https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620946395 https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620946395 Journal of Management Inquiry 1–19 © The Author(s) 2020 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1056492620946395 jmi.sagepub.com https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492620946395 Journal of Management Inquiry 1–19 © The Author(s) 2020 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1056492620946395 journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi Essays Introduction Organizational actors are often expected to be innovative despite operating under institutional constraints. Institutional constraints are the well-established practices, processes, norms, rules, and regulations that sometimes guide the actions and sometimes restrain the freedom of organizational actors (Dellinger & Williams, 1997; Lounsbury & Ventresca, 2003; Siebert et al., 2017; West, 1995). This article provides a framework that explains how organizational actors inno- vate within the constraints of their institutional processes and elaborates the conditions under which innovation emerges. Innovation of organizational actors is defined as their ability to create novel and useful solutions. The complexity of orga- nizational work makes it difficult—even for the most compe- tent—to undertake innovative pursuits without the aid of other organizational actors (Chen, 2008; Gubbins & Dooley, 2014; Kertcher & Coslor, 2020). The role of relationships among organizational actors is therefore an important area that needs investigation. This does not mean, however, that traditional views of innovation that emphasize individual actors have become unnecessary. The role of the individual actor will always remain critical in innovation. Nonetheless, this article pro- ceeds under the assumption that even the most individualis- tic of organizational actors do not operate in a vacuum. After all, a reason organizational actors form collectives—groups, teams, organizations, industry associations, and the like—is because it allows the members of the collectives to interact and work with each other in the pursuit of innovative out- comes. For instance, in reference to inter-person relation- ships, Kurtzberg and Amabile (2001, p. 286) argued that “exploration of direct interactions among individuals striv- ing for team-level creativity can deepen our understanding of both creativity and teamwork” and suggested that the team be considered “as a next step in the progression of creativity research.” Further, in reference to inter-team relationships, it is well known that “teams network externally with other rel- evant workgroups in the organization—they do not function in a vacuum” (Joshi, 2006, p. 583). In reference to inter-orga- nization relationships, it is well known that organizations ally in various ways with each other for pursuing innovation (Chen, 2008; Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006; Dowling et al., 1996; Drazin et al., 1999; Staber & Sydow, 2002). In sum, across multiple levels of analysis, it is often implicitly assumed that inter-actor relationships play a role in innovation (Bresman & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2013; Chakrabarty & Woodman, 2009; Courpasson & Clegg, 2006; Delbecq, 1994). This article develops relationship-focused theory, where the focus is on the relationship between organizational actors rather than the organizational actors themselves. To do 946395JMI XX X 10.1177/1056492620946395Journal of Management InquiryChakrabarty research-article 2020 1 North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA Corresponding Author: Subrata Chakrabarty, College of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 E Market St, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA. Email: chakrabarty@gmail.com Sociocognitive Relationships for Innovation under Institutional Constraints Subrata Chakrabarty 1 Abstract This article provides a theoretical framework that explains how organizational actors—persons, teams, and organizations— can attempt to be innovative under institutional constraints and elaborates the sociocognitive mechanisms via which innovation emerges. Recognizing that innovative work is often relationship-driven, this article develops relationship-focused theory by integrating individualistic approaches (where each organizational actor is assumed to be internally self-sufficient) and relational approaches (where innovative work happens through a process of relating among organizational actors). Propositions suggest that contradiction versus consistency between institutionalized task and socialization structures determine the optimal type of sociocognitive relationship, and that institutionalized climate moderates the association between the type of sociocognitive relationship and the performance of innovative outcomes. Keywords innovation, cognitive perspectives, structure, design & boundaries, social capital, affect/emotions