The Effect of Risk Management and Internal Control on the Performance Efficiency of the Yasothon Municipality

Abstract

The research aimed to study the risk management and internal control that affected the performance efficiency of the Yasothon municipality and to compare the personal factors that contributed to the performance efficiency as classified by sex, age, educational levels, positions, and working experience.

            The samples were 223 personnel affiliated to the municipality in the study. The research instrument questionnaire. Statistics used in data analysis were frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, Pearson’s
co-relation coefficient, multiple regression analysis, t-test and F-test.

            The research findings were as follows.

1. Given the risk management and internal control, activities and follow-up, communication and reports, risk identification, organizational analysis could affect the performance efficiency of the personnel under the Yasothon municipality at a statistical significance of .01. The related environments could affect the performance at a statistical significance of .05. All five variables could predict the performance efficiency of the personnel under the Yasothon municipality by 37.10 (R²_adj= .371)
2. With the personal factors compared, the personnel of different sex were not different in prioritizing activities and follow-up, communication and reports, and organizational analysis. They held a different view on the risk identification, and controlling environments at a statistical significance of .05.  The personnel of different age held no different priority on activities and follow-up, organizational analysis, and controlling environments. They gave different priorities on the risk identification at a statistical significance of .01, on communication and reports at a statistical significance of .05. The personnel with different working experience had not differently prioritized the activities and follow-up, risk identification, organizational analysis and controlling analysis. The staff with different educational levels and different positions had no different priorities on activities, communication and reports, risk identification, organizational analysis, and controlling environments.