CHAPTER 16

NOW WE GET TO THE FUN PART!

(Inventing Creative Solutions)

Now is the time to switch from the investigative to the creative. You have set an inclusive tone, agreed upon the problems that need to be resolved and the process to resolve them, and understood each other’s interests. You also know what you’ll do if you can’t reach an agreement. Now it’s time to move to the creative part of the process. This is where you invent creative solutions to the conflict.

TEN GUIDELINES FOR INVENTING CREATIVE SOLUTIONS

Here are some guidelines about inventing solutions.

Guideline #1: Be firm about getting your interests met, but flexible about how you get them met.

Some people have a mistaken idea that being collaborative means being weak. That is not what we are urging. We urge you not to give up or compromise unless it is in your interest to do so. We want you to be absolutely tenacious about getting your interests met. However, we urge you to be flexible about how you get those interests met. There are usually many ways to meet any given interest.

Think back about the sale of Doug’s truck to Ryan from chapter 14. When we looked at the interests involved and not just the positions, it was easy to invent several solutions that met all their interests well. They didn’t have to compromise or give up anything. By being flexible about how they got their interests met, they were able to get them met 100 percent. The key is to invent lots of different ways to meet those interests.

Guideline #2: Always look for mutual gains.

Try to exploit mutual interests. We sometimes come across parties who refuse to take an action in their own best interest because it will also benefit the other side. They want to get something for it, as though it were a concession. If one party refuses to do something in their own best interest simply to put pressure on the other side, it sends a negative, spiteful message that the relationship is of little value.

If one side takes action early that can result in a benefit not only to themselves, but also to the other side, it sends a positive message about the value of a long-term relationship. One school district we worked with applied for special federal funding that would result in increased salaries for some of its employees even though the district was under no obligation to renegotiate salaries for another two years. It sent a strong message to employees and the union that the district was seeking real solutions to salary issues and not simply positioning itself for the next round of negotiations.

Guideline #3: Take advantage of complementary interests.

If, however, your interests aren’t mutual, try to have your interests dovetail. Four partners in a construction company were experiencing great conflicts over their work assignments. During a mediation session they discussed all their interests and discovered that two partners loved building commercial office buildings. Another partner preferred the custom residential market because he felt he could be more creative and he enjoyed tailoring his work to the needs of individual clients. The fourth partner found it exciting to speculate in real estate rather than construct buildings. This led to a more effective distribution of their work that allowed their complementary interests to dovetail. One partner spent time acquiring land for the others to build on. Two partners concentrated on commercial buildings, and the other partner concentrated on residential custom homes.

If your interests don’t dovetail, try to fulfill them in a way that doesn’t do damage to the interests of the other side. The four construction partners mentioned above had a problem with a piece of property they all owned. The partner specializing in residential construction wanted to put two custom homes on the property. The two partners doing commercial building were worried about that because the company also owned a larger adjoining piece of property where they wanted to build a large office complex. The commercial builders believed that having two expensive custom homes next to their proposed office complex would make it more difficult for them to get the building permits they needed from the city planning department.

All four partners worked together to find a contractor specializing in apartments and condominiums, and they agreed to a real estate swap. Having apartments and condominiums next to their office complex would be beneficial rather than detrimental. The residential builder got an equally attractive location for his custom homes. Although the interests of the partners at first seemed conflicting, they were all able to get their interests met without doing damage to the interests of the other partners by working together to trade real estate with a third builder.

To recap, first exploit any mutual interests you have. If your interests aren’t mutual, then try to have them dovetail or at least get them met without doing damage to the interests of the other party.

Guideline #4: Separate the process of inventing options from judging or evaluating those possible solutions.

If people evaluate options as they are trying to invent them, it often stifles creativity. Everyone is under incredible pressure to solve problems instantly and move on to the next problem. People typically evaluate ideas as they invent them and will often adopt the first possible solution that seems to resolve the conflict. By doing that, they usually never get to the second, third, or fourth possible option, which might be much better than the first option. We’re not saying that the first, most obvious solution isn’t the best. If, however, you adopt the first option, it should be because it is your best option, not because it is your only option.

Evaluating ideas as they are being invented also discourages individuals within groups from sharing their creative thoughts. No one wants to be thought of poorly. If ideas are to be judged by the group as they are proposed, the natural tendency is to try to work out all the potential flaws in a proposal before offering it to the group.

To experience this, try a brainstorming session where participants are encouraged to put forth ideas no matter how improbable, incomplete, or silly they may appear. Then try a different issue with the ground rules changed. This time, give the same instructions except that after each participant makes a proposal, have the group have a thorough discussion of the value of that proposal.

In most cases, the output of the two groups will be dramatically different. In the first method, where the parties are free to make any proposal, people tend to offer ideas even though they are not well thought through. This, however, gives the group the chance to build on incomplete ideas, to piggyback ideas, or to use bits and pieces of the thought processes of various members of the group. The second method, where proposals are evaluated each time, tends to limit the number of proposals put forth. Participants tend not to offer incomplete or partial ideas, but rather hold those ideas and thoughts in their mind, working out the details until they are more complete. This robs the group of the possibility of packaging or piggybacking incomplete ideas.

Separating the two processes can also provide powerful protection in groups that have traditionally had an adversarial atmosphere, such as a labor-management negotiation. Parties will often not propose a solution for fear it may signal that they are willing to agree to such a proposal, when in fact they are only willing to think about it and evaluate it. If the ground rules are clear that proposing possible solutions is different from agreeing to solutions, both sides are much freer to propose ideas for consideration without the strings attached to authorship.

Guideline #5: Invent as many options as possible.

We were both raised in Northern California close to where California’s gold rush began in the 1800s. In the Sacramento area, one of the rites of passage, therefore, is that every youngster, at one time or another, tries panning for gold. For those of you who have never tried panning for gold, let us explain it. You take gravel, wash the gravel by swirling it around in a large pan, and eventually strain out larger pieces of gravel and hopefully reveal nuggets of gold left in the pan. The theory is that gold is heavier than the gravel and will therefore sink to the bottom of the pan as the gravel gets washed over its slanted sides.

Our experience was that panning for gold is an extremely exciting adventure for a young boy … for about three minutes, maximum. After that first pan of gravel, which never included a big golden nugget, we were always more interested in going swimming in the river or fishing. Jim’s mother, however, would typically come by and remind everyone that you have to go through a lot of gravel to find a gold nugget. The same is true when looking for good solutions to a problem. The more possible solutions you invent, the greater your chances of providing a good solution.

Guideline #6: Do not assume a fixed pie.

Many people believe that negotiations are a zero-sum game: the size of the pie is fixed, and the negotiation is simply the process by which the pie is divided. It is worth both parties’ time trying to increase the size of the pie.

For example, California school districts had the option of taking money out of their general fund to put into a special maintenance fund, in order to get matching federal grants for maintenance. They weren’t required to do this, but it could expand the size of the budget before they had to divide it up. Municipalities can often look to the federal government to get funds supporting economic development. These are ways of increasing the size of the pie for which parties are negotiating.

Two businesses dividing the profit from the sale of a product developed by a joint venture may have more flexibility if they negotiate the future profits on new products as well. Even two colleagues deciding where to have lunch can expand the size of the pie to create more solutions by agreeing where to go to lunch for the next two or three times rather than the single upcoming lunch. For example, we will go to your choice this time, but my choice next time. These are all simple examples of expanding the size of the pie, which increases flexibility, creativity, and the possibility of an acceptable solution.

The tendency is to assume that most negotiations center on big-ticket monetary items. Most day-to-day conflicts, however, arise from nonmonetary issues, where opportunities for increasing the size of the pie are abundant. For example, who gets which office is often a highly contested nonmonetary item. When and where to hold the company’s annual conferences, who gets to go to which training programs, where to go on a family vacation, and what movie to rent need not end up as zero-sum negotiations.

Just as important, keep in mind that it’s possible to shrink the size of any pie through bad negotiating. All too often parties lose potential mutual gains because they get rigid in their thinking and overlook possible gains.

Guideline #7: Put as much energy into solving the other side’s problem as you do your own.

What you should be seeking is a productive and profitable long-term relationship. That cannot occur if either side is not getting their needs met over the long term. If one party has no faith that the other side is also concerned about their problems, trust in the relationship and optimism about its success will certainly be diminished. A onesided relationship also tends to further rigid thinking. A party whose interests are not taken into consideration will be less likely to be flexible when the other side has problems. Just as in a personal relationship, a business marriage does not thrive if the problems on one side are neglected. One-sided agreements are not compliance-prone. They tend to promote passive-aggressive behavior.

Guideline #8: Look to objective standards for potential solutions, if appropriate.

A great source of “fair solutions” can be standards that are outside the control of the immediate parties and that are readily accepted as legitimate by both parties.

For example, if parties to a joint venture were negotiating the starting salary levels of new engineers, it would be logical to look to industrywide comparability studies, i.e., what other companies are paying new engineers. This information can be obtained from local universities, human resources associations, or business surveys.

Industry practices are also good sources of objective criteria. If it is an industry custom for the local partner to pay the real estate taxes, that may be readily acceptable to both parties simply because it is a well-established procedure. Throughout the United States, the payment of certain escrow fees for the purchase or sale of real estate rarely provokes a heated negotiation simply because a standard industry practice has been accepted by both sides to a transaction as normal. For example, in Sacramento County, the county and city transfer taxes are typically split fifty-fifty between the buyer and seller. The recording costs, pest control costs, and title searches are paid by the seller. The buyer pays any loan appraisal fees and a home warranty fee if the buyer chooses to purchase a warranty. This doesn’t mean it always has to be done this way. Either party can seek to negotiate allocation of any closing fees using a different formula or split, but absent a negotiated change, those local customs apply.

If parties were negotiating over the value of land for a new factory that was contributed by one party, a survey of selling prices of similar property would be relevant. Thus, the market value could be independently determined by sales prices of similar properties.

Statutory standards may form the basis of potential solutions. For example, if labor-management negotiators are negotiating new safety standards, they may look to the federal government’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines to determine what is reasonable and fair, or at a minimum required by law.

Objective criteria such as these can offer the parties a way out of confrontational situations. Applicable objective criteria can provide a good starting point upon which parties can mold an acceptable solution. The acceptability of such standards is also increased if they are the result of a joint search for fair criteria. Parties can increase the likelihood of success by starting with a conversation about what would constitute good data and fair standards before they start their search.

Guideline #9: When equally legitimate interests are at stake, look for fair procedures.

Certain procedures that are accepted by both parties as “fair” can also form the basis of creative solutions. Procedures are different from standards because they can help parties deal with equally legitimate, yet conflicting interests. If, for example, the costs of negotiations in terms of travel expenses and time are disproportionately borne by one side, the parties might agree to taking turns over who travels and where the negotiations occur.

If parties have conflicting interests, they may be willing to agree to a mediator or an arbitration process. Thus, they agree upon a fair procedure to be implemented when they cannot agree on certain substantive issues. This third-party process is often used to resolve disputes about contractual rights.

A slight variation of this theme is “final offer” arbitration. Here the parties do their best to reduce the gap between them. Then they each submit a final, last, best offer to an arbitrator. The arbitrator’s authority is limited to picking which of the parties’ last offers is to be implemented. The theory behind this procedure is that sometimes parties facing arbitration will maintain an extreme position in the belief that the arbitrator tends to split the difference. In final offer arbitration, the parties know the arbitrator cannot split the difference and is therefore more likely to pick the most reasonable final offer. Thus, the parties will work harder to make their final offer the most reasonable.¹

To determine who goes first on a particular issue, the parties may agree to flip a coin. It is a quick, easy, and readily acceptable method of resolving equally legitimate interests.

If you have raised children, you will undoubtedly, at some time, have used the “one cuts and the other chooses” procedure for dividing a scarce resource such as the last piece of cake or a single container of modeling clay. If there is even the appearance of goods not being divided exactly equally, one child will be unhappy and the rivalry will be increased rather than reduced. By having one side divide the resource and the other side pick which division it receives, blame for an unequal division is eliminated. This procedure can also work well for two partners dissolving a business and deciding how to divide the assets.

Weighted voting is a variation of cut and choose. Here the disputing parties are each allotted a certain number of points that they can distribute among the items in dispute. The points are assigned as in an auction, with the item going to the highest bidder. If one party wants to spend most of their points on one item, then they run the risk that it will be the only item they end up with. For a thorough and sophisticated discussion of the merits of various methods of dividing assets, we suggest you look at The Win-Win Solution: Guaranteeing Fair Shares to Everybody, by Steven J. Brams and Alan D. Taylor. This book is a must read for anyone attempting high-stakes business mediation where assets must be divided.²

There is a difference between objective standards, which are sources of information you can refer to in order to determine the value of something, and fair procedures, which are processes you can use to make decisions. Objective standards such as comparability studies, market value, or industry practices are most helpful when seeking solutions to substantive issues such as how much should be paid, what the factory is worth, what discounts distributors should receive, what referral fees brokers or consultants should receive. Fair procedures, such as flipping a coin, taking turns, agreeing to use a third party, or one cuts and one chooses, are most effectively used to resolve legitimate conflicting interests. Standards have a substantive orientation, while fair procedures focus on process. That leads to the final guideline in inventing solutions.

Guideline #10: Be willing to negotiate over process-related criteria as well as substantive criteria.

We were advising an international airline on the repurchase of one of their early-model airplanes that had been sold to a collector decades earlier. The company had been negotiating for many months over the purchase price. Both sides wanted to complete the transaction, but each side had a very different perception of the value of the airplane. Neither side was willing to make the next move. What changed the dynamics of the negotiations was for the parties to stop negotiating over price and start negotiating over a process to find a fair price.

By shifting the focus from substantive issues to process issues, parties are often able to invent better options. This is particularly true if negotiators are not the actual decision makers and are just acting on orders from above. By negotiating a process to determine fair solutions, each side’s negotiators are also given more tools for educating their own constituencies.

TEN METHODS OF INVENTING CREATIVE SOLUTIONS

Keeping the above guidelines in mind, we’ve listed ten methods of generating creative solutions that have been helpful for our clients.

Method #1: Brainstorming

Brainstorming is one of the most effective techniques for developing creative options. It works best in a group setting, when working on a specific problem. As a group, review the goals and ground rules. For example, generate lots of ideas, refrain from judging them, record all ideas, and encourage piggybacking of ideas.

When some members of the group tend to dominate meetings, try the nominative group technique. In this method of brainstorming, participants are asked to spend a few minutes quietly writing out their own ideas before recording ideas as a group. Each person is then asked for one idea. After several turns around the group, open the discussion, allowing anyone to offer ideas. This insures that the group benefits from everyone’s input.

After generating a large number of ideas, allow discussion for clarification; then eliminate duplications. Then do a critical evaluation of the ideas, keeping in mind the interests you are trying to meet.

Method #2: Approaching the Problem from a Different Perspective

We tend to get locked into certain mind-sets based upon the circumstances of our particular situations. Individuals with different backgrounds, however, will often resolve problems in radically different ways. The president of the chamber of commerce may approach a problem differently from the local priest; the small-business owner thinks differently from the corporate executive; the student looks at things differently from the high school principal; and the parent has a different approach from the child.

In one of our open-enrollment workshops, one participant drove a Jaguar and was meticulous about its upkeep and maintenance. At one point in the workshop he was complaining about his relationship with a colleague. He said he used to enjoy the relationship, but now the only time they spoke was when there was a problem, and it wasn’t fun any longer. Another workshop participant who was a mechanic responded, “Too bad he’s not your Jaguar. If you put as much energy into preventative maintenance of that relationship as you do your Jag, it probably wouldn’t break down as often.” The Jaguar owner hadn’t thought about how little energy he put into maintaining the relationship until he compared it to his car by looking through the eyes of a mechanic.

If a problem or issue seems unsolvable, try putting yourself into the shoes of people in radically different circumstances from yourself. Analyze the problem as you think they might and develop solutions as you think they would. If it is difficult to imagine how they might approach the problem, seek them out and ask them. Our experience has been that if you explain what you are seeking, people are more than happy to offer advice.

Method # 3: Alternating between General and Specific Views

Another way to change perspectives is by looking at the problem in either a more general or a more specific context. This helps prevent losing the forest for the trees. For example, if negotiators are trying to develop a better dispute-resolution system for their two companies forming an alliance, it can be helpful to define the issue in its most general terms, i.e., “we are trying to create a method of resolving alliance interface disputes.” Then the negotiators might switch to a narrow perspective, examining the most minute details of the current system to see how well it fits the general goal. By switching back and forth between general and specific views, participants will often discover inconsistencies in past approaches and identify opportunities for improvement.

Method #4: Dividing Single Issues into Their Various Parts

Often parties are able to resolve all of their differences except for one because there appears to be nothing left to trade off or compromise. This is frequently the case in labor strikes Jim has mediated, where the parties have been able to resolve all issues except for wages. By dividing the single issue of wages into several sub-issues, the negotiators create a greater opportunity for compromise, trade-offs, and linkages of issues.

For example, if parties are down to the final issue of wages and get stuck, they can divide that single issue into smaller issues such as timing of the pay or distribution of resources. A salary increase could be negotiated either for the full year or for only part of the year. It could be offered “across the board” equally to all employees or skewed to encourage new employees into the system or more senior employees to retire. The raise might permanently affect the salary schedule or could be a onetime bonus. Other items of value, such as time off or company-built products, could be substituted for dollars. Thus by viewing wages as numerous issues, rather than a single issue, negotiators increase their chances of finding a creative solution.

If the sale price is the last issue upon which negotiators are stuck, they might divide the issue into smaller issues such as whether the price is in current or future dollars or dollars at all. Maybe the price could be set in yen, tankers of vodka, or future services. A contractor we worked with who had severe cash-flow problems was able to cover the cost of insurance payments by wallboarding the inside of a building owned by the insurance company. He was able to separate the payment issue into two issues: the total amount, and how it would be paid. Then he was able to create a different way of paying the insurance bill. He paid with services rather than money. By creating more issues, you create more opportunity for flexibility.

Method #5: Refraining

How many different ways can you describe the issue you are trying to resolve? One of our favorite true stories is an excellent example of reframing that we heard on National Public Radio. An employee loved all aspects of his job except for one: he disliked his boss. After agonizing over the problem for a long time, he finally decided he was going to have to escape from his boss and find another job in spite of what he would be giving up. He called an outplacement firm to help him look for a new job and was told to bring in his résumé the next day.

Fortunately, his wife was teaching a creativity course at a local community college. That night, when discussing the issue with his wife, she helped him to reframe his problem from “How do I get away from my boss?” into “How can I get my boss away from me?” Instead of taking his résumé to the outplacement firm, he took his boss’s résumé and hired the firm to find a better job for his boss. When they found one, they made a cold call to the boss and offered him an interview. The boss was eventually hired and left the company. That not only solved the problem as originally defined by the employee, but created a promotional opportunity for him as well.

Method #6: Reorganizing from the Start

Options are often created based upon the incorrect assumption that existing circumstances are cast in concrete. For example, if a salary plan is being negotiated, the negotiators often focus on how to add new money to the existing plan. It might be more effective for them to develop a completely new plan by looking at the total pot of money available for salaries.

Assuming that the existing structure, processes, or policies cannot be radically altered limits creativity.

Method #7: Making Wish Lists

Companies or associations with large numbers of employees or members may generate a large number of creative ideas simply by asking for them. An announcement in the employee newsletter or over e-mail about the problem and a request for solutions can mobilize the creative forces of many different perspectives.

The keys are making it easy for people to share their ideas and making sure the employees know their ideas are being considered. The Eastern Region of the U.S. Forest Service increased the number of ideas submitted under the employee suggestion program from an average of sixty-three per year up to six thousand a year by taking the employee input more seriously. They didn’t offer money incentives; they simply said that if management did not respond to any employee suggestion within thirty days, the employee was free to go ahead and implement the suggestion as long as it was legal. Employees were more than happy to share great ideas if they believed they were being taken seriously.³

Method #8: Changing the Starting Point or Working Backward

When faced with a problem, most of us will analyze our current situation and then work toward a solution. We get partway to a solution, then hit a stumbling block. By working backward you don’t work toward a solution, but instead from the solution.

First ask yourself what the situation would be like if the problem were solved. Maybe you would consider the problem solved if absenteeism was half what it is currently, or your cash flow was stronger, or your work teams were less conflicted and more creative. Once you visualize what the solution would look like, then ask yourself, “What was the last step we had to put in place before the problem was solved?” Then, “What was the next-to-the-last step before the problem was solved?” and so on, working from the solution toward your current circumstances, rather than from your current circumstances toward a solution.

A variation of this method is to simply start your problem solving at a different point in the process. If you know you will reach a stumbling block on your way toward a solution, just start your problem solving on the other side of that blocking point. By diverting your attention from the blocking point, you may find that what you thought was an impenetrable barrier was not even necessary to the process.

Method #9: Playing “What If” Games

Creativity is tied directly to our ability to fantasize. This method urges participants to change current circumstances through fantasy, and to judge the impact of those changes upon their current goals. Participants might be asked to answer the questions “What if we had twice as much money to run this organization?” or “What if we had to restructure with only half as big a budget as we have now?” or “What if we merged with our competitor or spun off all marketing to another company?” or “What if we let employees work at home or set their own work hours?” A department facing a 10 percent budget cut might gain valuable insight about their true priorities by first discussing a 50 percent cut.

A training company we consulted with faced some belt-tightening because of the loss of a major client. The owners figured they could survive and balance the books if they reduced expenses by 10 percent. Instead of just trying to find a 10 percent savings, however, they discussed how they would organize the company if they were just starting up and had little capital. In doing so, they realized that two areas of their work required huge efforts to maintain, yet produced little income. So instead of cutting back by 10 percent, they decided to eliminate those two areas, cutting overhead by 25 percent, which increased profitability.

Method #10: Looking for Differences

Many of us work hard to avoid dealing with differences out of fear that raising the issue will drive the parties apart. Negotiators with divergent positions, however, may find a richness of ideas by getting their differences to dovetail rather than ignoring them.

It is helpful to understand the type of differences you face. Certain types of differences lead to certain types of solutions. Individuals with different skills will probably be better off combining their skills rather than competing against each other, or both trying to do all tasks well.

In just about every teachers strike, negotiators dispute the size of the school district budget’s projected ending balance. One side believes the ending balance will be large and the other side believes it will be small, and they base their negotiating strategies on those beliefs. They have a difference in probability and risk assessment. That type of difference suggests a contingency agreement. The parties agree that if the actual ending balance is larger than a certain amount, then plan A goes into effect. If the actual ending balance is less than that amount, then plan B goes into effect.

If individuals have a difference in time preference, they might resolve their dispute by altering their schedules. Jim’s son and daughter shared a bathroom when they were in high school, and getting ready for school in the morning was always a potential disaster. However, their differences in time preferences averted many problems. Ryan was a late-night person, often staying up late doing homework, then sleeping until the last five minutes before he needed to leave for classes. Janelle was a morning person, up at the crack of dawn to give her plenty of time to get ready for school. One obvious solution for sharing the bathroom was for Ryan to take showers at night and Janelle to take showers in the morning.

The classic difference that arises in most negotiations is a difference in value. The first person has something that is valued by the second person. The second person has something that is valued by the first person. The natural solution is to trade the objects.

CAUTIONARY NOTES!

1. Remember that in your planning, before you have a chance to have a dialogue with your relationship partners, your creative solutions are based to some extent on your speculation about your partner’s interests. Your ideas may contain many assumptions. So don’t get wedded to any particular solution before you have a chance to see if it will indeed meet the interests of your partners.

2. Nobody likes to have solutions imposed upon them. The whole point of this process is to foster collaboration. That’s why the search for creative solutions needs to be a joint effort. If you march into a meeting and announce that you’ve created several possible solutions, and you are not open to looking at any new ideas or suggestions from your partner, you will have shot yourself in the foot, completely undermining the whole collaborative process.

LET’S PRACTICE

Now let’s go back and practice identifying Problem Statements, Interests, Contingency Plans, and Solutions.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Parties are now engaged in the creative part of the process, trying to find solutions that will meet as many interests as possible. They should be tenacious about getting their interests met. However, since there are usually many ways to satisfy any interest, they should be flexible about how they get their interests met. Always look for mutual gains. If you find you have mutual interests, exploit them. If interests aren’t mutual, then try to align them so they dovetail. If that isn’t possible, at least try to get your interests met without doing damage to the other side’s interests. The best way to end up with a good solution is to have a large number of options to work with. That is best accomplished by separating the creative inventing process from evaluating the ideas. Invent as many options as possible to find the gold nugget. Look to see if there are ways to expand the size of the pie before you try to divide it.

To create a compliance-prone solution you must address the needs of your partners, so give their problems just as much energy as your own. A rich source of ideas for solutions is objective standards such as industry practices, comparability studies, and wage surveys. If there are equally legitimate interests at stake, look for fair procedures such as taking turns, flipping a coin, using seniority, or one cuts and the other chooses. Finally, always be willing to negotiate over how you can find a fair solution.