We most interpret a “solomonic decision” (or solution), as one that is simplistic, and that doesn’t really resolve things. Sometimes we even interpret it as one that does not benefit anybody, one that destroys value.
The real moral of the story is a very different one, although this last point about destroying value holds true.
As Peter Drucker mentions, Solomon understood that two half babies is less than one. Mostly because one is alive and healthy, and if they would have cut it in two, well, it would not be alive and healthy. So each half held less value than 1/2 baby. Solomon was about to destroy value for all. But Solomon wasn’t doing it because he was being simplistic, he was just doing it to force the decision. By eliminating the possibility for any one of the mothers to have the baby, he was changing the negotiating landscape, and making it so that it was no longer a “me vs. her” proposition.
In negotiations, just a mere “temporary discount” has a similar effect. In this case, a discount is no longer available after a certain date, so value is destroyed for the prospective buyer at that point. This forces the decision.
What other example can you think of?