Final answer:
Nicholas II's autocratic rule, resistance to modern political changes, and poor administrative decisions, such as his direct command in World War I and the influence of Rasputin, made him an ineffective leader.
Step-by-step explanation:
Nicholas II's leadership was marred by several traits that rendered him ineffective as the ruler of Russia. His autocratic governance style, where he held nearly complete authority, was largely out of step with the modern political currents of the early 20th century. The Tsar's unwillingness to implement reforms or consider any checks on his absolute power exacerbated the turmoil brewing within the vast array of ethnicities, languages, and religions present in the Empire.
The reliance of Tsarina Alexandra on the dubiously influential Rasputin also weakened the monarchy's image, casting doubt on the Tsar's decision-making. Moreover, Nicholas II's direct command of the military during World War I and the resulting military failures further eroded his credibility and support. Autocratic rule, poor administrative decisions, and a detachment from the socioeconomic changes sweeping through Europe contributed to Nicholas II's ultimately ineffective leadership.