There’s a long-standing belief in the nonprofit world: that a well-run organization should spend roughly 80% of its budget on programs, 10% on administration, and 10% on marketing or fundraising. It’s often held up as the gold standard and a sign of efficiency and integrity.

But let’s call it what it really is: a myth built more on perception than on reality.

Before I worked in the nonprofit sector, I spent years in investment management. One pattern always stood out to me: quarter after quarter, public companies would “beat” earnings estimates by exactly one penny. Sound too perfect? That’s because it was. Many were using entirely legal accounting tactics to delay or accelerate revenue recognition, essentially stashing away a few cents here and there to ensure they’d hit that magic number when it mattered most.

I’m starting to see a similar trend in nonprofit reporting. Nearly every organization seems to follow the same tidy pattern: 80% of expenses go to programs, 10% to admin, 10% to fundraising or marketing. But how likely is it that vastly different organizations—different sizes, missions, teams—would naturally land on the same exact ratios?

Now imagine a leader who reports a breakdown like 45% to programs, 45% to admin, and 10% to fundraising. That might raise eyebrows. It might even trigger concerns from funders or stakeholders. But what if it’s actually more truthful?

What if that leader is simply being honest, however uncommonly so, about how her time, and her salary, are truly spent? What if she’s resisting the pressure to “follow the pattern” just to meet a widely accepted but arbitrary benchmark? Who establishes these industry benchmarks anyway?

Here’s the truth: there is no universally agreed-upon rule that says 80/10/10 is the ideal. It’s a cultural norm, one rooted in optics- not outcomes. And it’s time we start questioning whether these expectations are helping organizations succeed, or just encouraging them to play it safe on paper.

Here’s an example of why I’ve come to this belief.

About 10–15 years ago, I served on the board of a small nonprofit, a pre-professional dance program in Boston. The funds we raised provided scholarships for city kids who otherwise wouldn’t have had access to this training. The organization no longer exists, but I don’t consider it a failure. After all, what defines sustainability? How long does something have to exist to have done good in the world?

While on the board, alongside a passionate group of creatives, I was asked to fill out the Mass Cultural Council database, using numbers pulled straight from our audit. And guess what? Everyone’s salary was divided neatly into 80/10/10. At the time, I didn’t question it. But looking back, I realize: this was the pattern, and it's likely repeated across thousands of organizations. Not because people are dishonest, but because this is the structure that’s been imposed.  

To my former dance program friends and the many others who follow these guidelines, this isn’t a criticism. It’s a call to question if this structure is broken. Does this structure promote sustainability or success?

So what’s the alternative?

Rather than defaulting to one-size-fits-all benchmarks, let’s normalize customized reporting that reflects the true nature of an organization’s work. Instead of forcing every budget into outdated ratios, we should encourage leaders to explain why their spending looks the way it does. 

Is a higher administrative cost the result of investing in better systems, stronger leadership, or fair wages? Did marketing costs rise because the organization is expanding its reach to better serve its community? 

Funders, boards, and the public should shift their focus from how money is categorized to what outcomes are being achieved. 

Transparency doesn’t mean conforming to a norm. It means communicating with clarity, context, and integrity. It means trusting leaders enough to let them lead in ever-shifting landscapes- even if their pie chart looks different from someone else’s. We don’t need performative ratios. We need real transparency, honest accounting, and a willingness to rethink the system, if we’re focused on what truly matters and serious about solving big problems.

And this goes for all leaders, not just for nonprofit leaders.

Founders and executives also face pressure to present tidy narratives: chasing perfect KPIs, flattening nuance into quarterly metrics, or optimizing for short-term optics over long-term vision. But real leadership isn’t about making things look good on paper. It’s about building organizations that are resilient, transparent, and aligned with their values.

Whether you're running a mission-driven nonprofit or scaling a company, the principle is the same: we don’t need performance theater. We need transparent communication and accountability with context. 

Everything changes when we start asking, “Is this actually working?” Until then, we’ll keep getting the same results.

And that, my friends, is a mic drop.