The mediating role of lifelong learning in the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education

Abstract When considering staff engagement in higher education, scrutinizing the issues of nurturing a healthy workplace environment as well as valuing lifelong learning and professional development opportunities cannot be overstated to enhance both personal and institutional effectiveness. In this sprite, the main objective of this study is located to estimate the mediating role/effect of staff involvement in lifelong learning on the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education context. A correlational research design was employed in the process. Data was collected from a total of 280 participants through a questionnaire and the collected evidence was analyzed using structural equation modelling (SEM). Results indicated that both workplace environment and lifelong learning have significant and direct effects on staff engagement. In addition to the direct effects, when lifelong learning entered the structural model as a mediator variable, the workplace environment has still a significant indirect effect on staff engagement through the mediating role of lifelong learning.This suggestes that lifelong learning had is a partial mediation role in the relationship between these two variables. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that higher education institutions should secure a welcoming workplace environment where staff demands both learning and employment are likely to be met and satisfied, which will ultimately result in positive outcomes.


Introduction
Higher education institutions, like other organizations, strive to gain a competitive advantage in their service delivery.In this process, staff members are a vital part of any institution because of the value they offer and the way they help the organization achieve its goals.Hence, the concern about staff engagement and dedication at work is becoming increasingly important (Bailey et al., 2017).When considering staff engagement, the issues of fostering a healthy workplace environment as well as valuing learning and professional development opportunities cannot be overstated to enhance institutional effectiveness (Sobocka-Szczapa, 2020;Taylor & Kloosterman, 2012).
The engagement of higher education staff members who are passionate about their jobs and the institution they work for may vary across contexts (Alnuaimi, 2022) and even their engagement at work can be affected by several factors (Sobocka-Szczapa, 2020).For instance, the working environment and its associated conditions (Alnuaimi, 2022;Ho et al., 2021;Suyoto & Murtiharso, 2019), various learning and professional development initiatives available in the organization (Assefa et al., 2023;Beqiri & Mazreku, 2020;Bilgiç et al., 2021;Ho et al., 2021) and other associated catalyst features may have been linked to staff engagement (Chaudhry et al., 2017;Sobocka-Szczapa, 2020;Wazir et al., 2021).The aforementioned narrative provides some hints that indicate the necessity for critical scrutinization of key premises regarding the nexuses that existed between workplace environment, lifelong learning, and staff engagement in higher education, despite the fact that the terms aren't new-born concepts.
As far as our best understanding is concerned, we found limited articles in the academic literature and databases that underlined the structural relationships between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement in the higher education context.And even a few of the available studies found in the literature connect the stated variables in the context of profitoriented business organizations.Considering the aforesaid limitation, therefore, the current study was positioned to emphasise the importance of estimating the mediating effects of lifelong learning in the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education.
What makes this study differ from previous studies is that: first, it tried to determine the effect of workplace environment on both staff's disposition to lifelong learning and their engagement at work; second, the study introduced lifelong learning as a new mediating construct which may have not been seen previously as to what extent it affects the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education.Within these contexts, the current study addresses the following research questions.These are: (1) How does the higher education workplace environment affect staff engagement?(2) Does the higher education workplace environment significantly influence staff members' disposition toward lifelong learning?(3) Does higher education staff involvement in lifelong learning significantly mediate the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement?
Overall, the study titled 'the mediating role of lifelong learning in the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education' has the potential to make a significant contribution to the field.By providing new insights and practical guidance about these relationships, the current study could benefit academics, practitioners, and policymakers to create more supportive and engaging workplaces for their staff learning and work, which can lead to several benefits for both staff and institutions in the following ways: For academics, the study might offer fresh perspectives on the relationships between the work environment, lifelong learning, and staff engagement.This could aid academics in creating additional novel concepts and models of staff engagement and designing interventions that could boost staff engagement at work more successfully.For practitioners, the study may provide practitioners with useful advice on how to make higher education workplace conditions more encouraging for their employees' professional development, enhancing their engagement at work, which can aid institutions in luring and retaining top talent and enhancing the calibre of teaching and research.For policymakers, the study could provide them with information about the significance of developing initiatives and policies that encourage a supportive work environment for staff engagement and lifelong learning at higher education institutions.
Drawing inspiration from the strategies employed by Rasool et al. (2019) and Zhou et al. (2021) works, the current study was organized as follows: As previously said, the first section, the introduction, provided the background and value-added of the current study for academics and practitioners.The second section presents the theoretical frameworks and hypothesis development based on literature that shows the relationship between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement.The third section addresses the study methodology comprising the approach, instrumentation, measurement and analysis issues.The fourth section addresses the study results.The fifth section presents the discussion part, and the last sections such as the conclusion, implications, limitations and future study directions were also discussed consecutively.

Conceptualization of staff engagement, workplace environment and lifelong learning
As presented next, a review of the existing literature in the field was carried out to provide a framework for the current study's variables such as workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement.Consequently, the theoretical relationships of the study variables are presented and the study hypotheses were stated accordingly.

Staff engagement
Considering several conceptions available in the literature, it is suggested that the term engagement does not seem to have an agreed definition in the context of the workplace.Terms such as "work engagement", "personal engagement", "job engagement", and "organizational engagement" have been used to describe similar concepts interchangeably (Alnuaimi, 2022).Also, a synthesis of the literature by Bailey et al. (2017) shows descriptions of engagement could be grouped under six main headings such as "personal role engagement", "work task" or "job engagement", "multidimensional engagement", "engagement as a composite attitudinal and behavioural construct", "engagement as management practice", and "self-engagement with performance".Despite varying descriptions, engagement has emerged as one of the key ideas in organizational behaviour and has attracted a lot of attention in academic studies (Hanaysha, 2016).
The most widely known in the literature, which is the UTRECHT work engagement scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) conceptualized that employee engagement at work is a sense of energetic, effective connection with work activities and the ability to deal well with the demands of the job.According to Schaufeli et al. (2006), staff engagement can be understood in three dimensions such as vigour, dedication, and absorption.Vigour refers to high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort when doing activities at the workplace, and persistence even when encountering difficulties; dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's action and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge; and absorption refers to being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in what one is undertaking tasks, where time passes quickly and one finds it difficult to detach him/herself from doing activities.Therefore, the concept of engagement in the workplace relates to the activities that staff members carry out and is conceptualized as a pleasant, rewarding, work-related state of mind marked by vigour, dedication, and absorption (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019).
In addition, scholars such as Fredericks and McColskey (2014), Hassan et al. (2020) and Maroco et al. (2016) assumed engagement as the cumulative perspective of behavioural, emotional, and cognitive dimensions.Moreover, Ogueyungbo et al. (2020) and Alshuaibi et al. (2018) demonstrated especially the Fredericks and McCloskey thought that the concept of behavioural engagement at work is based on involvement in extramural and social activities.When staff members adhere to the rules, uphold the organization's standards, and refrain from engaging in disruptive behaviour, this is referred to as being behaviorally engaged.On the other hand, emotional engagement at work focuses on the extent of positive or negative reactions to colleagues and others.When a staff member, for instance, identifies with the institution or thinks he/she matters to that, this is referred to as being emotionally involved.The remaining dimension of engagement, which is cognitive engagement at work is demarcated as the staff's level of assumption in continuous on-the-job or other kinds of learning and development activities.It involves exercising the necessary effort to understand difficult concepts or master challenging abilities, as well as being deliberate, strategic, and eager to do so.When all the above-mentioned dimensions are taken into account, therefore, staff engagement can be seen as a gauge of institutional quality.An engaged staff is aware of the working context and works with colleagues to improve personal and institutional performances within the job for the benefit of the organization (Suyoto & Murtiharso, 2019).Therefore, it is the concern of institutions to engage staff members deliberately by improving working environments, introducing continuous learning and professional development initiatives, and applying other kinds of constructive organizational behaviour interventions (Ho et al., 2021;Hassan et al, 2020).This idea has become more popular in higher education to promote excellent educational services.Hence, building some theoretical perspectives by discussing some factors (in the case of the current study, workplace environment and staff dedication in lifelong learning) and their effect on staff engagement is necessary.

Workplace environment
The workplace environment or the working environment refers to the place and the conditions of an organization where employees do their work (Hanaysha, 2016).Working environment settings such as role clarity, availability of work materials, recognition of efforts, as well as opportunities for advancements and growth are all essential workplace conditions that may influence staff engagement to work hard, stay committed and help the institutions achieve its goals and mission (Alnuaimi, 2022).It is also supported that a good working environment comprises all factors of a job such as the facilities to do the work tasks, a comfortable workplace, safety, and the absence of noise (Hanaysha, 2016).All these elements play a significant role in an organization through providing security, allowing staff members to work optimally, and can influence their emotions (Ho et al., 2021).

Lifelong learning
Lifelong learning is widely espoused as a goal for education and as an essential element for workplace components.The term "lifelong learning" is now so extensively used in educational circles that it has a motto which is taken to mean whatever the learner finds beneficial (Assefa et al., 2023;Kirby et al., 2010;Nascimento & Valdés-Cotera, 2018).The most comprehensive conceptualization of lifelong learning is outlined in Soares and Dias (2019) and Crick et al. (2004) work as lifelong learning is an individual's capacity and desire for learning throughout life that aims at improving their knowledge, competencies and full-of-life participation in learning activities.Also, other researchers outline lifelong learning as all learning activities that are undertaken throughout life to update and upgrade own knowledge, skills and competencies within a personal, social and employment-related perspective (Beqiri & Mazreku, 2020;Kirby et al., 2010).It is true that because of how quickly things change in today's world, knowledge must constantly be updated.People must, therefore, be able to adapt and learn new skills if they want to keep up with changes in this constantly changing world of work (Nascimento & Valdés-Cotera, 2018).This process can be enhanced by higher education institutions because they are a place where ongoing professional development and lifelong learning process take place (Assefa et al., 2023).Specifically looking at the lifelong learning competencies, Bilgiç et al. (2021) figured out that lifelong learning is becoming a 21 st -century skill, which covers basic skill areas such as problemsolving, critical thinking and decision-making, communication and cooperation, information literacy, technology literacy, flexibility and adaptability, global competencies and financial literacy.That is why Kirby et al. (2010) call for a shift in emphasis to "learn how to learn", indicating effective lifelong learners can (1) set goals, (2) apply appropriate knowledge and skills, (3) engage in self-direction and self-evaluation, (4) locate required information, and (5) adapt their learning strategies to different conditions that could be applied at the workplace.

The relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement
Several perspectives discussed the relationship between working environment and staff engagement in several ways.For instance, Suyoto and Murtiharso (2019) pronounced that when staff enjoys the working environment, he/she will enjoy the allotted time in the workplace to do more activities effectively and optimally.As well, the study of Tansel (2022) i suggests that the structure of working environments called "working amenities" such as flexible working hours, job sharing, parental leave, working from home and others can affect staff members' job engagement.This may be because workers who are comfortable within their working environment will be happier, work more efficiently, and with greater ease and feel more engaged than those who are uncomfortable in their working environment (Chaudhry et al., 2017;Tansel, 2022).Therefore, when leaders try to create a culture of engagement, they do so by modifying or creating certain working conditions that favour staff engagement (Alnuaimi, 2022).By taking into account workplace conditions as a vital factor in determining the extent to which staff are engaged, actively engaged or unengaged in their job (Alnuaimi, 2022;Chaudhry et al., 2017), it is possible to hypothesise that workplace environment is considered as an important predictor of staff engagement in higher education.In this sense, the current study hypothesis that: Hypothesis 1: Workplace environment has a significant and direct effect on staff engagement.

The relationship between workplace environment and lifelong learning
Existed literature discussed that employee learning and development can be augmented by developing a conducive working atmosphere in an institution where learning opportunities are available thereby staff members will be engaged at work (Beqiri & Mazreku, 2020;Ho et al., 2021;Wazir et al., 2021).In the recent literature, there are some facts about the relationship between higher education workplace environment and staff dedication to lifelong learning.For instance, studies conducted by Sobocka-Szczapa (2020), Hassan et al. (2020) and Tansel (2022) affirmed that a welcoming and encouraging work environment can foster a sense of belonging and purpose among employees, which may improve their interest to participate in lifelong learning.This is because when a workplace has a positive learning culture, people are more likely to feel appreciated and supported.
Additionally, a study done by Assefa et al. (2023) suggested that an inviting and well-designed higher education workplace environment can foster a welcoming and productive learning environment for employees.As a result, they can be inclined to take advantage of possibilities for lifelong learning, such as attending training sessions or workshops.Also, literature portrayed the association between the importance of working environments having supportive leadership and learning culture in the education sectors (Asghar et al., 2022;Hussain et al., 2023).In the sense, higher education staff who feel like they have good leaders who support them in their workplace setting (Hussain et al., 2023), are more likely to be engaged in lifelong learning programs aim to update their knowledge and skills for enhancing their profession (Chaudhry et al., 2017;Ho et al., 2021;Taylor & Kloosterman, 2012;Wazir et al., 2021).Based on these perspectives, therefore, it is possible to hypothesise that: Hypothesis 2: Workplace environment has a significant and direct effect on staff involvement in lifelong learning.

The role of lifelong learning in the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement
In the context of organizational learning, Ukwuaba (2015) pronounced that lifelong learning embraces all forms of educational experiences which are needed by employees according to their varying interests and needs in the workplace.It includes the ability to access, use and evaluate the necessary information from various sources to adapt to the rapidly changing economic, political, cultural and technological environment (Bilgiç et al., 2021).There is a strong argument in the literature that suggests being aware of one's learning needs, identifying appropriate opportunities and overcoming obstacles to be successful in the lifelong learning process is closely related to learning how to acquire skills need to improve engagement at the workplace (Bilgiç et al., 2021;Nasciment & Valdés-Cotera, 2018;Sobocka-Szczapa, 2020;Wazir et al., 2021).Therefore, it is proposed that lifelong learning has a strong positive relationship with staff engagement (Ho et al., 2021), which causes them to have a deep dedication to or a strong connection to their job (Wazir et al., 2021).Studies from various angles show the positive link between lifelong learning and employee engagement.For instance, Ho et al. (2021) indicate that lifelong learning can assist staff members in acquiring new information and abilities, which can increase their effectiveness and job engagement.This can help people stay current with industry trends and improve the abilities that are in demand, which can increase their sense of accomplishment (Rasool et al., 2023).The remark of other scholars (e.g., Bilgiç et al., 2021;Sobocka-Szczapa, 2020;Wazir et al., 2021) shows lifelong learning can be a factor in enhancing employee motivation and feeling more engaged in their work.Based on this sense, therefore, the current study can hypothesise as follows: Hypothesis 3: Lifelong learning has a significant and direct effect on staff engagement.
Moreover, the staff's dedication to lifelong learning programs has been linked to positive employee attributes.Some studies approved that in a sound working environment where continuous learning is a culture, staff participation in lifelong learning allowed them to gain new and update their current knowledge, skills, and competencies thereby it will lead to boost their engagement in the workplace (Beqiri & Mazreku, 2020;Chaudhry et al., 2017;Nascimento & Valdés-Cotera, 2018;Wazir et al., 2021).This prime suggests staff involvement in lifelong learning can help to explain why a positive workplace environment is associated with higher levels of staff engagement.Additionally, Ho et al. (2021) in their study noted that institutions frequently include essential conditions related to a high-quality workplace and lifelong learning opportunities that highly contribute to the enhancement of staff engagement.This is because a working environment that encourages staff to engage in lifelong learning can help them to develop new skills and knowledge, stay up-to-date with the latest trends, be more creative and innovative, and feel more motivated and engaged in their work.This means that lifelong learning can help to explain why a positive workplace environment is associated with higher levels of staff engagement.Therefore, this perspective initiates to predict that lifelong learning can facilitate the positive influence of higher education working environment on staff engagement.Based on this sprite, the current study forwards the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 4: Lifelong learning significantly mediates the relationship between the workplace environment and staff engagement.
Overall, based on the reviewed literature, the following Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework of the current study that illustrates the structural relationships between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement in higher education context.

Approach of the study
The current study was conducted to estimate the mediating role of lifelong learning in the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education.More specifically, it attempted to scrutinize the direct, indirect and mediating effects of the aforementioned exogenous constructs.The magnitude of the study variables' association and mediation effects were assessed following this study's conceptual frameworks which are developed based on previous theoretical inquiries.In doing so, a quantitative research approach with a correlational study design was employed in the study process.We employed this approach for the reason that this study was centred to test the hypothesis of the expected predictive relationship exists between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement to provide insight into the nature of the variables themselves as well as an understanding of their relationships in the context of higher education.

Study participants and sampling strategy
Academic staff members from Woldia University, Ethiopia, were chosen as study participants.The participants were selected using a simple random sampling technique.Since the population is known, the sample size was determined by using a statistical method given by Yamane's sample size determination formula, which is, n = N 1þN e ð Þ 2 where n = sample size, N = population size, and e = precision rate (5%).Although there are several formulas available in the literature and user-friendly software used to determine sample size, we looked up Yamane's formula because of its easiness enough when the whole population size is known.In doing so, a total of n = 280 sample participants were included in the current study drawn out of the total (N = 936) number of active academic staff members.

Measures
The current study employed a questionnaire survey for collecting the current study's data.A total of 28 items related to working environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement were included in the questionnaire.Each variable was measured by a scale adapted from the literature, and each offered respondents' choices were measured in a five-point Likert scale ranging from "1" which represents "strongly disagree" to "5" which represents "strongly agree".In the process, staff engagement was considered as the dependent variable and workplace environment and lifelong learning were also considered as independent variables.Following are the details of how the study variables measurement was carried out:

Workplace Environment
The scale of the working environment was adapted from the study of Hanaysha (2016) based on McGuire and McLaren's (2009) working environment measurement scale which has a Cronbach's alpha = 0.837, indicating the scale has an adequate reliability statistic.The working environment scale contains five items measured on a five-point Likert scale.Some of the items include: "I am satisfied with the space allocated for me to learn and do my work", "My workplace is very clean as well as comfortable for me for learning and working", "There is adequate space between me and my nearest colleague", "My workplace is quite", and "Overall, my workplace is pleasant and visually appealing."

Lifelong Learning
Lifelong learning was measured using the Lifelong Learning Questionnaire (LLLQ) developed by Kirby et al. (2010) and the scale was adapted into the current study context (higher education context).The LLLQ comprised 14 items.Kirby et al. (2010) stated the internal consistency, a Cronbach's Alpha is 0.71, indicating an acceptable inter-item consistency.Some of the items include: "I prefer to have others plan my in-service learning activities", "I prefer problems for which there is only one solution", . . ., and "When I learn something new, I try to focus on the details rather than on the big picture."

Staff Engagement
Although there are several measurement scales of employee engagement found in the academic literature, we preferred to use the nine version UTRECHT work engagement scale (UWES-9s) validated by Schaufeli et al. (2006) composed of nine items (some of them including: "At this institution, I feel energetic to do my work", "At this institution, I feel strong and capable to do my work", . . ., and "I have a lot of work to do every day").The UWES-9s scale showed adequate psychometric properties that have a Cronbach's alpha = 0.882, indicating an adequate reliability statistic.

Data gathering procedures
The finalized questionnaire was made available on paper to reach out to as many respondents as possible.The entire data collection procedure lasted for almost two months (28 October 2022, to 29 December 2022).The necessary literature review was carried out to adapt the instruments, then reviewed before the main instrumentation procedure phase.To ensure inter-item reliability, a pilot test with 30 staff members who weren't part of the actual study sample was done.It was calculated that the pilot showed a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.847, suggesting adequate interitem consistency of the instrument (see the result section for further).The questionnaire was then prepared and distributed to the target study participants.Before distributing the questionnaire, informed consent was obtained orally from all participants to involve in the study process.After confirming each their willingness to engage in the study, the researchers invited them to complete the printed survey one at a time.When participants had questions about any of the items, necessary explanations were provided as well.

Data analysis
Structural equation modelling (SEM) supported by its variety of procedures such as confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and path analysis was used to analyse the study data.SEM is used because literature regarded it as a powerful statistical analysis technique that enables the estimation of multiple layers of relationships between indicators and their corresponding latent constructs (reflective measurement model) and relationships between latent constructs (structural model) simultaneously for generating more accurate and reliable findings (Collier, 2020).
The measurement model was assessed through the maximum likelihood estimation approach.Additionally, the measurement model's unidimensionality, reliability and validity were examined.After these examinations, all model fitness index categories were assessed.Since the study determined the direct and indirect (mediation) effects of the construct, bootstrapping was used in the analysis, especially for testing the indirect effect.In addition to reporting the significant effects from the structure model, the relative contribution or the effect size (R 2 ) of each path in the model was calculated.All the statistical calculations were done using the IBM SPSS 27 and AMOS 23 statistical software versions.

Results
Each of the selected 280 study participants received a copy of the printed questionnaire.Out of them, 251 returned their response and were taken into account for the analysis.However, the remaining 29 questionnaires, indicating 10% of the responses weren't returned, and therefore, they were discarded from further analysis.Earlier to the confirmatory factor analysis stage, responses obtained from participants were checked following the response category.Additionally, two major issues such as data clearance (ensuring the accuracy and completeness of data through reviewing the data for errors, inconsistencies, and missing values) and data normalization (ensuring the validity and reliability of the data by removing outliers, transforming variables, and imputing missing values) were done critically.In doing so, the missing data was handled by using the mean substitution technique since it works best when only a small number of missing values are present in the data (Schumacker & Lomax, 2016).
Based on the returned data, the results of the measurement and structural models' assessment were reported as follows:

Measurement model assessment
Using the CFA, the unidimensionality and validity of the measurement model used in this study were assessed, and also reliability was calculated to check the appropriateness of the scales indeed measured the same underlying construct.As a result, the model's unidimensionality was attained after deleting items including LL1, LL6 and LL11, which have poor factor loading below the threshold value (see Figure 2), the cutoff is > 0.5 (Hair et al., 2021).After removing poor factor loading items, the CFA of the measurement model fitness indexes result showed RMSEA = 0.57, CFI = 0.911, TLI = 0.909 and ChiSqu/df = 1.811, indicating the required level achieved (see results and 2 the threshold in Table 1).The discriminant validity of the correlation between constructs was also assessed to see whether their relationship is below the threshold level of 0.85 (Collier, 2020).Therefore, as seen in Figure2, the intercorrelation between constructs was found lower than 0.85, suggesting discriminant validity assessment of the correlation between constructs was achieved.Regarding reliability, both internal consistency and composite reliability of each construct were achieved, each construct Cronbach's alpha was above the threshold (workplace environment = .836;lifelong learning = .777;and staff engagement = .834).Also, all the composite reliability coefficients of the constructs were found well (workplace environment = .844;lifelong learning = .928;and staff engagement = .866),indicating all are above the recommended threshold of Cronbach's alpha value = 0.7.These results suggested the items of the scale indeed measured their underlying construct.

Model fitness assessment
Before estimating the structural model that shows the relationships between the study variables, the model fitness assessment was determined based on the threshold value suggested by Hair et al. (2021) and Collier (2020).The result is presented in Table 1, indicating the required level of all fitness measurement index categories was achieved to proceed with further analysis of the structural model or test the study hypothesises.

Hypothesis testing
The relationships and effect estimation of the study variables based on the hypothesis is presented in Table 2 as follows: Concerning the association between working environment and staff engagement, Table 2 shows the standard regression coefficient between these two constructs is 0.462.According to the absolute critical value of 5.999, it can be determined that at the probability of a 95% confidence interval, the working environment had a significant direct effect on staff engagement (β = 0.462, p-value <0.01) with an R 2 = 0.213.This means, due to the direct (unmediated) effect, when the working environment goes up by one standard deviation, staff engagement goes up by 0.462 standard deviations.This is in addition to any indirect (mediated) effect that the working environment may have on staff engagement.Hence, hypothesis 1 was supported.The effect size was calculated and the path had an R 2 value of 0.213, indicating medium in range.This means the coefficient of determination (R 2 ) shows 21.3% of the variance in staff engagement could be estimated using the working environment conditions.

Figure 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
As seen in Table 2, the effect of the working environment on staff members' participation in lifelong learning yielded the standard regression coefficient of 0.324.According to the absolute critical value of 4.101, it can be assumed that with a probability of 95%, the working environment had significant direct effects on lifelong learning (β = 0.324, p-value <0.01) with an R 2 = 0.105.This means, due to the direct (unmediated) effect, when the working environment goes up by one standard deviation, lifelong learning goes up by 0.324 standard deviations.This is in addition to any indirect (mediated) effect that the working environment may have on lifelong learning.Therefore, hypothesis 2 was supported.Also, it was calculated that the path had an R 2 value of 0.105, which is small in range, indicating the coefficient of determination shows 10.5% of the change in staff involvement in lifelong learning could be explained through the working environment factors.
Regarding the effects of lifelong learning on staff engagement, Table 2 shows the standard regression coefficient between these variables was found 0.523.According to the absolute critical value of 6.537, it can be suggested that with the probability of 95%, lifelong learning had significant and direct effects on staff engagement (β = 0.523, p-value <0.01), with an R 2 = 0.273.This means, due to the direct (unmediated) effect when lifelong learning goes up by one standard deviation, staff engagement goes up by 0.523 standard deviations.This is in addition to any indirect (mediated) effect that lifelong learning may have on staff engagement.Therefore, hypothesis 3 was supported.Also, it was calculated that the path yielded an R 2 value of 0.273, which is large in range, indicating 27.3% of the change in staff engagement could be estimated through the contribution of lifelong learning.
Depending on the data presented in Table 2, lifelong learning was entered into the model to see whether it has a significant mediation effect on the relationship between the working environment and staff engagement.Hence, as shown in Table 2, the standard coefficient of lifelong learning, which is the mediator in the relationship between working environment and staff engagement was 0.169.This means, due to the indirect (mediated) effect of the working environment on staff engagement through the lifelong learning construct, when the working environment goes up by one standard deviation, staff engagement goes up by 0.169 standard deviations.On the other hand, before lifelong learning entered the model, the direct effect of the working environment on staff engagement was 0.462.However, when the mediator entered, the indirect effect coefficient of determination of working environment on staff engagement through lifelong learning was reduced to 0.169, and still significant (p-value <0.01).Therefore, hypothesis 4 was supported.
Since the coefficient of determination of the indirect effect is lower than the direct effect, the type of mediation that lifelong learning had is said to be partial mediation in the mediation process.In this case, the working environment has both a significant direct effect on staff engagement and significant indirect effects on staff engagement through the mediating role of lifelong learning.Now, it can be possible to determine that according to the absolute critical value of 3.449 at a 95% probability, the mediation effect of lifelong learning was significant in the relationship between working environment and staff engagement (β = .169,p-value <0.01) with an R 2 = .431.This is in addition to any direct (unmediated) effect that the working environment may have on staff engagement without the mediator entering into the model.The mediation path yielded an R 2 = .431,which is large in range, suggesting 43.1% of the variance in staff engagement could be estimated by the indirect effect of the working environment mediated by lifelong learning.
Overall, the structural model yielded an R 2 value of 0.644, which means the coefficient of determination shows 64.4% of the variance in staff engagement could be estimated using the combined effect of both the working environment and lifelong learning.In the end, Table 3 presents the summary results of all hypothesizes as follows:

Discussion
The current study was carried out to examine the relationships between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement in higher education setting.In this sprite, the main objective of this study was positioned to estimate the mediating role of lifelong learning in the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education.The study results suggested that workplace environment has a significant direct effect on both staff engagement and lifelong learning.Lifelong learning has also both a significant direct effect on staff engagement and a significant partial mediation role/effect in the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement.Based on the conceptual model framed the relationships of these variables, the specific study findings were discussed as follows: Table 3.The results summary of hypothesis testing for the respected paths

P-value Results on Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: Workplace environment has a significant and direct effect on staff engagement. .

.000 Supported
Hypothesis 2: Workplace environment has a significant and direct effect on staff dedication in lifelong learning. .

.000 Supported
Hypothesis 3: Lifelong learning has a significant and direct effect on staff engagement .

.000 Supported
Hypothesis 4: Lifelong learning significantly mediates the relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement. .

.000 Supported
First, the current study confirmed that workplace environment and employee engagement are inextricably linked.According to the findings, working environment characteristics can explain 21.3% of the variance in staff engagement.This suggests that a pleasant work environment can lead to increased staff engagement in their work, which helps them to be more productive and more likely to stay with the organization.In practice, it implies when staff members feel there is a meaningful and safe working environment that facilitates tasks to be done, they can be more engaged.This verdict was consistent with previous study findings that concluded workplace environment has a positive influence on employee motivation and employee engagement in the workplace (Alnuaimi, 2022;Setiyani et al., 2019).The current study also supports the results mentioned in the previous studies that when a good working environment is provided for staff in higher education, they are not only happy but also stay there and work for the progress of the institutions (Chaudhry et al., 2017).Moreover, the findings of this study suggest that higher education can improve employee engagement by creating a positive workplace environment such as a comfortable and well-designed working environment, creating a sound communication system, good leadership and supportive institutional culture can create a positive atmosphere that makes employees feel welcome and are more likely to be engaged in their work.Likewise, identifying sound workplace conditions such as role clarity, availability of work materials, pleasant and visually appealing working space, and recognition of staff's efforts can positively affect their engagement thereby they can advance institutional performance.
Second, the current study findings demonstrate the link between workplace environment and employee disposition in lifelong learning.The findings revealed that workplace environment can significantly contribute to 10.5% of the variance in staff participation in lifelong learning.This shows that although the magnitude of the effect size is small in range, one of the important variables in employee involvement in lifelong learning is a favourable workplace environment.Concerning the relationship between workplace environment and staff involvement in lifelong learning, some opposing reports are available in the literature.For instance, it was concluded that staff members' ongoing learning and development can be amplified through a conducive working atmosphere in the organization (Beqiri & Mazreku, 2020;Wazir et al., 2021) where the staff can improve their working knowledge and skills so be competent and engaged at work.On the other hand, a study conducted by Ho et al. (2021) in their study context, conveyed working environment did not lead to lifelong learning in organizational settings.They illustrated the reason that "when the working environment was very much geared towards fulfilling employees' needs in health and safety, economy and safety, social, esteem, knowledge, as well as the aesthetic, these employees were being spoon-fed into a sense of complacency that put them in a comfort zone where they did not feel threatened or challenged at the workplace" (p.126).However, the current study in its context, supports the findings mentioned by Wazir et al. (2021), and Beqiri and Mazreku (2020), and made known that the working environment had significant direct effects on lifelong learning.This means, when working environment conditions are suited for staff members, their participation in different kinds of lifelong learning platforms goes too.As a result, their current knowledge, skill and attitude could be updated that will be applied in the institutional work activities.Therefore, organizations should optimize a good workplace climate which encourages continuous learning and provides chances for professional development that will help staff to keep themselves competitive and up-to-date to perform well in the job assigned to them.
Third, regarding the relationship between lifelong learning and staff engagement, the current study finding revealed 27.3% of the change in staff engagement can be estimated from lifelong learning, supporting that staff who are involved in lifelong learning are more likely to be engaged in their work.This could be due to some of the special benefits of lifelong learning, which can assist individuals in developing new knowledge and abilities, making them more effective at work.This can boost their sense of success and engagement in their task.This finding was found consistent with previous studies conducted by Chaudhry et al. (2017) and Ho et al. (2021) who figured out that lifelong learning and related training and development initiatives have a significant effect on enhancing staff engagement.This relationship approved that lifelong learning in an organization can be used to encourage staff in becoming highly engaged with their core job responsibilities by updating the required abilities.As a result, the staff members will become more creative, productive, and competitive with others around the world (Ogueyungbo et al., 2020).
Fourth, the current study also accepted that lifelong learning can mediate the relationship between workplace environment and staff lifelong learning in higher education.The study result yielded a 43.1% change in staff engagement can be estimated by the mediation effects of lifelong learning.This may be because lifelong learning can help staff to develop new skills and knowledge that can make them more effective in their work, which can lead to an increased sense of accomplishment; stay up-to-date with the latest trends, which can benefit the institution as a whole and all these make them feel more motivated and engaged in the work.Therefore, a positive workplace environment which promotes lifelong learning can be established in a higher education institution.This can be enhanced through applying supportive leadership (Asghar et al., 2022;Hussain et al., 2023;Rasool et al., 2023) for cultivating a learning culture and rewarding staff for engaging in lifelong learning.As a result of these factors, a favourable workplace environment can contribute to increased lifelong learning among employees in higher education institutions, which can lead to improved teaching and research outputs, increased job satisfaction, and a more motivated and engaged workforce.
Overall, lifelong learning can act as a bridge between the working environment and employee engagement in higher education.Hence, higher education institutions can inspire personnel to develop new skills and knowledge by fostering a pleasant workplace climate that encourages staff learning, which can lead to a more motivated and engaged workforce.

Conclusions
The current study provides valuable insights into the relationship between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement in the context of higher education.The findings suggest working environment and lifelong learning have a significant and positive influence on staff engagement.Unquestionably, a welcoming and secure work environment can draw staff because their demands for both learning and employment are likely to be met.Therefore, higher education leaders should create work environments that can boost employee engagement, which will ultimately result in positive outcomes.This can be accomplished by giving employees the chance to grow and learn, fostering a culture of cooperation and support, and establishing a leadership that commits to lifelong learning.
The study also found that lifelong learning plays a significant mediating role in the relationship between the working environment and staff engagement, indicating that higher education institutions should monitor staff members' lifelong learning activities and evaluate the effects of those activities on staff engagement.This can assist organizations in identifying and putting into practice efficient staff engagement supported by lifelong learning initiatives.Likewise, the higher education institutions' management body must establish and put into effect approachable working environment conditions and policies that will support staff's learning and ongoing professional development lineups to foster exceptional and fruitful academic staff job engagement.
The results of this study are equally applicable to other businesses that demand their employees stay current with industry trends and pick up new information and skills.Companies can build more encouraging and engaging work environments for their employees by understanding how workplace culture and lifelong learning can affect their staff to be engaged actively in the work.This can have several positive effects on both people's and companies' performance.

Implications
By providing some insights and practical guidance, the current study can help institutions to enhance more supportive and engaging workplace conditions for their staff, which can lead to some benefits for both staff and institutions.Moreover, the findings of the current study may have the following theoretical and practical implications:

Theoretical implications
This study may offer additional perspectives on the relationship between the working environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement.In these relationships, lifelong learning may contribute to the explanation of why a happy work environment is linked to higher levels of staff engagement in the work.Additionally, the study highlights some particular methods through which lifelong learning can act as a mediator in the link between employee engagement and workplace culture.These include learning new skills and knowledge that can increase a sense of accomplishment, which in turn can lead to higher levels of staff engagement in their regular task; and keeping up with the most recent learning trends can help staff feel more motivated and engaged in their work.

Practical implications
This study may have the following two practical implications: First, the study offers helpful information on how to make higher education workplaces more encouraging and interesting for staff members.This can aid organizations in luring and keeping top people while raising the standard of both education and research jobs.Second, the study recommends that higher education institutions concentrate on fostering a work climate that encourages lifelong learning.This can be accomplished by giving employees the chance to grow and learn, fostering a culture of cooperation and support, and establishing a leadership that is dedicated to lifelong learning.

Limitations and future study suggestions
This study was conducted to estimate the mediating role of lifelong learning in the structural relationship between workplace environment and staff engagement in higher education.Even though the study's goal was met, its scope is still somewhat limited.Firstly, the study was conducted with a sample of staff from a single higher education institution, Woldia University, Ethiopia.This means that the findings may not be generalizable to other higher education institutions and may not be representative of the wide universities found in the country.Therefore, it is suggested to investigate the issue with large coverage of sample staff from multiple higher education institutions and other organizations.In addition to higher education institutions, replication of this study on other industries that could benefit from research on the relationship between workplace environment, lifelong learning and staff engagement is suggested.For instance, the healthcare industry is constantly evolving, and healthcare professionals need to stay up-to-date with the latest research and practices.Lifelong learning can help healthcare professionals to develop the skills and knowledge they need to provide high-quality care.The technology industry is also constantly evolving, and technology professionals need to stay up-todate with the latest trends.Lifelong learning can help technology professionals to develop the skills and knowledge they need to stay ahead of the curve.Also, businesses need to be agile and adaptable to succeed in today's competitive environment.Lifelong learning can help business professionals to develop the skills and knowledge they need to make informed decisions and respond to change.
Secondly, the current study considered the influence of the working environment and lifelong learning on staff engagement.Further studies could be carried out by introducing other latent constructs such as staff commitment, organizational justice, organizational performance and other related organizational variables in addition to the aforementioned variables to understand broadly how staff engagement will be influenced by combined constructs.Future studies in these fields may provide organizations with information that will enable them to design workplaces that are more encouraging and interesting for their employees, which has several advantages for both employees and organizations.
Thirdly, self-report measures were used in the study.This indicates that the results could be biased.Even if the tools used to evaluate the study variables were scientifically validated, it would be beneficial to investigate if subsequent research utilizing a variety of measures could offer a more complete picture of the constructs under investigation.Also, a questionnaire was mostly employed to collect data for the current study.As a result, it wasn't enough to adequately capture participants' viewpoints on how the study variables related to one another.To confirm the findings and get a deeper understanding, therefore, a replication of this work utilizing various data collection methods is suggested.
Despite these drawbacks, the study offers insightful information about the connection between workplace environments, lifelong learning, and staff engagement in higher education.Overall, research on the association between workplace culture and lifelong learning has the potential to be useful across a variety of industries.Therefore, by understanding how workplace environment and lifelong learning can impact staff engagement and other organizational behaviour variables, organizations can figure out more supportive and engaging workplaces for their employees, which can result in some benefits for both staff and organizations.