The main underlying cultural difference causing conflicts between Edwards Engineering Inc. and Kiel A.G. is a different approach to international business matters. EEI being an American company approaches a potential buyer in a friendly and zealous manner. Edwards sees the need to engage total openness to facilitate quick negotiations and save both parties on resources and time. This approach, rather than speeding up negotiations, caused Kiel to raise eyebrows. Having no proper comprehension in such an approach, Kiel takes caution and goes slow on the acquisition plan to give room for a detailed pre-acquisition audit on EEI. Edwards’s openness was unexpected and therefore seen by Kiel as a strategy to cover up for some underlying major problems. In turn, Kiel’s changes approach in favour of a formal approach to the acquisition negotiations, which Edwards regards as expensive and unnecessary, after all he had given all required information about EEI. Both parties were willing to make the deal but neither of the two was used to the other’s cultural approach to negotiation nor was any willing to embrace the opposite party’s approach without suspicion. The situation posed a major cultural conflict between Kiel A.G. and EEI.
In this case, a different approach to negotiations would be the engagement of international negotiators. This would be a much better approach putting in mind that international business negotiators have exposure to situations such as the above-occurred international cultural conflict. The negotiators would first analyse the divergent approach of the other party and come up with the best approach to use when facing potential international buyers or sellers without portraying any negative impressions as was the case with EEI. Due to the experience of the international negotiators who still are advisers, proper consultations would take place putting in mind the time factor. In this case, Edwards patients was running out due to the time taken by the auditing process while Kiel’s got concerned a lot with the Edwards’ hastiness to sell EEI. Engagement of experienced international negotiators would facilitate accommodative environments for positive negotiation outcome; therefore, it would be the best approach to take.
Both Kiel A.G. and EEI should consider several steps in order to improve their negotiating behaviours. To start with, as much as Kiel was cautious and formal about the deal, he ought to examine the cultural behaviour of Edwards and be more collaborative. This would help him in identifying the concern and interest of Edwards and save a lot of time.
On the other, Edwards should do away with his avoidance style of doing things. Avoidance of the formality of the negotiation procedures was a weakness portrayed by Edwards that triggered the suspicion by Kiel. Edwards should therefore embrace formality when dealing with people of diverse business cultural views rather than avoidance of formal procedures. Secondly, in improving his negotiating behaviour, he should avoid compromising moves. He seemed to be in much hurry to ensure successful closure of the deal, while Kiel got suspicious of the hurry. He should also identify and take full advantage of his advantage. Personally, when Edwards modified his proposals and demands to fit Kiel’s concerns, he lost his advantage. Edward should engage professionalism rather than expect that people will always act rationally as another way of boosting his negotiating behaviour among other tactics.