**Introduction**

Studies indicate that positive psychology has a positive influence on workplaces today. By definition, self-concept can get considered as an individual’s definition of themselves. The environment can determine self-concept, especially for managers, as discussed in this report. Whether a manager develops a positive or negative self-concept depends on how they get treated. If they develop a positive self-concept, they are likely to have high productivity. A negative self-concept usually leads to a decrease in willingness to work, leading to hopelessness, frustration, and anxiety.

**Problem background**

As an IT consultant for several companies in the United States, Alpha Incorporated has collected vast data from mid-level managers throughout the country to assess the impact of various intervention programs on their self-concept scores. The managers were assigned randomly to one of the three treatment programs: A naturalistic wilderness group survival program, a physical development program, and an in-class lecture/discussion type program. The measure of self-concept was then recorded on a scale of 0 to 60 by each participant. This report analyzes the data provided (see Appendix A) using statistical methods and makes conclusions and recommendations on the effectiveness of each treatment program or intervention.

**Data description**

A hundred and seventy-four min-level managers from different companies in the country got selected to participate in the study. The managers got randomly assigned to one of three intervention programs; a naturalistic-wilderness group survival program, a physical development program, and an in-class lecture/discussion type program. Therefore, each intervention program had a total of 58 participants. Their self-concept scores got recorded.

**Business Questions**

The data could provide significant implications regarding self-concept among mid-level managers. One business question is whether there is a difference between the three intervention programs mentioned. Another question would be on whether there is a preferable program among the three. Finally, it would be reasonable to assess the rationale behind the differences between the scores.

**Analyses and Results**

Descriptive statistics can help make general conclusions and derive possible implications using mean, median, and deviation. All scores per intervention program were summed up and divided by the total number of participants. The following were the results of data analysis using descriptive methods.

Type | Naturalistic program | Physical program | In-class program |

Mean | 48.86 | 35 | 43.29 |

Median | 49 | 35.5 | 44 |

Range | 17 | 6 | 9 |

Mode | 45, appeared 18 times | 33, appeared 15 times | 44, 45, each appeared 8 times |

Largest | 57 | 38 | 47 |

Smallest | 40 | 32 | 38 |

The naturalistic program has the highest mean of the three programs, followed by the in-class program and then the physical program. The naturalistic program has the highest median, followed by the in-class program and finally the physical intervention. For the naturalistic intervention program, the data is positively skewed. Both the physical and in-class programs have negatively skewed data.

**ANOVA**

Hypothesis: The null hypothesis (H0); there is no difference between the three groups and equality of the means. The alternate hypothesis; there is a difference between the means and groups.

F-statistic value = 206.86212

P-value = 0

Data Summary | |||||

Groups | N | Mean | Std. Dev. | Std. Error | |

Group 1 | 58 | 48.8621 | 5.4304 | 0.713 | |

Group 2 | 58 | 35 | 2.0175 | 0.2649 | |

Group 3 | 58 | 43.2931 | 2.7145 | 0.3564 | |

ANOVA Summary | |||||

Source | Degrees of Freedom DF | Sum of Squares SS | Mean Square MS | F-Stat | P-Value |

Between Groups | 2 | 5644.3103 | 2822.1552 | 206.8621 | 0 |

Within Groups | 171 | 2332.8995 | 13.6427 | ||

Total: | 173 | 7977.2098 |

**Interpretation of Results**

If P-value ≤ α, the differences between some of the means are statistically significant, hence the null hypothesis gets rejected. The lower p-value provides evidence against the null hypothesis. Initially, the null hypothesis was that the difference between the means of the three groups was insignificant. However, in the case above, the p-value is less than the alpha value (.05). As a result, the difference is statistically significant. Based on the mean, the Naturalistic program has the highest mean, followed by the in-class program, which is higher than the physical program. The media is as well significant because it tells us the skewness of the data. In this case, the median of the naturalistic program is highest compared to the other two groups.

**Conclusions and Recommendations for Decision-Making** The naturalistic program is the most effective intervention because it produces the highest scores and has a positive skew when the median gets considered. On the other hand, the physical program is the most ineffective intervention. Because of the differences, companies must use naturalistic intervention, and the second-best option should be the in-class program. Companies should avoid using the physical program as much as possible because of the significantly low scores comparative to the other interventions.