Ineffective Moral Leader?

What is more effective, a moral leader that doesn't have the concept of leadership or a authoritarian, immoral leader that takes advantage of their subjects? How can one be sure which type of leader is a better choice? A moral leader will base their decisions on what will benefit their people, but what if this decision leads to a failure in governance? A immoral leader may oppress his/her subjects, but at least this leader will be more successful in controlling affairs in their government. It is easier for a ruler to ignore morality when making decisions because it makes the process a lot easier to complete. Worrying about a small, starving peasent family will be the last thought on a ruler's mind when determining if there should be a retaliation to an antagonizing force. The overall best ruler will have a mixture of both authoritarian and moral traits. Observing a ruler integrating morality into their decisions will enhance the public sentiment of their subjects, and characteristics of slight domination in a leader will make the subjects look up to their ruler. Believing in the validity of the laws that a government enforces also is necessary for the leader to approach their full potential. A leader cannot be just anyone, a leader must have quality traits necessary to successfully govern. A leaders who failed to exhibit a leadership traits is Creon, for example. Creon ignored public sentiment, and all those who opposed him, and ended up alienating and losing all of those close to him. A leader will always experience failure if they thwart the leadership qualities.