It’s not the individual’s fault that he doesn’t save enough. It’s the company’s fault for providing an imperfect plan.

Worse, we’re encouraging the dual false belief that: (a) the average 401(k) participant is better at making a subjective determination on the relative merits of a 401(k) plan when experienced professionals can reasonably disagree on what is “good” and what is “bad”; and (b) even if they can accurately assess the nature of their 401(k) plan, that they possess some sort of magical power that will allow them to convince their plan’s sponsor – you know, the one who owns the fiduciary liability for making a bad decision – to abide by their inexpert analysis and recommendation.

Consider the futility of this.

Now consider the alternative. What if, instead of getting folks all up in arms about the possible problems with their 401(k), we tell them the best savings strategies they can use even if they have a less than ideal 401(k) plan? (By coincidence, you might be interested in reading “Best Savings Strategies for Employees with Bad Retirement Plans,” FiduciaryNews.com, June 28, 2016.)

By accentuating the positive, we achieve two very commendable objectives. First, we empower the employees to take control of their own retirement lives. We’re telling them they no longer need depend on what at times might appear to be a detached third party (aka their employer) to achieve something near and dear to their hearts. Second, and of equal significance, we reinforce the philosophy of self-responsibility. This is famously encapsulated in the introspective question “If not me, then who?”

People who assume personal accountability and reduce their dependency on others tend to be successful. People want to be successful. So, doing things that encourage self-responsibility is a good thing.

This is not to say there aren’t plans out there that need improvement and that plan sponsors don’t want to improve those plans.

The reality of plan oversight requires changes to turn at the speed of an aircraft carrier. This is done with purpose. We don’t want make it easy to alter what should be a long-term strategy.

This is especially true with investments. Today’s investment fly-boys are tomorrow’s has-been fads. By taking a long-term perspective, you can easily see where you don’t want to bet your retirement on the Hare when the Tortoise will get you there in a more dependable fashion.

Still, there are universally acknowledged “no-no’s” that can afflict 401(k) plans. You never want to pay for a higher fee share class when less expensive ones are available.

In a similar vein, academic studies show funds exposed to commissions, 12b-1 fees, and revenue sharing tend to underperform funds that aren’t exposed to these “hidden” fees. Plan sponsors shouldn’t wait for their employees to discover these problems.

Plan sponsors should expect their service providers to find these issues and to recommend the fastest way to remove them. This is in the plan sponsor's best interest, not just the employees’ best interests.

Plan sponsors and plan participants each have a unique role when it comes to interacting with their 401(k) plan. The plan sponsor’s primary responsibility is plan oversight: Find the problem, fix the problem.

The plan participant’s primary responsibility is self-interest: Know your goal-oriented target, use as many weapons as possible to achieve that goal-oriented target. And those weapons aren’t limited to the company 401(k) plan.

There’s a popular expression known as the “Serenity Prayer.” It goes something like this: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.”

Let’s not encourage 401(k) participants to change things they can’t. Let’s show them how to propel themselves to fabulous success by taking charge of the matters in their life they do control.