If the managers don't get taken in by charismatic bullshitters, sure.
If the managers don't have super busy schedules, leaving them little time for "auditing work" and "reviewing historical data"
If the managers aren't managing workers who know much more than them, meaning they're poorly equipped to understand how hard a given task is.
If the managers have perfect vision into untracked work like prioritising tickets, helping people in other teams, interviewing, coaching new starters, performing code review, working on cross-team standardisation efforts and so on.
If the managers don't feel looking over people's shoulders or demanding webcams be turned on in meetings would seem distrustful and intrusive.
If the managers have time to keep track of everyone's health, wellbeing and equipment so when a spot check finds periods of low productivity it can't be explained away by a broken keyboard or wifi problems or having the flu that week.
If the managers think firing one person is guaranteed to let them hire someone better, with no hiring delays or freezes.
If the managers don't feel they're buddies with the people on their team, who they eat lunch with every day, and they have far greater affection for the corporation they work for.
And if the managers don't benefit from having a larger empire, incentivising them to respond schedule slips by hiring more people
Then yes, the manager could indeed address many of these scenarios.