Firstly, Nicholas did not have the qualities of a leader much less that of a tsar. Even his parents thought so too and thus he did not have much education about ruling Russia and was unprepared to take the throne when his father suddenly died. He also did not want to become the tsar and wanted to abdicate too. So when he became tsar, Nicholas had no knowledge of the world of men, politics or government. His training was only adequate for the role of consitutional monarch. Yet he only recognised an inherited belief in the moral rightness of the autocracy and a religious faith that he was in Gods hands.
For one, Nicholas was an overly firm believer in autocracy and was virtually immovable in his belief. He did not welcome any reforms and changes. In a letter he once wrote, "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father". In fact, during his rule as discontent rose, Nicholas still believed that he still had the support of all his people save for a couple of "undesirables". Due to his belief in autocracy and refusal to implement changes that the people requested, such as by giving them an elected parliament led to dissatisfaction. And even when he did implement the Duma, he did not give it any power, he would still choose the minister he wanted, not give it any military support and would try to dismiss the Duma. The people feel that their lives and working conditions were not improved and they did not have enough freedom and this provided grounds for revolution and the toppling of his empire.
Besides, Nicholas was ignorant of what exactly was going on in Russia and thus would be easily influenced. An example would be "Bloody Sunday" where people were petitioning to seek help from the tsar in good will. However, Nicholas was told that there would be violence and danger so he left the capital for Tsarskoe Selo the day before.