Exploring the Lived Experiences of Banking Employees Regarding Prosocial Rule-Breaking: A Phenomenological Study in the Khorasan Razavi Branch Management of Bank Maskan

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the lived experiences of Bank Maskan employees and managers regarding prosocial rule-breaking and to explain its perceived nature, contextual conditions, processes, and consequences within the banking environment. This qualitative study employed an interpretive phenomenological approach. Fourteen frontline employees and managers from Bank Maskan branches were recruited through criterion-based purposive and snowball sampling. Data were collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews until saturation was reached and were analyzed using Colaizzi’s seven-step method. The trustworthiness of the findings was established according to Guba and Lincoln’s criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Analysis of participants’ experiences yielded five main categories and 18 components. Prosocial rule-breaking emerged through the interaction of “motivational drivers,” including helping customers, enhancing organizational productivity, supporting colleagues, and protecting organizational interests and reputation, with “agentic readiness,” comprising empathy, moral ownership, and professional identity. Bureaucratic regulations, time urgency and pressure, regulatory ambiguity, and social pressures and interactions created contextual conditions conducive to such behavior. Employees managed the tension between formal requirements and human or organizational considerations through neutralization, role-conflict management, risk assessment, and pragmatic interpretation of rules. The perceived consequences were inherently dual: prosocial rule-breaking could strengthen social capital, customer trust, and employees’ internal satisfaction, while simultaneously generating psychological strain, anxiety, and fear of organizational monitoring. Prosocial rule-breaking in banking should not be understood merely as organizational misconduct; rather, it may function as an adaptive strategy for resolving tensions between rigid regulations and employees’ human and professional responsibilities. Accordingly, introducing regulated flexibility, controlled managerial discretion, and revised supervisory mechanisms may help transform covert rule violations into accountable and legitimate service facilitation.