Final answer:
General Savage's leadership style should be effective if it results in achieving strategic objectives, maintaining unit cohesion, and commanding respect. Military leadership effectiveness often correlates with the ability to demonstrate military prowess, as was evident in the enduring 'Warrior archetype' seen in figures like Stalin.
Step-by-step explanation:
The leadership style of General Savage when he takes over his Bomber Squadron should be evaluated based on its effectiveness during the context of wartime. The effectiveness of a military leadership style is contingent upon various factors, including the adaptability of the leader, the cohesion and morale of the troops, and the ability to achieve strategic objectives.
When higher officers act out of resentment and engage the enemy without the proper coordination with the commander-in-chief, as pointed out in reference 17, it can lead to disastrous outcomes. A decentralized approach may lead to insubordination and lack of unit cohesion, which in turn could result in failure.
Comparatively, the Warrior archetype and the ideal of a general as a figure of strength and respect is an enduring notion, as seen in the portrayal of Stalin during World War II. A leader who can demonstrate military prowess and achieve victories can often solidify his position of power and maintain the loyalty and morale of his forces. This is underscored by Napoleon's viewpoint that authority derived from military success is fragile and reliant on continuous strength and fear.
Overall, General Savage's effectiveness would be based on his ability to command respect, engender discipline, and lead his squadron to successfully meet their objectives under the extreme pressures of war.