I was reading up on pilots in this era and it seems they often faced the decision to either try to limp back home in a damaged plane (risking a crash landing, a failure of critical components along the way, etc) or they could bail out and save themselves.
From what I've read there were plenty of pilots but only a small percentage of them were actually experienced. This left me wondering about the actual value of the average pilot compared to the plane they flew.
Were they encouraged to risk their lives to bring home a damaged plane or was the pilot the top priority?
it seems they often faced the decision to either try to limp back home in a damaged plane
When I have come across this dilemma, it was usually over enemy territory. That obviously changes the calculus--the risk of taking the damaged plane home is now weighed against being captured by the enemy.
From my reading, generally pilots were in shorter supply than planes in most cases. Experienced pilots were even more rare and valuable, but they were treated differently by the different combatants. The Germans and Japanese generally kept them on the front lines, while the British and Americans generally rotated them back out of combat for training duties.
To address the specific question of a pilot over friendly territory in a damaged plane, bailing out was still fairly dangerous for the pilot. One could be struck by the tail of the plane, or your parachute could fail to open, or you could have a mishap on landing. That had to be weighed against the likelihood of a successful landing. I don't think there was inordinate pressure placed on the pilots to bring an airframe home, but there was a somewhat obvious reluctance to bail out of a plane that the pilot thought they could make a good landing in.