public access to this information, and ensures that I as a whistleblower retain control of the contents of my story.
On freedom of speech, whistleblowing, loyalty to disloyal employers.
I have protested against a series of offensive incidents and a harmful workplace culture. First I alerted persons in positions of authority within the relevant organizations, allowing them to address an unacceptable situation and to guard my rights as an employee raising serious concerns. These persons were given ample opportunity to act. As this did not lead to appropriate action, they forced me onward. Gradually it dawned on me that I am a whistleblower.
Whistleblowing as an institutional construct interested me to an increasing degree, along with the potential of using one’s freedom of speech to expose workplace misconduct. Ordinarily, raising concerns about violations of one’s own employment contract or employment situation is not regarded as whistleblowing. However, disclosures of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in the private sector is of such considerable public interest that they qualify for the Norwegian Working Environment Act’s specific safeguards for whistleblowers.
I have alerted all who would listen in the board of Volusense. I have alerted the largest investors in Volusense, including all investment partners and the board chair at lead investor Sarsia Seed. The Sarsia company that I was on hire from was kept informed. At Ferghana Partners, the managing director colleague of Bill Kridel was informed about Kridels behavior. I have also alerted Innovation Norway which is a regulator for early stage investment funds. And the Norwegian Venture Capital Association, which self-regulates seed and venture capital funds. I was unable to identify effective ways to alert supervisory authorities. I have been interested in alerting the Norwegian equality and anti-discrimination ombudsman, but they have no mandate to react to situations pertaining to sexual harassment. I wished to take this case to court, but found this to be impossible in practice. Relevant research corroborates this observation.
This is what whistleblowing is: A process over time where you are pushed onward if the concerns you raise as an employee are ignored, rejected and possibly retaliated against. When there is effectively no suitable opportunity to alert supervisory authorities, alerting the public is a logical next step. It follows from the nature of whistleblowing as an institutional construct that the names of responsible individuals can be disclosed in case of publication.
I am now sharing this story because this is today’s Norway and today’s world, and it need not be like this.
Discuss. Share. Don’t trivialize.
Thanks.
-Rianne
