A systematic review identifies key factors influencing e-learning adoption in organizations, suggesting pathways for effective employee development.
Purpose This study explored how organizational environments affect employees’ learning preferences and outcomes in relation to the adoption of e-learning. Though e-learning adoption is important for continuous skill development, limited research explains its adoption in organizational settings. This study aims to identify key factors influencing workplace e-learning adoption to support employee and organizational development. Design/methodology/approach The systematic literature review was conducted on 102 relevant papers from Scopus on e-learning adoption among employees. The review explored the theories, contexts, methodologies (TCM) – antecedents, decisions and outcomes (ADO) by using the multi-step analysis technique defined by Denyer and Tranfield (2009). Findings The review found important ADO, along with relevant TCM, that shape workplace e-learning adoption. This shows how e-learning adoption advances employees’ flexibility, motivation and skill development. These insights supported the development of a unified conceptual model and provided a structured roadmap for effective e-learning adoption in organizations. Originality/value This review makes a novel contribution to the literature by developing a unified conceptual model that extends the traditional ADO–TCM framework. The model integrates key organizational and individual factors, including motivation, organizational support, learning readiness and training program structure. By combining Self-Determination Theory with Technology Acceptance Model/Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and organizational learning theory, the study moves beyond technology-centric models to emphasize capability development in workplace contexts. The review also identifies research gaps and outlines future research directions to advance theoretical and practical understanding of workplace e-learning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Laxmi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: