Why Should Coaches Even Consider Exploring Ecological Dynamics?
There are a lot of successful volleyball coaches out there. Some have been coaching the same way for decades and continue to produce great results. Others have built entire programs around detailed technical instruction and structured drill progressions. And let’s be honest—many of them are winning. So, if that’s the case, why should a coach, at any level, even consider exploring something different, like ecological dynamics and the constraints-led approach ?
The truth is, change is hard. Learning something new, especially when it challenges conventional wisdom, is uncomfortable. And the ecological approach, while gaining traction, isn’t for everyone. Some coaches will look into it and decide it’s not a good fit for them, and that’s okay.
But if you’re even a little bit curious—if you’ve ever felt that traditional coaching methods might not be getting the most out of your players, or if you’ve noticed that the game is changing and you want to keep evolving—then it’s worth taking a look. Not because you have to, but because there’s value in exploring ideas that could make you a better coach
What Is Ecological Dynamics, and Why Does It Matter?
At its core, the ecological approach to coaching is about helping athletes learn through interaction with their environment rather than through rigid, pre-programmed instructions. It emphasizes adaptability, decision-making, and perception-action coupling—how an athlete’s movements emerge based on what they perceive in the game.
Instead of drilling players into “perfect” technique in isolation, an ecological approach focuses on creating representative environments where athletes learn by solving problems that are similar to what they’ll face in competition. The constraints-led approach (CLA) is a key part of this, using specific task, environmental, and individual constraints to guide skill development.
So why should a coach consider incorporating these ideas into their training? Here’s why it’s worth considering.
1. The Game Isn’t Static—So Why Should Training Be?
Volleyball is chaotic. Every rally presents a new combination of variables—different sets, blockers, angles, defensive formations, and unpredictable ball trajectories. Yet, traditional coaching often tries to break this dynamic game into isolated, repetitive drills that don’t always translate to actual play.
The ecological approach embraces this chaos. Instead of trying to force players into a “one-size-fits-all” technique, it helps them learn how to adapt to ever-changing situations by training in contexts that resemble real game scenarios. By exposing athletes to variability in practice, they become more comfortable with uncertainty, leading to better decision-making and execution when it matters most.
2. Skill Is More Than Just Technique
One of the biggest shifts in thinking that comes with the ecological approach is recognizing that skill is not just about technical execution—it’s about perception and action working together.
A perfect arm swing doesn’t matter if a hitter misjudges the set. The best passing platform in the world is useless if a player can’t track the serve properly. Traditional training often focuses on refining movement mechanics in isolation, but real skill development happens when players learn how to adjust their movements based on what’s happening around them.
The ecological approach prioritizes reading the game and making adjustments in real time. It’s about helping players develop skills in context, so their mechanics emerge naturally as a response to the situation rather than being forced into a predetermined mold.
3. Athletes Retain Skills Better When Learning Through Experience
Coaches have all had the experience of spending hours drilling a skill, only to see it break down under pressure in a match. That’s because knowing how to do something in a controlled setting isn’t the same as being able to apply it in a dynamic, competitive environment.
Research on motor learning supports the idea that skills learned in context—where athletes are required to make decisions and adapt—tend to stick better than those learned through rote repetition. The ecological approach encourages athletes to discover solutions through guided exploration, leading to deeper learning and more robust skill retention.
4. It Respects Individuality
Not all players move the same way, and not all players process the game the same way. Yet, many coaching models try to fit every athlete into the same technical model, prioritizing conformity over adaptability.
The ecological approach recognizes that no two athletes are the same, and that’s a strength, not a weakness. By allowing for variability in movement solutions, it helps players develop in ways that suit their own unique physical and cognitive abilities. Some of the best players in the world have “unconventional” techniques that wouldn’t have been approved in a traditional technical model—yet they thrive because they’ve developed functional, adaptable skills.
By using constraints rather than rigid instructions, coaches can create an environment where players find movement solutions that work for them, rather than forcing them into an artificial mold.
Is This Approach for Every Coach?
The ecological approach requires a shift in mindset, and that’s not always easy. It demands that coaches let go of some control and allow players to explore and adapt rather than prescribing every movement. It also challenges mainstream ideas of skill development, which can be uncomfortable for those who have built their coaching philosophies on more structured, linear models.
And the reality is—not every coach will want to coach this way, and that’s okay. Some will look into it and decide it doesn’t fit their philosophy or coaching style. Others may find elements they like and incorporate them alongside more traditional methods. I believe that coaching is most effective when built on a strong philosophical foundation. However, that belief should never prevent other coaches from exploring, blending, and adapting different methodologies to find what best serves their players.
So if you’re open to exploring new ideas, if you’re willing to question some of the long-held beliefs about how skill is developed, and if you’re interested in helping your players become more adaptable, independent, and game-ready—then the ecological approach is worth considering.
Final Thoughts
No one is saying that coaches who don’t use the ecological approach are doing it wrong. Plenty of great coaches have been successful using more traditional methods. But the game of volleyball continues to evolve, and our understanding of skill development is evolving with it.
The ecological approach and the constraints-led method offer a different way to think about coaching—one that prioritizes adaptability, decision-making, and learning through experience. If you’re a coach who values those things, it’s worth taking a closer look.
You don’t have to abandon everything you know. You don’t have to commit fully to one methodology. But the more tools you have in your coaching toolbox, the better equipped you’ll be to help your athletes succeed.
And if that’s the goal, then why not explore something new?
In a future article, I’ll share practical examples of training activities that fit within an ecological framework—so you can see how these ideas translate into real, actionable coaching strategies.
I heard an interesting take on this choice from Kasey Crider of UMBC: he said that ultimately he’s choosing to coach ecologically because it connects with him and how he wants to coach. While he’s very well-versed in the literature, he’s not telling people this is necessarily the best way or the way all coaches must coach. He likes this and it connects with his style and that makes sense to him. I really liked that perspective. I got my start in coaching listening to guys like Carl McGown and so much of how I coach comes from what I learned from him. I’m finding what I read and learn in discussion with coaches who coach ecologically is that it really connects with me and fits how I like to coach and the environment I want to create in my gym. If that wasn’t the case, I don’t know that I’d be as excited to dive into this and can appreciate why other coaches would be resistant.
I share your view that coaching ecologically just connects with me and the athletes. The argument that prescription-based coaching looks successful: is true but we tend to mistake correlation and causation. Ecological dynamics IMHO is not only more effective but also more efficient if you dare to look at progress beyond one practice session. Thank you, Loren!