Yesterday’s auto announcement from the White House highlights why it’s imperative that private-sector companies doing business with government-backed enterprises employ a well-calibrated public message strategy. 

In announcing that Chrysler would enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, President Obama praised various stakeholders – unions, management, creditors, etc. – for making “sacrifices” to keep the company out of court. But then he used the bully pulpit to lash some others:

In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.  They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none.  Some demanded twice the return that other lenders were getting….  I don’t stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices.  And that’s why I’m supporting Chrysler’s plans to use our bankruptcy laws to clear away its remaining obligations so the company can get back on its feet and onto a path of success.

Later he added: “[I]t was unsustainable to let enormous liabilities remain on Chrysler’s books, and it was unacceptable to let a small group of speculators endanger Chrysler’s future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else.”

The problem here is that the president is deliberately misconstruing the position of some creditors who were not looking for additional taxpayer money, but who were convinced they were getting a raw deal from the government – reportedly 33 cents on each dollar of debt they hold. 

They’re not speculators, they’re investors. They’re seeking the money they loaned Chrysler in the first place – and they think they may have a better chance of getting it if the company is liquidated or goes through a court-directed bankruptcy, rather than being shepherded through a government-mandated debt restructuring.

There’s nothing un-American about what these creditors are doing. They have stakeholders, too – the investors who probably don’t want to see their money flushed down the toilet.

But President Obama speaks a political language – a language of “sacrifice” and broader social purpose. A language in which there are good guys and bad guys. Business people tend to have a basic respect for decisions that come down to numbers. Politicians are more agenda-driven.

There’s nothing wrong with political language in the appropriate context. But there’s something a little squirrely about the president using his political mandate to browbeat companies that are acting in an entirely ethical way.

President Obama’s rhetoric presents a dilemma for businesses, whose communications with Washington typically involve pressing the case for or against a particular regulation or policy. Now, private sector actors may have to fight back against a government seeking to make them the bad guys in a political-social drama – a government that holds increasingly greater sway over their business decisions.

It’s a delicate balance: asserting your rights without ticking off the government – and it’s exactly why we typically don’t like the government to be involved in business decisions.

For companies, it’s essential to zero in on the right message, one that recognizes the importance of business decisions in the broader social context, while also explaining the far-reaching benefits of making smart, numbers-based decisions on behalf of clients and investors.