Low participation rates. Weak deferral levels. Participants who never log in unless something goes wrong. When sponsors raise these concerns, the response is often the same: “That’s just how employees are.”
I don’t buy it.
Engagement isn’t a mystery. It’s a design problem.
If the plan experience feels confusing, impersonal, or irrelevant, people disengage. If communications read like legal disclosures instead of human language, they get ignored. And if tools don’t reflect real life — student loans, caregiving, job changes, or economic stress — participants tune out.
Sponsors have more influence here than they realize. Vendor selection matters. Website usability matters. Communication tone matters. A retirement plan that feels intentional sends a message that saving for the future isn’t an afterthought.
Too often, engagement is outsourced along with recordkeeping. Sponsors assume the vendor owns the problem. But engagement failures ultimately show up as sponsor problems — poor outcomes, employee dissatisfaction, and, in some cases, litigation risk.
The best sponsors I work with don’t ask, “Why won’t employees engage?” They ask, “What are we doing that makes engagement harder?”
That shift matters. It reframes engagement as part of plan design, not participant behavior. It leads to better questions, better decisions, and better outcomes.
Engagement isn’t about flashy tools or constant emails. It’s about clarity, relevance, and trust. When participants believe the plan was designed with them in mind, engagement follows.
And when it doesn’t, sponsors shouldn’t point fingers — they should look in the mirror.
