There are plenty of positions where "ass-in-seat" IS a measure of productivity. I doubt too many HN readers are in one of those positions, but I can imagine plenty of managers reading the WSJ who could be managing those sorts of positions. I'd say that including that concept in the article would weaken its generality.
I'm sure you can come up with a similar number of contrived examples where one of the named signs is similarly a "valid" practice.
For example, there are positions where yelling loudly is imperative. For example, do you want the manager of a construction site to quietly state that a beam looks unstable?
There are also jobs where sickness is common even if you're the best boss in the world. Kindergarten teachers get sick because children are icky, germ-ridden little things, not because their boss is a jerk.
I think measuring inappropriate things is one of the biggest problems with bad management. It's the best way to ensure that your employees are either mediocre or pathological.
However, it's not a sign of bad management. That list is literally meant to be a list of things you can notice about the place you're managing and say, "Holy cow, these are warning signs! I should examine the situation closely." If the manager knows his benchmarks are broken beyond use but persists in using them, he likely doesn't care about anything in this article.
I doubt that's the case for 95% of all jobs. And for the jobs it is the case for, I doubt managers are going to change things just because of a WSJ article. "What? Number of hours aren't a good indicator of employee performance? Alright then, ER doctors. Show up whenever you want to."
