The Real Power Dynamics Inside EdTech Buying Committees

Titles don’t decide EdTech deals, but risk, incentives, and fear do

Power inside EdTech buying committees is not evenly distributed, not transparent, and not tied to who speaks the most. It is controlled by those who can delay, veto, or create risk – not those who want the solution.

This misunderstanding costs EdTech companies years.

Buying committees are not collaborative teams.

They are risk-balancing systems.

The Myth of the Rational Buying Committee

EdTech teams often imagine buying committees as:

• Groups evaluating options objectively
• Stakeholders aligned around outcomes
• Decisions driven by logic and consensus

That’s not how education institutions work.

Buying committees exist to:

• Prevent mistakes
• Absorb blame
• Protect reputations
• Maintain stability

Every role inside the committee optimizes for something different – and often conflicting.

The Four Psychological Power Profiles in EdTech Buying

Understanding EdTech buying means understanding who feels exposed, who feels safe, and who feels watched.

1. The Visible Champion (High Belief, High Risk)

Who they are: Curriculum leaders, department heads, innovation-minded administrators.

Psychology:

• Care deeply about outcomes for students or educators
• Believe change is necessary
• Carry the most personal exposure

Behavior:

• Advocate early
• Go quiet late
• Retreat if isolated

Champions don’t lack conviction. They lack protection.

2. The Silent Gatekeeper (Low Belief, High Control)

Who they are: IT, security, compliance, procurement.

Psychology:

• Incentivized to prevent failure, not create success
• Judged by what goes wrong—not what improves
• Comfortable saying “not yet” indefinitely

Behavior:

• Engage late
• Ask detailed, restrictive questions
• Rarely say “yes”—only remove objections

Gatekeepers don’t need enthusiasm. They need certainty.

3. The Political Stabilizer (Moderate Belief, Moderate Risk)

Who they are: Assistant superintendents, deans, senior administrators.

Psychology:

• Prioritize harmony and predictability
• Avoid conflict across departments
• Care deeply about optics

Behavior:

• Support decisions that feel inevitable
• Resist decisions that feel disruptive
• Follow consensus rather than create it

They don’t block change. They wait for safety signals.

4. The Economic Authority (High Authority, Low Emotional Ownership)

Who they are: Superintendents, provosts, CFOs, final signatories.

Psychology:

• Think institutionally, not operationally
• Rarely live with the tool day-to-day
• Care about fallout, not features

Behavior:

• Ask few questions early
• Surface decisive questions late
• Expect others to have aligned already

They don’t build momentum. They ratify stability.

Who Actually Has the Most Power?

The person who can say:

“This might be risky.”

Power in EdTech buying belongs to:

• Those who can delay without consequence
• Those who raise compliance or security flags
• Those who won’t be blamed for stopping progress

Power does not belong to:

• The most excited voice
• The most innovative thinker
• The person who uses the product

This is why “strong interest” so often goes nowhere.

Why Risk Tolerance Varies So Dramatically by Role

Some buyers are willing to take risks because:

• They believe in impact
• They see student or faculty benefit
• They are personally frustrated with the status quo

Others are unwilling because:

• Their job is to avoid headlines
• Their salary depends on stability
• Their career is built on caution

Both are rational—within their incentives.

Ignoring that difference guarantees misalignment.

How EdTech Companies Misread Committee Behavior

Common misinterpretations:

• Silence = agreement
• Enthusiasm = influence
• Authority = urgency
• Consensus = excitement

In reality:

• Silence often hides unresolved concern
• Enthusiasm often has no power
• Authority often arrives last
• Consensus is quiet, not energetic

EdTech teams lose when they confuse volume with influence.

What Successful EdTech Teams Do Differently

They stop selling to “the committee.”

They:

• Identify who feels most exposed
• Protect champions early
• Anticipate gatekeeper vetoes
• Supply stabilizers with inevitability signals
• Ensure economic authorities see alignment—not debate

They don’t push for buy-in.

They engineer safety.

FAQ: The Real Power Dynamics Inside EdTech Buying Committees

Who actually has the power to move or kill an EdTech deal?

The person who can slow it down without consequences.

In education buying, power belongs to:

• IT, security, and procurement
• Risk-averse administrators with institutional memory
• Quiet stakeholders who never champion—but can veto

The most powerful people rarely show excitement. They show restraint.

Why do the most enthusiastic buyers so rarely control the outcome?

Because enthusiasm and authority are inversely related in education.

The people who:

• Care most about student outcomes
• Feel urgency for change
• See the value immediately

Also tend to:

• Carry the most personal risk
• Have the least institutional protection

Belief creates momentum. Protection determines survival.

Why does the “final decision maker” often feel irrelevant?

Because final approval is usually a ratification, not a decision.

By the time a superintendent, provost, or CFO signs:

• Consensus has already stabilized—or failed
• Objections have already been neutralized—or not

If alignment isn’t in place, no executive will rescue the deal.

What is the fastest way for EdTech teams to lose control of a committee?

By treating it like a group to persuade instead of a system to stabilize.

When teams:

• Push urgency
• Ignore silent stakeholders
• Over-index on ROI or features

They increase internal friction instead of reducing it.

Committees don’t respond to persuasion. They respond to safety.

What must EdTech teams do differently to win committee-driven deals?

They must stop selling for excitement and start designing for risk absorption.

That means:

• Protecting champions before scrutiny arrives
• Neutralizing gatekeeper objections early
• Making decisions feel inevitable, not bold
• Giving every stakeholder a way to say “yes” without exposure

You don’t win committees by convincing everyone. You win by making it safe for no one to object.

The Core Takeaway

EdTech buying committees are not democratic. They are defensive systems.

Power flows to those who:

• Control risk
• Prevent failure
• Avoid blame

If you don’t understand who holds that power—and why—you’ll keep persuading the wrong people and wondering why nothing moves.

Winning in education isn’t about convincing the loudest voice. It’s about protecting the most exposed one.

Written by: Tony Zayas, Chief Revenue Officer

In my role as Chief Revenue Officer at Insivia, I help SaaS and technology companies break through growth ceilings by aligning their marketing, sales, and positioning around one central truth: buyers drive everything.

I lead our go-to-market strategy and revenue operations, working with founders and teams to sharpen their message, accelerate demand, and remove friction across the entire buyer journey.

With years of experience collaborating with fast-growth companies, I focus on turning deep buyer understanding into predictable, scalable revenue—because real growth happens when every motion reflects what the buyer actually needs, expects, and believes.