I teach all 12 SAFe certifications, so I'm familiar with the framework. The issue that SAFe identified, is the very issue I'm bringing up here. In the case of this framework, it gives managers the chance to keep managing people, but with an out of box framework that keeps them from the burden of understanding systems engineering fundamentals that emphasize flow. That's the problem in a nutshell with SAFe - layer 1 process and team fundamentals are sacrificed in favor of a layer 2 framework. And managers get to lead meetings and report-outs.

Otherwise, SAFe is ok. It just puts some structure around managing an increment of increments - another chance to inspect and adapt, pivot, whatever is needed for minimum viable product, plus managers feel like they (managers) are useful by guiding PI planning, whatever.

The reality? High performing teams tend to snicker at SAFe. They think things like confidence vote events are silly because they expect product owners to be bringing them nothing but work-items that already meet their confidence standards. Otherwise their time is being wasted with this event. Additionally, high performing teams will refuse to plan out multiple iterations worth of work (as done in PI planning), when they expect to have a healthy backlog to work that already meets their readiness standards for multiple iterations. All they'll say is prioritize that work and they'll knock it out. But once again, planning out multiple iterations helps managers reinforce telling people what to do in a micro fashion.