If cynefin did nothing else, it has certainly made us aware that not everything can be solved with a clear, preplanned, recipe-like formula. We should only develop those when they're appropriate.
Another useful feature is that it makes us aware of boundaries; going from complicated to complex (for instance), it is now "common sense" to rethink our way of working.
Otherwise, when recipes and formulae fail, leadership blames the execution of the plan for failures. After all, the recipes *used* to work, it must be the workers who are mucking it up.
Realizing that there may be other forces at play, there is less blame and more sense-making going on.
"Oh, we must have left 'complicated' for 'complex'... it's time to change tactics."
"Oh, we must have left 'complicated' for 'complex'... it's time to change tactics."
Now, here is a picture from codefin.org: 
Notice where institutionalization is.... look for it low on the chart, just off-center.
Now look for "norming" and "stable" here as well.
Now consider where in the diagram is the sweet spot for agile methods.
Would that be "simple" or "complicated" or "complex" or "chaotic"?
I would say "complex"
Would that be "simple" or "complicated" or "complex" or "chaotic"?
I would say "complex"
"Static", "Institutionalizing", are in the opposite corner.
Hmmm.... what does that say for the current "institutionalized agile" frameworks?
Hmmm.... what does that say for the current "institutionalized agile" frameworks?
I'm not saying that the picture is perfect, or cynefin is without warts, or that everyone must adopt anything. I'm just noticing that cynefin as a lens seems to point out some of the problems with institutionalized agile, and codefin shows it.
And that's one of the things about cynefin: once you've seen it, you can't unsee it. The effing cynefin is everywhere, challenging your simplistic views of the world and suggesting a change in tactics.
My favorite (just for the LOLs, as it says) cheatsheet for cynefin has to be this, also from codefin:
