Don’t Hire a Salesperson and Expect Sales: Lisa Sacchetti Warns EdTech Founders to Focus on Fit and Culture

Welcome to EdTech Mentor Founders, Lisa, and thanks for this opportunity to have this chat.

Yeah, well, thanks for having me, Laureano. I’m excited and grateful to be part of this.

Let’s start with your background, Lisa. Before this call, I mentioned you’re our first mentor from the HR and team-building fields. I’m very interested in your journey and how it led you into the education and EdTech world.

I’ll give you a little background. My path into EdTech comes from my passion for building high-functioning teams. Next year will mark 30 years since I graduated with my master’s in human resources from Babson College. I initially thought I’d be an HR generalist, working in people and talent roles. I’ve always loved working with people and driving business growth.

My first job was at a local utility company, Boston Edison, which was very slow-paced—not a fit for me. I worked on the recruiting team, helping schedule interviews, and I became fascinated with the headhunter on the other end of the phone—someone helping to build the business from outside. That really intrigued me.

With an undergrad degree in psychology, I realized recruiting combined my two passions: working with people and growing businesses. So in ’95–’96, I decided to start my own firm. During the dot-com boom, I grew the company to 15 people. Then the bust hit, and I had to reset everything.

By 2000, I asked myself: Where can I focus and be the best? EdTech was emerging, and education was evolving fast. I intentionally focused on education and EdTech—working with tech companies, curriculum providers, and service organizations that help move education forward. Fast forward 25 years: we’re now the leader in talent acquisition and team-building in this space, and I’m very proud of that. I remain passionate about helping organizations grow through talent.

I’m curious—what were the early signals that showed this market was about to grow?

I noticed a lot of hiring and investment in the space. I also talked with students about what technologies they were using. When I went back to Babson, they were using an early version of Blackboard which was eye-opening. That personal experience reinforced my sense that this was a growth market.

The LMS was one of the first tangible examples of how the Internet could change education. You used another term—high-functioning teams—and mentioned headhunting. I imagine senior roles are more used to working with headhunters, but can you explain how this works? How does recruitment happen, and what makes a headhunter’s approach different? Also, what do you mean by “high-functioning teams”?

First, headhunting isn’t just for senior positions—it can be for any level. Headhunting is about actively going out and finding talent. About 95% of the candidates we place are passive—they’re not actively job hunting. Companies get tons of applicants when they post a job, but those aren’t always the right people.

Headhunting means finding the right people who aren’t necessarily looking. Recruiting is the act of engaging and bringing them in. We do both: search and recruitment, from C-level to individual contributor roles.

Got it. What’s the most common misconception you encounter when people first work with a firm like Renaissance Network?

One is the assumption that our value is just finding candidates. In reality, a big part of what we do is evaluating them. We use assessments, cognitive testing, behavioral-based interviews, and in-depth reference checks to ensure the right fit—not just for the role, but for the company’s stage and culture.

For example, hiring for a startup is very different than hiring for a publicly traded company. We help clients avoid hiring based on gut feelings, which can be dangerous. If your gut says “no,” that’s one thing—but hiring based on a “good feeling” is risky. We bring data and structure to the process, using funnels and conversion rates to track progress and ensure quality.

You mentioned one important attribute of an organization: maturity. You said it's different when a company is early-stage versus more established. But I’m wondering—how different is it to hire for education? Is it truly a different space in your field, or is it similar? I’m curious.

It’s very different. The companies we work with provide products or services to K-12, higher education, or workforce development. Many of the teams we build are commercial-focused—sales, marketing, product. Selling into education—whether K-12, higher ed, or corporate learning—is dramatically different. We need to understand that so we can find talent who understands it too. For example, if you're hiring a head of sales for an EdTech product sold to K-12, it would be difficult to hire someone from financial software—they wouldn’t understand how school districts buy, the committees involved, the budget cycles. You can’t just sell on ROI; it’s about impact.

Right, and really understanding the inner workings of decision-making and the dynamics inside those organizations. We see that too with our clients—K-12 has a completely different mindset compared to higher ed or corporate learning.

Exactly.

I have two questions. I’ll start with the simple one: what’s the hardest role or type of role to hire for in this space today?

Generally, the hardest roles are the ones that seem the simplest. Junior positions are tough because you can’t rely on a body of work—you have to assess personality and cognitive traits. Today, though, I’d say heads of sales are the toughest. There’s a lot of demand, and many nuances to getting the right person. The stakes are high, and sometimes urgency clouds a company’s decision-making.

That leads to my second, more complex question: is there a correlation between market cycles and the types of roles companies look for? In a down market, do you see different hiring patterns? Are people more willing to change jobs?

The types of roles don’t change much—it’s more about how you approach the process. Companies are usually hiring for product, sales, marketing, depending on their stage. But on the candidate side, the mindset shifts. Today, with uncertainty in the market, candidates are more cautious. They have options, but they’re more selective. If they’re going to leave their current role, they want to be sure they’re moving to something secure. And of course, the talent shortage keeps us busy!

Right. I told you I’d ask a lot of questions—this is fascinating, especially for people in our space. It’s good for everyone to stay mindful of their options, but also have some certainty about the companies they’re considering. Lisa, is your work primarily focused on the North American market, or do you also handle international positions?

We do a lot in North America, but we also have extensive international experience. Even pre-COVID, about half our business was international—mainly Europe, with some in Central and South America. Now, about 85% is North America. That said, many of our client companies are headquartered globally—probably 50% are outside the U.S., including several in India.

Because many are technology companies, I imagine.

Exactly.

Here’s another question I’ve seen come up: when you have international clients, do you have to “educate” them on how the U.S. education market works? It’s very particular, and they might not fully understand the talent and team requirements.

Yes—that’s a big challenge. Companies outside North America often bring their cultural expectations here. It’s hard for a CEO to fully grasp the differences until they experience it. For example, Scandinavian companies often dislike highly leveraged sales compensation, but in the U.S., that’s standard. We explain these differences. They don’t always appreciate it initially—sometimes they learn the hard way. Another common misconception is thinking, “I’ll hire a salesperson and sales will follow.” It’s more complex than that.

Yes, we’ve seen that too. Okay, maybe I’ll come back to some field-specific questions, but let’s shift a bit. What do you see as your biggest differentiator? Beyond the vertical, what sets your firm apart in terms of service or approach?

A few things. First, our reputation—we’ve been on the Forbes list of top search firms for years, we’ve won awards, and we have a strong brand. That matters because when we call passive candidates, they know our name and take the call. Second, our process—it’s thorough and data-driven, but still fast. We don’t rely on gut feeling. We track candidate funnels, use analytics, and give clients specific tasks in the process. Finally, we bring 30 years of insight—not just on talent acquisition, but on helping clients anticipate challenges around growth, hiring, and retention.

So there’s a big emphasis on really understanding your client—analyzing and studying them to make the best match. But what happens if a match doesn’t work? It’s people, after all—not an exact science.

It’s not black and white. We typically have close relationships with CEOs or leadership and act as a sounding board if issues arise. Sometimes it’s a matter of misaligned expectations or reporting structure, or just a culture shock. We help troubleshoot and see if it can be resolved. Sometimes it can’t. If not, we work with the client to learn from it—what went wrong? Was it the profile? The fit? Sometimes it’s a simple culture mismatch—like hiring someone from a large, slow-moving company into a fast-paced startup. In those cases, we may need to re-scope the profile.

What’s your biggest challenge today, as a CEO?

Uncertainty—like everyone else. As a CEO, you’re responsible for your team, so staying aware of market shifts is key. AI is a big question right now—how will it impact us, and our clients? The market goes up and down, but AI presents new opportunities and risks. The challenge is figuring out how to harness it as a tool to help clients. Humans aren’t going away—we’re in the human capital business. It’s about using technology to enable us, not replace us.

Right. And like in every field, it’s about productivity and being able to analyze more data. Talking about talent—is there a particular skillset you see leaders or HR leaders prioritizing more today, beyond the specific role? For example, at one point it was critical thinking. Is there anything like that now? You mentioned AI—are companies asking for that more in role descriptions?

You mentioned critical thinking—that’s always a good one. Hopefully, it will stay important for a long time. I’d add openness to technology. Even if someone isn’t an expert, they shouldn’t be afraid of it. They should be willing to ask, “What can we do differently?” Right now, one of the biggest risks for organizations is staying stagnant—not embracing new tech or ways of working. People with a growth mindset around technology are valuable, even if they’re still learning.

So, adaptability—being open to change. But I’m wondering, specifically in education and EdTech—maybe my perception is biased—but I’ve been in this space for 25 years and I see a lot of highly experienced talent reaching a certain age, but I don’t see the next generation stepping in at the same rate. Is that just my perception, or is that reality in the space today?

I think you’re right—it’s a reality. Generally, there’s a noticeable difference around the age of 40, in terms of work style, work ethic, and perspective. Of course, there are many exceptions. Baby Boomers are retiring, and there is younger talent entering the workforce, but the way they want to work and what they want to do can be quite different. Having a diverse team across age groups is as important as having diversity in background or ethnicity. The way someone like me views technology and work is very different from how someone in their 30s might approach it. There’s a lot we can learn from each other, but it’s a little scary.

Especially because many organizations were designed around older hierarchical models, and those structures don’t necessarily align with the motivations of younger generations. Having a diverse team in terms of motivation may be key. Leaders might need to build more flexible organizations to adapt. Do you see that happening?

I do. I agree with you. But I also believe results should still be enforced—whether that’s revenue, impact, or mission-driven goals. Accepting subpar performance just to accommodate someone’s preferred way of working wouldn’t be acceptable for me. Expectations and accountability are still important.

Right—otherwise it undermines the organization’s impact.

Exactly.

Over time, has the process of evaluating candidates become more precise? Are there more tools or more science behind it now?

Yes. I can speak for us—behavior-based interviewing has always been a foundation for me. I learned it in grad school. One common method is STAR: Situation, Task, Action, Result. It’s one of the few ways to really understand how someone works. It’s not new, but not widely used. We also measure cognitive ability—again, not new, but underused. And we use objective reference tools now, which is probably newer. Traditional reference calls often don’t yield useful information—people are hesitant to say anything negative, especially in the U.S. because of liability concerns.

Because people tend to be very nice in those calls, right?

Exactly. And they’re afraid of legal risk. That’s why we use a tool that anonymizes responses and releases liability. It gives us real, actionable feedback. We aim for 95% participation in those references—and yes, sometimes you want to find a bad reference before making a hire. It can save the client from a bad decision.

We’re a marketing firm, so we have to ask—what has been your marketing strategy? What’s helped you become a leader in this space?

We focus on marketing in two ways: first, to build brand awareness and attract business; second, to bring in candidates. The two are somewhat connected. We do newsletters, thought leadership pieces, a lot of video—sometimes interviews like this with clients, so their CEOs get visibility. We do social media—LinkedIn, publishing, etc. We haven’t done many podcasts—maybe we should! We also attend conferences and events in person—that’s a big part of it.

What are the conferences that are top of mind for Renaissance?

We always go to ASU+GSV—that’s probably our biggest target because the companies there are either investors or companies looking for investment. Their customers—meaning educators—aren’t really there. There may be a few superintendents, but it’s not teacher-focused. It’s a great conference for us. We also attend ISTE to cover K-12—not to talk to attendees, but to connect with sponsoring companies. Then we go to EDUCAUSE for higher ed. We also attend events with HolonIQ—they're great thought leaders. Those are our big ones.

Yeah, they do great work. Okay—what career advice would you give your 20-year-old self?

Well, I was so young and naive—I just said, “Oh, I’ll start my own firm.”

And you need that sometimes—as a founder, if you knew everything you were getting into, you probably wouldn’t do it!

Exactly! I had nothing to lose, and I probably wouldn’t change that. If I’d known what I know now, I might not have done it. I’ve always had a high risk tolerance, but back then, I didn’t realize how cyclical markets are—recessions, bubbles, the dot-com crash, COVID… So I’d tell myself: this isn’t a straight line—there are ups and downs.

Yeah—when you’re young, you think everything will just keep going up! One more: is there a particular EdTech company you admire because of its culture or how it manages teams and talent?

I’m not sure I’m comfortable naming specific clients, but there are a few. For example, there’s a math organization in Texas that’s very results-oriented but also very thoughtful in how they treat people. Honestly, every client has its own culture—I really look at each one uniquely.

That’s fair—probably easier to answer for other functions, but not for this one. Okay—another question: What should an organization look for in a headhunter or firm like Renaissance? And on the flip side, what should a top-level executive look for if they’re working with a headhunter?

From the company side—they should look for a true business partner, not someone who’s just going to “bring bodies.” It’s not transactional. You want someone who adds value across the business—someone you can call on, even on a Saturday, to get advice about talent, culture, or retention. Access to talent, reputation, and data-driven processes are important, but being a trusted partner is key.

From the executive side—you want someone who’s brutally honest. If your resume needs work, or if your story doesn’t add up, you want someone who will tell you. We give that feedback—whether it’s how to position yourself better, or even if a role isn’t the right fit for you. Last week I told a candidate, “You’re better off staying in your current role.” That kind of honesty is rare, but valuable.

That’s excellent advice. From the executive’s side—how do they usually find you? Is it through your network?

Usually, yes—they reach out to us. We have a conversation to get to know them and let them know about current searches. Some of our searches are public on our website; others are confidential. We also maintain a strong network and are working on new tools to add even more value for individuals who come to us. Of course, it’s companies that pay us—but we want to provide better ways to support candidates as well. We’ll be launching some of those tools in the coming months.

Lisa, this has been really insightful. You’ve shared a lot of great lessons on HR and talent. Is there anything else you’d like to add to close the interview?

Just that I really appreciate being invited. If any organizations listening are looking to grow, don’t hesitate to reach out to us—or to you. And thank you again for your time!

Thank you, Lisa—have a great rest of your day.

Thank you, Laureano. I appreciate it. Bye!