The top three causes of workplace stress as pinpointed by employers: 

1. work/life balance (or should we say "imbalance?");
2. inadequate staffing;
3. technologies that expand employee availability during non-working hours.

The top three causes of workplace stress as pinpointed by working stiffs: 

1. inadequate staffing;
2. low pay or low pay increases;
3. unclear or conflicting job expectations. 

Obviously, just one factor was cited by both: inadequate staffing.   

Now that we have that out of the way, here's what Towers Watson said about highly effective organizations.

In these organizations, the above responses would be in alignment, although by now most of the factors would have been eliminated by these employers. 

These observations are based upon years of studies, both straight information-gathering and anecdotal in form. 

First, these organizations set as a strategic goal that they will create "a culture of health as their top priority and an essential factor for success." These winners have realized that corporate health and individual employee health are inextricably linked.

To use a sports analogy, they'd rather have a team of Cal Ripkins (owner of the longest consecutive games played streak in baseball) than Kurt Gibsons (owner of the most hours spent in the whirlpool because he crashed into a wall for a fly ball once too often). But to create this team, the company has to support healthy, work-life balance behavior rather than crash-and-burn behavior.

Here are two positive-behavior conclusions about success-driven organizations from the recent TW report:

1. Employers recognize that health is a total business issue that affects workforce performance.
2. Linking the health and productivity strategy to the employee value proposition is key to getting the most out of investment in the program and driving sustained healthy behaviors. 

And here is TW's evidence-based profile of how highly effective organizations behave:

• High-effectiveness organizations have a 66 percent employee participation rate in any wellness activity or health management program, compared to 45 percent for low-effectiveness organizations and 51 percent for all U.S. respondents.
• 57 percent of employees at high-effectiveness organizations complete the health risk assessment and biometric screening, compared to 38 percent for low-effectiveness organizations and 45 percent for respondents overall.
   
• High-effectiveness organizations' employees in the U.S. have obesity rates that are 25 percent lower than low-effectiveness companies (33 percent vs. 43 percent), and the rate of diabetes/high-glucose risks are roughly half (12 percent vs. 23 percent).
   
• In 2012, unplanned absences for high-effectiveness organizations were lower (3.3 vs. 4.0 days per year), and respondents expect them to be as low or lower in 2013 (3.0 vs. 4.0 days per year). (Expectations are another key to effectiveness.)

 And how does this commitment work out from a financial performance standpoint? 

• High-effectiveness companies are 40 percent more likely to report financial performance above their peers over the last year than low-effectiveness companies (63 percent vs. 45 percent).
   
• High-effectiveness companies are nearly 80 percent more likely to report their financial performance as significantly higher than their peers (20 percent vs. 11 percent).
   
• In the U.S., there is a differential in annual health care costs of more than $1,600 per employee, giving a company with 20,000 employees a $32 million cost advantage over low-performing corporations. 

And, in light of this collective intelligence, TW offers the following guidelines for companies that would like to become highly effective: 

• Developing a comprehensive strategy that reflects the organization's specific challenges and goals; is based on identified population health issues and absence data, and integrates every aspect of health and productivity, including the organization's approach to health benefits, its tactics for ensuring employees' engagement in their own health and well-being, and the management of vendor relationships.
   
• Implementing employee engagement strategies that promote a supportive environment, offer financial incentives for program participation and provide tools to help employees understand their best health care options.
   
• Engaging managers as role models for a healthy lifestyle and training them to provide the face-to-face communication employees need.
   
• Communicating frequently using a combination of high-touch and high-tech tactics.
   
• Taking steps to reduce employee stress by understanding the sources and addressing them through a cohesive, thoughtful strategy.
   
• Providing easy access to high-quality health care — both mental and physical — so employees can address health issues early and receive evidence-based, appropriate care, thereby avoiding or reducing absence.
   
• Understanding health and productivity outcomes by establishing metrics, knowing the baseline statistics for population health and absence, measuring progress against goals organizations. 

There, now you have the guidelines. Go forth in 2014 and be highly effective.