Employer perspectives on work–life balance are under-developed and under-represented within the context of public debate on work and family. The current state of policy debate on work and family is grounded in the value of ‘choice’ and implicitly suggests that expanding the range of programs available will inevitably deliver a superior program for employees and employers. While diversity in program design is obviously an important priority for both parties, the current debate has not substantially increased knowledge or awareness of how best to assess program ‘fit’ nor evaluate program effectiveness for either party. This paper presents the experience of two organisations which have implemented successful work-life programs by focusing exclusively on workplace and workforce need, rather than policy rhetoric. Comparing the experience of these two organisations demonstrates that the needs of employers may be better served by a shift in the policy debate toward program ‘appropriateness’ and improved program evaluation techniques, and away from ‘choice’. Government rhetoric on ‘choice’ may actually serve to confuse rather than assist employers in the formation of an integrated and effective organisational wide work and family policy and program.