This paper identifies creativity as a main hub in the ability of organizations to maintain a competitive advantage. It looks at the degree to which inhibitors such as organizational designs as well as leadership style may positively or negatively affect creativity in organizations. The paper concludes with a synopsis of how leaders can remove notable barriers in order to permit the free flow of creativity in organizations -the end result is organizations that can maintain a competitive advantage in environments marked by high volatility.

The global crisis, the financial meltdown, eschatological signs, whatever the name ascribed to it, the period 2008-2009 will be long remembered in history. As numerous financial institutions sunk, stock markets crashed and the end of thousands of businesses was fast forwarded; the economy worldwide was plunged into an abyss. While this epoch making event ended a number of dreams as it demolished numerous organizations; it should also be viewed as a renaissanic period.

A period wherein lies numerous opportunities for the birth of new businesses, as well as an awakening call for organizational leaders to begin thinking about their leadership style as well as their organizational designs in order to ascertain if they are sufficiently fluid to withstand periods of high volatility. Hindsight demands that 21st century organizations examine their modus operandi in order to discover the recipe to help them maintain a competitive advantage. An in-depth analysis of the role of organizational leaders, as well as their organizational design should pinpoint any notable deficiencies to organizational success.

An overview of numerous articles on organizational failures has consistently implied that there is a correlation between factors such as poor leadership and poor organizational designs to organizational failure. While correlation does not imply causation, in light of the challenges facing contemporary organizations, the onus lies with leaders to determine the degree to which leadership roles and organizational designs hamper or promote organizational success; and subsequently put in place measures to counteract negative influences.

Hailstorm of creativity
It is an amazing time in the life of mankind; a period which is driven almost single handedly by technology; an era in which the market life of services and products expire almost as soon they are marketed. A look at classroom technologies, entertainment products, communication devices gives credence to the rate at which the hailstorm of creativity is revolutionizing the market place. Esentio and smart board technological tools have already revolutionized the manner in which classroom learning takes place, replacing the over head projector and the traditional white boards and chalk boards. The entertainment industries have provided consumers with a variety of ways in which they may view televised pictures whether via Liquid Crystal Displays (LCD), Plasma, or Digital Light Processing (DLP). In the same vein, the communication industry, not to be outdone, have changed the face of cell phones. People are now given a variety of features from which they may choose.

All this at a speed never realized prior to now. Any organization wishing to succeed in contemporary society should realize that to be competitive in today's environment means harnessing the creative and innovative ability of employees, in order to invent new products and services for a consuming public who craves novelty. The rivalry to survive hold and will continue to hold organizations spell bound; and in the words of the famous the 1969 hits by Jerry Butler "only the strong (organizations will) survive." For organizations to be empowered to survive leaders and followers should seek after "creativity." This is an individual's ability to conceive of or conjure new ideas, which can benefit society. It is the center of innovativeness, the momentum behind organizational success. Failure to encourage and embrace creativity within contemporary organizations may be viewed as creating conditions that are conducive to organizations failures.

Inhibitors to competitive organizations
The rapid speed at which changes are evolving necessitate a leadership style as well as an organizational design that is bendable. This will permit organizations the elasticity they need if they are to survive in constantly changing environments. Lewin (1939) identified three main styles of leadership; autocratic, democratic and lassie faire; Over the years the autocratic style seemed to dominate organizational leadership. This leadership style came alive in an era where organization productivity and efficiency were forces to be reckoned with. In those days the same manner of viewing televised pictures, classroom learning tools as well as communication tools survived for decades without any marked changes in features and styles.

The key role of leadership then was to delegate duty and ensure compliance from employees. In an article Leadership in Effective Management to Improve the Quality of Education, Lapeley concurred with the prior assertions as she states "During the Industrial Era, populations with low education levels required a leadership style characterized by strong control, full autonomy, a clear power hierarchy, authoritarianism and very strict rules." According to Schriesheim, autocratic leadership has gained favor because efficiency is created as tasks are repeated; a key drawback is its inability to embrace change (1982). Contemporary society has glided away from a mechanistic era to one that is marked by technological advancement through education, as such the leadership style employed today should be different from prior ones, after all the conditions are different.

Contemporary leaders still favoring any style of leadership that excludes employees input, and is bounded by rules forbidding employees from expressing their creativity are in danger of failing. Leadership style should instead embrace team work, promote creativity, and encouraging employees input in decision making; at least decisions that will impact the organization. As it was with the leadership styles in the Industrial era, so it is with the organizational structure. The bureaucratic design utilized then, was functional, as it was able to synchronize with the autocracy demands of that era.

A legacy of the industrial era -the bureaucratic design is still utilized in contemporary society. While the design fosters efficiency and productivity, by maintaining strict rules and policies and having a central command from which all decisions are made; in today's society, creativity before productivity and efficiency will be the line of demarcation between organizational success and failure. Bureaucratic design suppresses creativity, as employees are often given ready-made formulas to solve problems. They are not encouraged to think - a notable catalyst behind creativity. Contemporary organizations require designs that are geared to encourage creativity and innovation.

Erasing barriers
Change is often viewed as a dreaded word, as it means moving out of a comfort zone, going into the unknown, encountering challenges and finding appropriate measures of dealing with the challenges. As such it is often a difficult undertaking. If organizations of today are to remain competitive they must embrace and seek after change. 21st century organizations are bombarded with changes, and as technology continues to revolutionize the manner in which day to day activities are performed, change will become a permanent fixture. To this extent, the buck stops with leaders, they can start by changing not only their style of leadership but also their organizational design as well. According to MacNarma, Successful change begins with leaders. They should model the change the wish to see by being visionary, persuasive and consistent. Once leaders are change-ready, employees are likely to follow, the end result -change becomes a team effort.

Leaders can tailor their styles by first modeling the change they wish to see. How? Provide opportunities for employees to become a part of the decision-making process. Delegate duties without telling employees how the job should be done. Provide them instead with the resources that can help them explore their creative talents. Patten's saying corroborates that thought as he stated "don't tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and let them surprise you with their results." Create a climate that is conducive to open communication where employees feel free to express their ideas without fear or ridicule.

Leaders should be willing to evaluate and implement employees' ideas; employees will very likely feel valued, self-esteem will soar and self-confidence will grow. Leaders should be willing to create brainstorm workshops and seminars where employees are free to verbalize and visualize their creative endeavors. While it is important for leaders to be able to find solutions to problems, they should also provide employees the opportunity to problem-solve. Roosevelt said it best, a good leaders picks good men to do the job he wants done and self-restraint to keep from meddling with them while they do it. It is also important that leaders recognize employees' accomplishments, because as the old adage goes "success breeds success."

Conclusion
Change will continue to be a permanent fixture presently and futuristically. Creativity and innovation will continue to be key driving forces behind products and services, as organizations continue to meet the demands of a novelty seeking populace. The onus now resides with leaders; they should identify obstacles to organizational success and make serious inroads to remove these barriers. Organizational design and leadership style that are too inflexible are two main hindrances to creativity and innovation in organizations. The removal of these barriers will permit the flow and growth of creativity and innovation.... The tools contemporary as well as future organizations need in order to survive and succeed.

References:
Franken R (1994). Human Motivation. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co
Lapeley M-T (2005). Retrieved September 29 from: http://www.educoas.org/Portal/en/tema/tinteres/temaint49.aspx?culture=en&navid=36
Lewin K; Llippit R; White R. (1939. Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Psychology 10, 271-301.
McNamara C. (2008). Retrieved September 30, 2009 from: http://managementhelp.org/mgmnt/orgchnge.htm
Schriesheim, C. (1982) The Great High Consideration- High Initiating Structure Leadership Myth: Evidence on its Generalizability. The Journal of Social Psychology.