Capital allocator or technician?

What it is

A one-question check I use on myself. A technician solves the problem in front of them. A capital allocator decides where time, money and attention should go so that problems get solved without them.

Both roles are valuable. The trap is being promoted into the second while your habits stay in the first.

When I use it

When I notice I’m doing something for the third time. When a decision lands on my desk that someone closer to the work could make. When I feel busy all week and can’t name what changed.

How

Ask: “Is this a technician reaction or a capital allocator decision?” Then sort the task:

• Do it if it is truly one-off and only I can do it.
• Systematize it if it will come back. Write the standard, give it an owner, and give them the data to see results.
• Drop it if nobody would notice it was gone.

A worked example

On a fast-growing campus, the same service complaints used to reach me every week, and I’d fix each one. The capital allocator answer was to give each service team a clear standard, daily data on their own performance, and authority to fix issues within that standard. The complaints didn’t stop. They just stopped needing me.

How it fails

It fails when “systematize” becomes an excuse to avoid hands-on work you should be doing. Leaders still need to go and see the real thing. The point is to look closely, then build the system, not to stop looking.