Not according to Marcy Supovitz, president of the National Association of Plan Advisors and a principal at Boulay Donnelly & Supovitz in Massachusetts. In NAPA's view, says Supovitz, "Automating plans does not encourage laziness."

Eliminating automated features won't make employees more industrious, either. People choose their participation level based on what else is happening in their lives. While a certain percentage will never voluntarily make their own selections, others' reluctance owes more to lack of knowledge and/or a perception that they cannot afford to contribute because of other obligations. 

Education by itself isn't enough, either, she adds, "Education alone actually does very little, in most cases, in overcoming the intimidation of picking funds—and many people are just intimidated about doing that … Automatic [choices] and TDFs are all about keeping things simple."

Supovitz also warns against thinking that simply because automated plans drive up participation, they solve the problem of employees saving for retirement.

"It has been our experience that autopilot features can increase participation dramatically," she explains, "but I need to caveat that by saying that you need the right plan design."

For instance, she says, most people should save about 15 percent over their career, some coming from employers and some from their own savings. 

"But in an automatic feature, employees can be enrolled at, say, 3 percent, and never get around to changing it. It might be lazy," she says, "but more likely, they think 3 percent is right, or why set it up that way to begin with? It's implicit endorsement."

Supovitz says NAPA prefers to see a beginning savings rate of at least 6 percent that escalates 1 percent, even 2 percent, per year.

Other experts agree. Professor Olivia S. Mitchell of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, also executive director of the Pension Research Council, said in an e-mail interview that "employers who auto-enroll workers at a 3 percent saving rate are likely to be lead[ing] their workers into thinking that 'it's all taken care of,' when clearly this low rate is surely insufficient given a low-return economy and long-lived population."

Further, she pointed out that auto enrollment "does not take into account peoples' different circumstances—such as whether they or their spouses also have a defined benefit plan, whether their retirement saving gap might be lower due to being in poor health (or higher due to being female), and so forth."

And then there is the daunting matter of withdrawals upon retirement—now beginning to be automated as well.

Annamaria Lusardi, International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans Professor at George Washington University, said, "[I]t's an important initiative, but it's not enough … the fact that you automatically enroll people … doesn't solve the problem, and that they stay enrolled doesn't mean that they save enough." 

Prior to the financial crisis, Lusardi relates, retirement account leakage from withdrawals or loans amounted to 30 cents on the dollar. During and after the crisis, leakage rose to 50 cents.

"We can't just look at [enrollment]," she says. "The question is, what do they do afterwards? If they're borrowing and don't roll over retirement accounts if they change jobs, we're not doing enough. Other people advocate [automated accounts] as simple and easy, but it's not simple or easy, and sometimes it's not a solution."

Supovits concurs. People also need to learn how to deal with debt, budgeting, and overall financial wellness.

She sums it up this way: "Automatic features tend to lock in responsible money behaviors. We have proof that it improves participant outcomes."

However, in a perfect world, she adds, managed accounts would consider the unique circumstances of every employee who couldn't make independent investment choices. In the meantime, TDFs and automated choices at least ensure some progress.