An interesting question, although I don't have an answer straightaway
But let's see.
Unfortunately, not that many specifics come to mind, so I'll have to depend on the general picture.
Janeway -- I think she does give herself a lot of leeway with regards to moral decisions, but she doesn't seem to tolerate too much from her subordinates.
Picard -- also disqualifies as he is generally very uptight-- although he also can be a very human, forgiving captain.
So that leaves Kirk, Archer, and Sisko.
Kirk -- Overall, I'm getting the impression that he wasn't a captain to cross if you were a lowly ensign. If you were a high-ranking officer and
a friend (like Spock or McCoy), he might tolerate obstrusive behaviour, but still only if the situation allowed for it. (of course, it also happened when the situation did'nt
allow for it, but then again, this was often the meat of the episode).
Archer might be a bit different from the rest, as he lived in a time where there even wasn't a real 'code of conduct' -- they were still trying to figure everything out. I get the impression though, that most of his crew were loyal to him on a personal basis, not really a set of rules, and that they were judged by Archer accordingly -- more on the merits of personal loyalty and integrity than 'rules'. That taken into account, I think he would be somewhere in the 'middle range'.
Sisko -- I think he would come out on top. Even though versed in Starfleet Protocol, he had the most diverse crew -- one Bajoran ex-terrorist, one changeling from the gamma quadrant, one trill that was 300 years old and once his mentor, one klingon, etc, he himself being the Emissary and juggling often conflicting responsibilities. Even though we do see hem dress down his officers, I have the feeling he 'allowed' most. Because he was in a multicultural environment with his starfleet crew.
There's no telling though, how strict he would have been on a regular starship.