Exploring the Lived Phenomenological Experiences of Bankers under Regulatory Pressures in the Post-Pandemic Financial Landscape

Abstract

The global banking sector has experienced profound transformations in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, with regulatory interventions and monetary policy shifts reshaping institutional practices. Within this context, the subjective experiences of banking professionals in adapting to regulatory demands remain insufficiently explored, despite their importance for understanding the human dimensions of financial regulation. However, existing studies have largely focused on institutional and quantitative assessments of regulatory efficiency, leaving a gap in understanding how individual bankers experience and interpret these evolving pressures on a personal and ethical level. What has not been adequately addressed is how bankers interpret, internalize, and respond to regulatory pressures in times of crisis, raising the question of how these experiences shape professional identity, resilience, and responsibility. Here we show, through a phenomenological approach, that bankers’ lived experiences reveal not only the challenges of compliance but also the ways in which regulation is redefined as a moral and professional responsibility. Data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews with banking professionals directly involved in regulatory adaptation, and transcripts were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis to uncover essential themes. The findings identified three core dimensions: psychological strain arising from heightened regulatory demands, adaptive strategies that demonstrated resilience and collaboration, and a rearticulation of trust and responsibility in banking practice. These results highlight that regulatory experiences are not merely technical procedures but meaningful processes that influence professional ethics and organizational culture. While the qualitative and context-specific nature of this phenomenological inquiry limits the scope of generalizability, the study offers nuanced insights into the lived meaning of regulation from practitioners’ perspectives. This methodological limitation underscores the need for future cross-contextual or mixed-method investigations to examine how these subjective experiences interact with broader regulatory frameworks. The study contributes to advancing understanding of financial regulation by emphasizing the subjective and interpretive dimensions often overlooked in prior research, offering implications for both theoretical development and professional practice in the post-pandemic financial environment.