A Health & Safety leadership read on how well we understand, believe in, and meet the five expectations of the Gold Fields operating model.
The Health Score is the percentage of respondents who rated a statement 4 or 5 out of 5 — Agree or Strongly Agree. Like an NPS top-box, it counts conviction, not the midpoint of opinion.
A higher score means more of the leadership team believe an expectation is being met today — a more conservative, action-oriented read than a simple average.
Three measures sit behind overall health: Understanding (do we grasp the expectations), Performance Belief (will meeting them improve performance), and Alignment (do we meet them today, across the five expectations).
Percentage of respondents who rated 4 or 5 of 5 — a conservative, action-oriented measure rather than a simple average.
How well participants understand Gold Fields' operating model expectations. Measured before and after the session.
How well the team believes they currently meet each of the five operating model expectations. The core of the assessment.
Confidence that meeting these expectations will set the business up to deliver better performance.
The average of the Understanding, Alignment and Performance Belief health scores.
One of the five operating model success factors: Value Delivery & Organisation; Governance & Standards; Critical Processes; Technology; Performance Management & Routines.
The H&S leadership team understands the operating model and believes in it — alignment to it is where the work sits.
| # | Expectation | Health | What we heard | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Value Delivery & Organisation | 33% (3.0) | Internal clarity is reasonable; cross-functional accountabilities are blurred at the edges. | Complete an interface RACI; re-confirm the mandate with adjacent functions. |
| 2 | Governance & Standards | 0% (1.8) | Lowest-scoring — fragmented ownership of standards and critical-risk docs, weak version control. | Establish document governance with named owners; consolidate to a single source of truth. |
| 3 | Critical Processes | 22% (2.6) | Process design exists; end-to-end ownership and the critical hand-offs are unclear. | Clarify end-to-end ownership; map and de-risk the hand-offs. |
| 4 | Technology | 11% (2.2) | Tooling fragmented across owners; reporting not trusted as a single source. | Define metrics and an authoritative source; clarify tooling decision rights. |
| 5 | Performance Management & Routines | 44% (3.2) | Routines are disciplined but loosely linked to outcomes; accountability not reinforced upward. | Standardise the routine cadence; agree the upward accountability rhythm. |
"I understand the operating model expectations that Gold Fields has set."
The expectations are clear once articulated — the challenge is embedding them into day-to-day alignment and routines, not explaining them. That is where the gap-closure work now sits.
The lowest-scoring expectations — Governance & Standards and Technology — are where the gap-closure conversation should start.
"Our organisation / team operates with clearly defined and understood mandates, services, decisions, interfaces and roles."
The team is clear on what H&S owns internally, but cross-functional accountabilities blur at the handoffs with operations and the other Group functions. Roles are understood within the team yet not consistently recognised by adjacent functions.
"Our standards, material risks, and critical documentation are clearly defined, owned and applied."
The lowest-scoring expectation. Standards and critical-risk documentation are owned in too many places and version control is inconsistent — the team can't always say which version is current. There is no single accountable owner for the managed-system documentation set.
"Our critical processes are clearly defined, owned and consistently executed to deliver our mandate."
Process design exists but end-to-end ownership is unclear. Hand-offs between teams are where execution breaks down — particularly across shift and function boundaries. "I own my bit, but who acts at each hand-off isn't clear — that's where it stalls."
"Our digital tools, applications and reporting are fit-for-purpose, clearly owned and support performance."
Technology is fragmented across owners and platforms. Reporting is not trusted as a single source, and tool ownership is split across teams with no clear arbiter — "nobody owns the whole picture, so the numbers get second-guessed."
"We operate with clear performance metrics and disciplined routines that drive accountability and continuous improvement."
The strongest of the five. Internal routines are reasonably disciplined but not consistently linked to operational outcomes, and accountability is owned within the team rather than reinforced upward — "we can drive accountability as a team, but we need operations to meet us in the routine."
| # | Action | Expectation | Priority | Owner | Status | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Establish document governance for H&S standards & critical-risk docs — named owners and a review cadence. | Governance & Standards | High | Priya Iyer | In Progress | 31 Jul 2026 |
| 2 | Consolidate the managed-system library into a single source of truth. | Governance & Standards | High | Priya Iyer | Not Started | 31 Aug 2026 |
| 3 | Define authoritative reporting metrics and source of truth; clarify tooling decision rights. | Technology | Medium | Priya Iyer | Not Started | — |
| 4 | Complete an interface RACI across H&S, operations and Group functions. | Value Delivery & Org | Medium | Priya Iyer | Not Started | 15 Aug 2026 |
| 5 | Clarify end-to-end ownership of critical processes and map the critical hand-offs. | Critical Processes | Medium | Priya Iyer | Not Started | — |
| 6 | Standardise the routine cadence and agree the upward accountability rhythm with operations. | Perf Mgmt & Routines | Low | Priya Iyer | Noted | — |
Summary of facilitator notes and participant responses per expectation.