Do you believe that leading Signal/comms servicemembers requires a different approach from leading other servicemembers? Why, or why not?

anything mi is question mark . Simple mistake may care great consequence . To be fare anything in 35 cares a big chunk of trust in people that you work with

On what basis would it need to be different? This sounds an awful lot like the old saw I heard all the time. "Leading _____ is different than leading infantry types, after all they are smarter and have more civilian opportunity than grunts.". If you want a solid answer, what do you feel is the difference between signals/comms personnel or their duties than ground combat, aviation, nuclear power, maintenance etc? Otherwise my response is no. Leadership is leadership.

I'm not sure grouping by branch makes any sense... there is a lot of difference between your average cable dog and your average satellite communications operator. Despite that you need to use the appropriate style of leadership for the mission and the soldiers you are leading. Always taking an authoritarian or a more collaborative approach to soldiers based solely on their branch or MOS isn't a good plan.

Former 25B here.
Honestly we just need to be treated like humans, like anybody else. As soldiers we adhere to regulations and do our MOS as best we can. We don't need to be coddled or treated differently.
the only thing we need as signal soldiers is great leadership, I had NCOs that were both good and bad and guess which one I gave the most effort to? which ones I still keep in contact with even til today? but on the other hand most signal soldiers are of higher intelligence and because of it some may be socially awkward or inept. like I said. its all about treating us like humans. you get out what you put in right? same goes with how you treat those who work for you.

No, whether signal or finance, Soldiers are expected to master their craft, adhere to the regulations and set the example.