By Zandile Nyathi, Head of Human Resources: SPM
In many organisations, HR is spoken about in terms of culture, morale, and compliance—important areas, but incomplete. In environments where failure carries real consequences, HR is not a support function. It is a control function. It shapes who is allowed into the system, how authority is distributed, and how behaviour is corrected when the cost of error is high.
Our work as HR is grounded in a simple reality. People decisions have operational consequences. Hiring decisions affect risk exposure. Poor role clarity creates escalation delays. Weak supervision shows up later as safety incidents or unplanned downtime. These outcomes are often attributed to technical failure, but more often they are organisational ones.
The starting point is selection. We are cautious about who we bring into the business, not because we are risk-averse, but because the cost of misjudgement is high. Technical competence is necessary, but it is not sufficient. We assess how individuals respond to incomplete information, how they exercise judgement under pressure, and whether they understand the weight of consequence that comes with the work. HR’s role is to filter for readiness, not potential alone.
Once people are in the system, structure becomes the priority. One of the most common organisational failures we see is unclear authority. When accountability is vague, decisions slow down. When escalation paths are ambiguous, responsibility is deferred. In high-risk environments, delay is rarely neutral. Our responsibility is to ensure that roles are designed with clarity, that authority is assigned deliberately, and that people understand not only what they are responsible for, but what they are accountable for.
Training is often misunderstood as an input. From an HR perspective, training is only effective when it changes behaviour. Certifications and classroom sessions have value, but they do not build judgement on their own. Judgement is developed through exposure, supervision, and repetition. We are deliberate about how people are developed, who mentors them, and when they are given increased responsibility. Advancement is not automatic. It is earned through demonstrated decision-making, not tenure.
Performance management follows the same logic. We do not measure performance only by output or speed. We pay close attention to how work is approached. Whether risks are raised early. Whether safety is treated as non-negotiable. Whether individuals understand when to stop work. These behaviours are reinforced through how we evaluate performance and how we respond when standards are not met. Silence or tolerance in these moments undermines the system.
Fatigue management is another area where HR carries direct responsibility for risk. Long hours, emergency mobilisation, and sustained pressure erode judgement over time. This is not a wellbeing narrative. It is a performance one. Tired people make poorer decisions. HR’s role is to monitor load, intervene when limits are reached, and ensure that resilience is treated as a finite resource, not an assumption.
Discipline is also part of the function. In high-stakes environments, inconsistency in enforcement creates uncertainty. When standards are applied unevenly, people begin to test boundaries. That is when small deviations become systemic. HR is responsible for maintaining consistency, even when enforcement is uncomfortable. Especially when it is uncomfortable.
Culture, in this context, is not something we describe. It is something we regulate. It is visible in how authority is exercised, how concerns are handled, and how leaders behave when under pressure. HR plays a central role in setting these expectations and holding the line when they are challenged.
There is a tendency to treat HR as a secondary function in technical organisations. In reality, HR determines whether technical capability can be sustained at all. Without the right people, clear authority, disciplined development, and consistent enforcement, technical excellence degrades over time. Systems do not fail suddenly. They weaken quietly.
From our perspective, strong HR is not about being visible. It is about being effective. When the right people are in the right roles, when decisions are made at the right level, and when standards hold under pressure, HR has done its work properly. The outcome may look operational, but the foundation is organisational.
This is how we understand our role. Not as custodians of policy, but as architects of a system that can carry responsibility, pressure, and consequence without breaking.
