There is a mismatch between our ideals for digital product development and the reality of it. We speak of bridging the gap between business and IT, taking a seat at the table, direct customer involvement, self-organizing teams having the means, skills and mandate to own business outcomes. This is the ideal of the stories told on podcasts and in best-selling books. But the reality is this: Software development teams live inside a protective terrarium, sheltered from the chaotic, toxic environment of the rest of the business. Teams communicate with the environment through the means of a messenger, who bridges the world of business and development, translating needs and concerns. The business tries to control and optimize the conditions inside the terrarium, avoiding too much and too little of anything (causes laziness and demotivation, respectively), asking if the busy silkworms are feeling safe and thriving, if they are suffering from cognitive overload, all the while applying a mild pressure to produce, perhaps a little faster, a little more this time, this sprint. The levers to control the conditions inside the terrarium reside on the outside, which means that the teams can only pull them indirectly, by sending messages via the messenger. Then, the team must wait for divine intervention from a powerful being living in the harsh environment outside the terrarium. Perhaps their prayers will be answered, if not now, then soon? Eventually? This sounds pretty bad, but this model has both strengths and weaknesses. There are obviously reasons why this model has become so prevalent. What forces and constraints have produced this model? Are we still bound by them? Is it the best we can do? What does that mean for the stories we tell? Should we tell different stories instead? Or should we try to change reality? What would it take for us to break down the terrarium and expose our development teams to the full extent of reality? Are we willing to do that? Is it worth the cost?