Introduction

The current rates of post-creation failure of newly created businesses suggest that it would now be appropriate to initiate studies on the determinants of success of the coaching relationship, capable of revealing possibly poorly met coaching needs ((Minot, 2016 ; Boussaguet, S ,2019) Christophe Schmitt et al, 2019). All the more so since studies show that creation projects that have received support have higher short and medium-term survival rates (Messeghem et al. 2013; Degeorge, 2017; Wolf & Cuénoud, 2017).

Therefore, in order for the entrepreneur and his or her coach to ensure the performance of the newly created enterprise, they must co-construct their coaching relationship through their exchanges, and implement and evaluate the actions necessary to achieve this objective (Aline Dupouy, 2008). In fact, according to the latter, to be effective, the coaching relationship must be co-constructed by both parties: the entrepreneur and the coach. It follows that each party finds "its place" and its interest in the coaching relationship.

The coaching relationship must be a real key to the performance of the company being created and to the personal development of the entrepreneur, and the latter must develop reflexes aimed at perpetuating the good practices encouraged by his coach. However, despite the fact that entrepreneurship researchers consider that effective coaching has an effect on the success of the entrepreneur and the performance of his or her business and that the coaching relationship has a role in achieving the results or benefits of coaching. In this context, asking questions about the factors that determine the success of this relationship is of major importance. Indeed, since the contribution of (C. Bryuat, 1993) about the importance of the relational dimension in coaching, the work done in this field is embryonic.

The few research studies carried out on this subject show that the accompanying person and the person being accompanied must have a certain number of characteristics for the accompanying relationship to succeed (Christiane Bughin et al 2019). In this regard (Etienne St- Jean, 2009) (Paul Couteret et al, 2006), considers that if the behavior of the coach is ideal to be able to succeed in the coaching relationship, then the openness, commitment of the entrepreneur and trust towards his coach are necessary... For (Christiane Bughin et al 2019) the entrepreneur must be receptive to the coach's advice, must be committed to the relationship and open to change. Engstrom, (2004) argues that the entrepreneur must have a willingness to receive advice from an outsider, some desire for change, and be open to having new experiences. Although there are many theoretical developments that presume the existence of positive links between the entrepreneur's trust in the coach and the coaching relationship, empirical studies on this subject are rare. Therefore, we asked ourselves the following question: Does the trust of the entrepreneur towards his coach have an influence on the entrepreneurial coaching relationship?

Literature Review

The Entrepreneurial Support Relationship

There are many definitions of entrepreneurial support in the scientific literature. However, the different forms that support can take (Pezet and Le Roux, 2012) as well as the many cognitive interactions between support and support (Lévy-Tadjine, 2011) make the exercise of the single definition more complex. Cuzin and Fayolle (2004, p.79) define support as follows: “Support is presented as a practice of helping the creation of a business, based on a relationship that is established over time and is not one-off, between an entrepreneur and an individual external to the creation project. Through this relationship, the entrepreneur will achieve multiple learning and be able to access resources or develop skills useful for the realization of his project."

P.Valeau (2006) nevertheless insists on the role of moral and psychological support that falls to the accompanist, especially in periods of doubt of the accompanied. Hence, as Levy- Tadjine (2011) argues, it is necessary to take into account the mutualist relationship between accompanied and accompanying. Levy-Tadjine (2011, p.83) mentions that there are gaps in the literature concerning the modeling “of what is played between the two interlocutors in the support relationship”. In this context, Rice (2002) used the term "co-production" to illustrate the way in which entrepreneurial support relationships work. Both the accompanying person and the accompanying person must therefore have a certain number of characteristics so that the accompaniment relationship can be beneficial for both parties. Thus, according to Audet and Couteret (2005), the support person must show a certain degree of empathy, must be attentive to the support person, must be at ease within the environment. in which the accompanied evolves and must appear credible in the eyes of the accompanied. The accompanying person must be receptive to the advice of the accompanying person, must be committed to the relationship and open to changes. In addition, Audet and Couteret (2005 insisted on the importance of the bases on agreeing the two parts as for the progress of the accompaniment. Indeed, it is important that is established a kind of moral contract specifying the targeted objectives, the means that will be put in place to achieve them, the respected roles of the coach and his protégé and an action plan including a timeline (Covin and Fisher, 1991; King and Eaton, 1999).

Trust As A Success Factor In the Coaching Relationship

Given the lack of work on trust and the entrepreneurial support relationship, we have borrowed from the work done on trust in the management field. In this regard, the literature informs that the definitions dedicated to trust can be grouped under two approaches (Naouel Makaoui, 2014).

The first approach is based on the cognitive and affective aspect of expectation, while the second is based on the behavioral intention (Smith and Barclay, 1997).

According to the psychological approach, trust would exist only through a cognitive component (belief, expectation, goodwill, hope ....). Singh and Sirdesshmukh (2000) justify the choice of the psychological approach in the conceptualization of trust by the posteriority of intentions to expectations. Thus, the behavioral intention that corresponds to a presumption (Gurviez and Korchia, 2002) or to a commitment (Geyskens et al. 1995) is an outcome of trust. According to the behavioral approach, trust is analyzed as a risk-taking behavior in the exchange (Smith and Barclays, 1997). According to this view, trust is understood as a behavioral intention that translates into a willingness to be vulnerable and to take risks (Mayer et al., 1995). In an attempt to reconcile the two approaches, some researchers view trust as a two-sided concept that incorporates expectations and behavior at the same time. Other researchers are highly critical of the separation between the psychological and behavioral domains of trust. They argue that behavioral intention is implicit in its definition (Geyskens and Steenkamp, 1996). According to (Naouel Makaoui ,2014), we have a predominance of the cognitive approach in the definition of trust. It is important to argue that despite its major role in any social and relational exchange, trust remains a difficult concept to define. Moreover, it is not easy to apply it in an identical way to all research fields, particularly to entrepreneurial support. However, this analysis has enabled us to arrive at a definition of this concept: trust is the set of beliefs and expectations that lead the entrepreneur to consider that the coach will act in the interest of their coaching relationship. It therefore implies faith, the belief that the entrepreneur is willing to maintain an action in the desired direction.

Based on a review of the literature on trust, we divide trust in the context of entrepreneurial support into two categories: the trust of the entrepreneur s trust in the coach (interpersonal trust) and his trust in the host organization (incubator, business center, etc.) (interorganizational trust). "(inter-organizational trust).

Although for some researchers, the two notions are closely linked, an ambiguity remains in this respect. (Zaheer et al. 2006). Indeed, the authors have noted that there is a difference in nature between trusting an individual (coach) and trusting an organization (coaching structure) (Anderson and Narus 1990). Indeed, according to (Mériade Laurent 2019), trust is above all a question of relationship between individuals. In our case, it is the trust between the entrepreneur and the coach. It is not possible to talk about trust at the level of a coaching organization since we can only trust its members and the relationships that are established between them. This is called interpersonal trust. Hence, the interpersonal basis appears to be the legitimate anchor of trust (Williams, 2001). For many, interpersonal trust is built essentially on cognitive and affective components (Jeffries and Reed, 2000).

The cognitive component is built on relatively objective characteristics that the entrepreneur attributes to the coach, such as competence, integrity, and honesty, based on the coach's previous experiences. As for the affective component of trust, it corresponds to a very emotional attachment relationship, which makes it more difficult to build (Jeffries and Reed, 2000). It requires very frequent interactions between the two parties of the dyad (the entrepreneur and the coach). Affective trust is thus associated with an investment in terms of time and feelings (McAllister, 1995).

As for inter-organizational trust, it goes beyond the interpersonal relationship between the entrepreneur and the coach, and encompasses the entire coaching organization. Indeed, it is clear that it is always people who trust each other, not organizations, and that exchanges between organizations are exchanges between individuals or small groups of individuals (Barney and Hansen, 1994). However, coaching organizations have a reputation and an image. They develop procedures, norms, values and principles with the aim of unifying the behavior of their coaches with respect to their external interlocutors, which are only novice entrepreneurs. For, Khalifa and Kammoun (2013), the two paths of trust influence each other. Thus, interpersonal trust can be the source of organizational trust, and vice versa (Doney and Cannon, 1997). Many authors argue that organizational trust can only exist at the interpersonal level. Other authors consider that, although interpersonal trust and inter-organizational trust are very similar, they have neither the same antecedents nor the same consequences. The antecedents of interorganizational trust lie primarily in the characteristics of the coaching organization, whereas interpersonal trust is concerned with the personality of the coach and the nature of the relationship with the coachee (Doney & Cannon, 1997).

Similarly, the literature indicates that trust can take three main forms (Rousseau et al. 1998). The first form, described as contractual, concerns the respect of promises (written or oral). It resides in the entrepreneur's belief that his or her coach respects universal ethical standards, such as keeping his or her word or maintaining confidentiality. This type of trust comes more from formal mechanisms (contracts) than from past exchanges or personal elements.

The second type of trust is technical trust (McAllister, 1995), which is based on knowledge. It is linked to the entrepreneur's expectation that his or her coach will carry out the task with professionalism, which implies the technical and managerial capacities of the coach. This type of trust originates in the predictability and credibility of the coach. It is based, on the one hand, on the entrepreneur's sufficient knowledge of the coach that allows him to anticipate his behavior, and, on the other hand, on credible information about the coach's intentions or skills (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). This is interpersonal trust of a cognitive nature, referred to as "cognitive trust" by Lewis and Weigert (1985).

The last form of trust is called relational and is linked to the reliability and seriousness demonstrated during the entrepreneur's interactions with his coach, which generate positive expectations about the coach's intentions (Rousseau et al., 1998). It develops over the course of the experience, establishes a certain overall climate and takes into account a reciprocity between the two parties: the trust that is granted and the trust that is perceived (N'Goala, 2000). This type of trust is therefore based on the integrity of the exchange dyad. It arises from the fact that the parties are committed and respond in an open manner (Usunier, 2000). Relational trust can be motivated by a strong positive feeling towards the other party (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Barney and Hanson (1994) refer to it as "strong trust," and Ring (1996) refers to it as "resilient trust." Studies show that technical trust is necessary at the beginning of the relationship; as the relationship evolves, it moves beyond this stage (Rousseau et al. 1998). The more the dyad is involved in the exchange, the more the trust induces a long-term orientation and the trust then appears as relational (Akrout & Al 2011). Contractually based trust qualified as the most "fragile" form of trust (Ring, 1996).

Regarding the operational construct of trust, the literature does not establish any consensus. Some authors consider it as a unidimensional construct (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Others consider it as a multidimensional variable, but seem to disagree on the number of dimensions to be retained: two for Guviez (1999), three for Mayer et al. (1995), Gurviez and Korchia (2002) and Akrout (2011) or even eleven according to Butler (1991). In any case, based on the definitions of trust presented earlier, a number of dimensions related to this concept emerge, such as competence, honesty, credibility, integrity, benevolence and goodwill.

Competence: this is the set of skills necessary to perform a task properly and effectively in a given situation (Mayer et al, 1995). It refers to the skill, know-how and expertise of the coach, i.e. his or her aptitude in terms of professionalism. Research has shown that the "competence" dimension underpins trust in the coach and determines the relationship between coach and entrepreneur (Josée Audet et al 2009). According to Josée Audet et al (2009), the entrepreneur must recognize the expertise of his coach and consider that this expertise is necessary in order to facilitate the resolution of the problems of the business being created. Indeed, the coach must be able to lead the entrepreneur to be open to change, to eventually acquire new knowledge or skills and modify his or her behaviors accordingly (Sammut, 2003).

Honesty: this is the belief that a partner will keep his or her promises and be sincere and reliable. According to Audet et al (2009), not only can the absence of promises be detrimental to the quality of the coaching relationship, but its non-fulfillment can also have harmful consequences.

Credibility: The coach must gain the trust of the person being coached so that the latter agrees to open up to him. To achieve this, the coach must first establish credibility with the entrepreneur (Dalley and Hamilton, 2000; Couteret et al. 2006).

Integrity: This is the belief that the coach keeps his or her promises and adheres to established rules for conducting exchanges (Mayer et al., 1995; Bhattacherjee, 2002). According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), a partner with integrity must be "competent, honest, sociable, and responsible.

Benevolence: This dimension corresponds to the good intentions of the coach and his or her perceived determination to pay attention to the needs and well-being of the entrepreneur.

At the end of this development, we conclude that the coaching relationship must be based on trust (Couteret et al., 2006; Cranwell-Ward et al., 2004; St Jean and al 2009; Mitrano-Méda et al. , 2014) and confidentiality in order to promote authentic and effective exchanges. Indeed, several authors note that trust is a key component of the quality and effectiveness of the coaching relationship (Barrett, 2006) and that it must be mutual (P. Valéau, 2006) so that the functions of the coach can be deployed to the maximum (Chun, Litzky, Sosik, Bechtold and Godshalk, 2010). In the context of entrepreneurial mentoring, the relationship between trust and the mentor's functions was empirically tested by St-Jean and al (2009). His results showed that the entrepreneur's trust in the mentor positively influences the deployment of functions. These functions also promote the development of the entrepreneur's learning (St-Jean and Audet, 2010). Indeed, if the entrepreneur has confidence in his or her coach, the latter will commit to providing the necessary support through the functions he or she performs. Insofar as the objective of coaching is to support the entrepreneur by transmitting his or her knowledge and skills, trust in the relationship is essential for the transmission of knowledge. In this context, Dupouy and Pilnière (2010) admit that establishing a relationship of trust with the entrepreneur is essential for the coach to be able to intervene at the level of intimate learning mechanisms. Hence we find it legitimate to deduce and formulate our first hypothesis as follows:

H1: The trust of the entrepreneur towards his coach has a positive influence on the entrepreneurial coaching relationship.

Method of Data Collection

To achieve our objectives, we chose to collect the data using a questionnaire for a sample of 350 Tunisian novice entrepreneurs. Contractors were asked to indicate their degree of agreement with the variable statements of our study. Then, these two components are measured by items on a Likert scale of five points.

Measurement of Variables

The trust construct, which, to our knowledge, has been the subject of only one operationalization in previous studies on the coaching relationship, that of (Jean Etienne, 2008). According to this author, trust in the coach is based mainly on the personal qualities necessary to establish a relationship of trust. After a review of the literature, we defined this construct as follows. The relationship of trust is based on personal qualities such as honesty, ability to keep promises, discretion, openness, loyalty, behavioral stability, interpersonal knowledge and skills, communication and frequency of meetings between the two parties. Empirical research that has focused on the operationalization of interpersonal trust is numerous in management science. However, some modifications have been made to the trust measurement scales identified in the works of Hosmer (1995), Meyer et al (1995); Geindre (2002); Morgan and Hunt (1994); Das and Teng (1998) and Doney and Cannon (1997) so that they can be adapted to our study context. Therefore, following the example of (Jean Etienne, 2008), we use the following measurement scale for the confidence perceived by the novice entrepreneur in relation to his coach. (I can trust my support person; My companion is a reliable person on whom I can rely; My support person behaves in a predictable way).

Our definition of the construct of the entrepreneurial-accompanying relationship is based on the research of those authors mentioned above. Paul Couteret and al. 2005; 2006 ; St-Jean Etienne and al , 2009 ; 2011)

The relationship between the attendant and the entrepreneur is an exchange relationship where the two parties benefit from each other's collaboration in terms of knowledge and experience

Among the few research on the accompanying relationship, St-Jean Etienne and al (2010, 2011) was the first to operationalize the accompanying entrepreneurial relationship. The reliability of the resulting measurement scale is composed of nine items: it is considered very satisfactory. Therefore, we are adopting this measurement scale : (. It allows me to make a precise picture of myself and my company ; It secures me ; He believes I can succeed as an entrepreneur ; I consider him a friend ; He puts me in touch with people he knows ; It provides me with information and intelligence related to the business world ; Confrontation he would not hesitate to contradict me if he did not agree ; He offers me other points of view. ; He shows me his successes and failures).

Data Analysis

After collecting data from 350 Tunisian entrepreneurs, we analysed their responses regarding the impact of The trust of the entrepreneur on the success of the entrepreneurial support relationship. The processing of the data is carried out through the modeling by the structural equations, via the PLS regression, using the software Smart-PLS.02.

Results

Estimation of the Model by Structural Equations

To verify our hypothesis by PLS regression. We began by evaluating the measurement model and then evaluating the structural model, as well as estimating the results for our hypothesis raised in this study.

The Measurement Model

This model represents the linear links between the constructs and their indicators. (See figure 1) To test the measurement model, we adopted three evaluation methods.

Reliability

It is a question of checking the reliability of each of the variables in our search model. Precisely, measure the internal coherence of our research constructs. The latter is ensured by verifying the Cronbach alpha of construction (the minimum alpha threshold is 0.7), and especially the composite reliability (CR), which is considered to be higher than the traditional measure of coherence (the Cronbach alpha), since it does not depend on the number of indicators (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). From the analysis of the table below, it appears that our composite reliability (RC) indicators are all above the acceptance threshold (0.7). They vary between 0.848 and 0.973: sufficient reliability justifying a very high level of internal consistency. Similarly, the Cronbach alpha values of our constructs are very satisfactory and are greater than 0,907687 in Table 1.

Table 1 Reliability of Constructions
constructs	composite reliability (CR)	Cronbach alpha
The trust of the entrepreneur	0,942116	0,907687
Success of the entrepreneurial coaching relationship	0,973685	0,969400

To better appreciate the study of the internal coherence of the constructs of our model, we also evaluate the convergent validity of the constructs.

Convergent Validity of Constructions

Taking into account the criticisms addressed to the Alpha coefficient, particularly its sensitivity to the number of items, it is advisable under the PLS approach to complete the verification of the convergent validity of the constructed by using two other indicators. The first is that we will purify the variables by retaining only indicators with a correlation threshold > 0.7 (Fernandes, 2012). The second is that we will examine the average shared variance (AVE) that should be > 0.5. To achieve this, simply calculate the PLS algorithm that our generate the following results.

This Table 2 shows that convergent validity is ensured since all the items have a correlation threshold > 0.7 (loadings vary between 0, 8 and 0.9) and a shared mean variance value (AVE) greater than 0.5 (they vary from 0.80 to 0.84). This latter indicator allows us to ensure both convergent validity of constructs (Chin, 1998) and discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Table 2 The Converging Validity of the Constructs
Construct	Item's	Loodings	AVE	Composite Reliability
The trust of the entrepreneur	CONF1	0,891067	0,844506	0,942116
	CONF2	0,904235
	CONF3	0,960143
Success of the entrepreneurial coaching relationship	REACC1	0,802931	0,804659	0,973686
	REACC2	0,909251
	REACC3	0,913278
	REACC4	0,915418
	REACC5	0,907314
	REACC6	0,933339
	REACC7	0,927569
	REACC8	0,903458
	REACC9	0,852916

The Quality Valuation of the Model

To judge the quality of the model under approach PLS, there is not indication who allow to test the quality of the model in its totality. Nevertheless, three stages of validation are allocated in specialised literature allowing to appreciate the quality of the model: the quality of the measure model, the quality of the structural model, and the quality of every structural equation.

The Evaluation of the Quality of Measure Model

First, we note that we assessed our structural model without mediatory variables. To examine model quality of mesure, we notice stocks of coefficient of determination (R²) of each of dependent variables. This coefficient also allows to estimate the predictive power of model of research.

Found results generated by technology algorithm PLS, show that all variables introduced in our model explain on the whole (R = 48,2 %) relation businessman-accompanist. According to the size of our sample which can be considered to be a high size, we can note that of R² respect the border of 0,13 minimum suggested by (Wetzels and al. On 2009). So, value constitutes allowable result and indicates that our model is significant.

The Quality Evaluation of Every Block of Variables

As we advanced before, coefficient Q² of Stone-Geisser (CV-redundancy) of endogenous variables allows to examine the quality of every structural equation. So, to appreciate this indication we had appeal in technology Blindfolding under software SmartPLS, found results show us that indications Q² are positive and different from zero for relation businessman accompanist (0,147). These results point out that the model has a predictive validity.

The Evaluation of the Quality of the Structural Model

To assess the quality of the structural model we will examine the value of indication GOF. This Indication is reckoned through average of communalité and average of R² of endogenous variables. Therefore indication GOF is reckoned by:

GOF = √ communalité× R ²

GoF = √ (0,7590865) * (0,4402675) = 0,5036.

This meeting result allows us to pass to the following stage of the analysis of data.

Validation and Evaluation of the Structural Model

The objective of this paragraph is to evaluate the structural model, so the emphasis is on testing the assumptions made. To achieve this, two non-parametric techniques are used in the PLS approach: the jackknife technique or the bootstrap technique. In this study we used bootstrap replication analysis (n = 350, 500 iterations). (Chin, 1998) indicates that jackknife is less efficient than bootstrap in the sense that it is only an approximation, bootstrap being a more recent method of re-sampling. Hence, to test the significance of structural relationships, we use the bootstrap procedure (sample = 500; n = 350) by saturating the model. The results obtained are presented where the first column presents the relationships relating to our assumptions which have been significant. The second and third columns show respectively the values of the regression coefficients and of the Student t. The latter must be > 2.58 for a significance level α = 1%, > 1.96 for an α = 5% or > 1.65 for an α = 10% in Table 3.

Table 3 Significance of Structural Relations
hypothesis	Coefficients of correlation (β standard)	Value (t)	Decision
The trust entrepreneur ⇓ Success of the accompanying relationship.	0,169620	2,708321	Confirmed

Analysis of these found results allows us to confirm our research hypothesis.

Discussion

The results of the analysis show significant relationships between the Independent variables and the accompanying contractor relationship. Indeed, the results of the Bootstrap analysis also demonstrate that the trust of the entrepreneur towards his coach is significantly and positively related to the entrepreneur-coach relationship, the hypothesis (H1) is validated (t = 2.708'1.96; β =0.170), the more the entrepreneur shares trust towards his coach, the more the coaching relationship is positive.

Trust by the entrepreneur appears to be a significant determinant of the entrepreneur-coach relationship. This result is consistent with those of several researchers (Audrey Assoune (2010) (Kram, 1985; Allen and Eby, 2003; Ensher and Murphy, 1997; Wanberg et al., 2006, )) who indicate that trust plays a role in the coaching relationship. Similarly, Geertjan Weijman (2013) and Etienne St-Jean et al (2010; 2011; 2012 and 2013) also on several occasions have confirmed the positive impact of the entrepreneur's trust on the success of the entrepreneur-coach relationship.

So, the trust of the entrepreneur towards his coach seems important for the success of the relationship, because the entrepreneur by expressing their trust recognizes what the other knows how to do or what he should know, i.e. he evaluates or judges positively the capabilities of his coach. Indeed, the reliability and benevolence of the coach are extremely important factors for the entrepreneur, because in any relationship the entrepreneur must be convinced that the coach will take into account the best interests of the coachee and that he will not act in his own interest. In the same way, the ability to listen and the empathy perceived in the coach are considered as essential conditions, even primordial, that favor the trust of the entrepreneur.

Conclusion

The main purpose of this study is to measure the contribution of the trust of the entrepreneur to successful entrepreneurial support relationships. To conduct this analysis, to carry out this analysis, we opted for a hypothetico-deductive approach that allowed us to study the relationship between the trust of the entrepreneur and the success of the accompanying relationship through a hypothesis derived from managerial theory. To better understand this relationship, we selected a sample of 350 novice entrepreneurs. To test our hypothesis, we analyzed the data collected from entrepreneurs by the Smart-PLS software.

The results of this study showed that the trust of the entrepreneur contributes to the success of the entrepreneurial support relationship. our work contributes to a more precise and concrete knowledge of the entrepreneurial accompaniment relationship which is beyond the level of commitment of the novice entrepreneur, the perceived trust and the existence of a psychological contract between the entrepreneur and the attendant and not only the adequacy of the personal characteristics of both parties. For entrepreneurs, it is very useful to know how to manage this relationship. It must understand the importance of psychological determinants in the success of their accompanying relationship. It must also recognise the importance of interaction between the different partners involved in the relationship. This knowledge can help accompaniments raise a share of unknown in the failures of newly created companies despite their accompaniment.

Despite the results obtained, our study is limited by the relatively small sample size, as well as the questionnaires used in the primary data retrieval process to ask respondents for their views on a problem that remains subjective and therefore it is sensitive to generalize our results. To overcome this limit, it would be interesting to conduct a study on a larger sample, and since our study was based only on the leading entrepreneurs, it would be appropriate to also take the advice of the coaches.

References

1. AKROUT, Wafa and AKROUT, Houcine. Trust in B to B: towards a dynamic and integrative approach. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (French Edition), 2011, vol. 26, no 1, p. 59-80.
2. ANDERSON, James C. and NARUS, James A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of marketing, 1990, vol. 54, no 1, p. 42-58.
3. AUDET, Josée and COUTERET, Paul. Le coaching entrepreneurial: spécificités et facteurs de succès. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 2005, vol. 18, no 4, p. 471-489.
4. AUDET, Josée, COUTERET, Paul, and AVENET, Grégory. The success factors of a coaching intervention with entrepreneurs: an exploratory study. Actes du, 2004, vol. 7.
5. BACHMANN, Reinhard and ZAHEER, Akbar (ed.). Handbook of trust research. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.
6. Barney, Jay B. and Hansen, Mark H. Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic management journal, 1994, vol. 15, no. S1, pp. 175-190.
7. BHATTACHERJEE, Anol. Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of management information systems, 2002, vol. 19, no 1, p. 211-241.
8. BRÉDART, Xavier, BUGHIN, Christiane, and COMBLÉ, Karin. The impact of governance on involvement in a CSR approach in a company. Recherches en Sciences de Gestion, 2019, no 3, p. 291-315.
9. BRUYAT, Christian. Business creation: epistemological contributions and modeling. 1993. Thèse de doctorat. Université Pierre Mendès-France-Grenoble II.
10. BUTLER JR, John K. Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of management, 1991, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 643-663.
11. CHIN, Wynne W., et al. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern methods for business research, 1998, vol. 295, no. 2, pp. 295-336.
12. CHUN, Jae Uk, LITZKY, Barrie E., SOSIK, John J., et al. Emotional intelligence and trust in formal mentoring programs. Group & Organization Management, 2010, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 421-455.
13. Clutterbuck, D. (2005), "Communication and psychological contract", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 359-364
14. COUTERET, Paul and AUDET, Josée. Coaching, as a mode of support for the entrepreneur. Revue internationale de psychosociologie, 2006, vol. 12, no 27, p. 139-157.
15. COVIN, Teresa J. and FISHER, Ted V. Consultant and client must work together. Journal of Management Consulting, 1991, 6(4), 11-20.
16. Covin, TJ and Fisher, TV (1991) The consultant and the client must work together. Journal of Management Consulting, 6, 11-19.
17. CRANWELL-WARD, Jane, BOSSONS, Patricia, and GOVER, Sue. The Differences Between Mentoring and Coaching. In: Mentoring. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2004. p. 45-47.
18. CUZIN, Romaric and FAYOLLE, Alain. Les dimensions structurantes de l'accompagnement en création d'entreprise. La Revue des sciences de gestion: direction et gestion, 2004, vol. 39, no 210, p. 77.
19. DALLEY, Jeff and HAMILTON, Bob. Knowledge, context and learning in the small business. International Small Business Journal, 2000, vol. 18, no. 3, p. 51-59.
20. Degeorge J. M. (2017). "From the diversity of the entrepreneurial coaching process towards a better complementarity". Revue de l'Entrepreneuriat, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 7-15.
21. DONEY, Patricia M. and CANNON, Joseph P. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of marketing, 1997, vol. 61, no 2, p. 35-51.
22. DUPOUY, Aline, PILNIÈRE, Véronique, et al. Accompaniment of the innovative project owner and implementation of his or her skills development process. 10th International Francophone Congress on Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2010.
23. DUPOUY, Aline, PILNIÈRE, Véronique, et al. Accompaniment of the innovative project leader and implementation of his process of competency development. 10th International Francophone Congress on Entrepreneurship and SMEs, 2010.
24. DUPOUY, Aline. Accompanying the innovative project leader... or how to make his competencies emerge. Projectics/Proyéctica/Projectique, 2008, no 1, p. 111-125.
25. Fernandes, Valerie. "In what way is the PLS approach a method to (re)-discover for management researchers? ", M @ n @ gement, vol. flight. 15, no. 1, 2012, pp. 102-123.
26. FERRANDI, Jean-Marc, VALETTE-FLORENCE, Pierre, PRIME, Nathalie, et al. Linking personal values and time orientations: The case of the attitude towards cellular phone in France and Germany. Convegno 'Le Tendenze del Marketing in Europa', Universita Ca Foscari Venezia, 2000, p. 1-18.
27. FORNELL, Claes and LARCKER, David F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. 1981.
28. GARBARINO, Ellen and JOHNSON, Mark S. The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of marketing, 1999, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 70-87.
29. GEYSKENS, Inge, STEENKAMP, Jan-Benedict EM, et KUMAR, Nirmalya. Generalizations about trust in marketing channel relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in marketing, 1998, vol. 15, no 3, p. 223-248.
30. GEYSKENS, Inge, STEENKAMP, Jan-Benedict EM, SCHEER, Lisa K., et al. The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment : A trans-Atlantic study. International Journal of research in marketing, 1996, vol. 13, no 4, p. 303-317.
31. GURVIEZ, Patricia et KORCHIA, Michaël. Proposition d'une échelle de mesure multidimensionnelle de la confiance dans la marque. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (Edition française), 2002, vol. 17, no 3, p. 41-61.
32. JEFFRIES, Frank L. et REED, Richard. Trust and adaptation in relational contracting. Academy of management review, 2000, vol. 25, no 4, p. 873-882.
33. KHALIFA, Ali Hadj et KAMMOUN, Mohamed M. La confiance interpersonnelle et la confiance organisationnelle dans la relation client-prestataire de service : cas de la relation client-banque. La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 2013, no 3, p. 167-174.
34. KING, Paul et EATON, John. Le coaching au service des résultats. Formation industrielle et commerciale, 1999.
35. LEVY-TADJINE, Thierry. Peut-on modéliser la relation d'accompagnement entrepreneurial ? La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 2011, no 5, p. 83-90.
36. LEWIS, J. David et WEIGERT, Andrew J. The social dynamics of trust : Recherches théoriques et empiriques, 1985-2012. Social forces, 2012, vol. 91, no 1, p. 25-31.
37. MAKAOUI, Naouel. La confiance inter-organisationnelle : essai de conceptualisation et proposition de mesure. Question(s) de management, 2014, no 3, p. 39-60.
38. MAYER, Roger C., DAVIS, James H., et SCHOORMAN, F. David. Un modèle intégratif de la confiance organisationnelle. Academy of management review, 1995, vol. 20, no 3, p. 709-734.
39. MCALLISTER, Daniel J. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 1995, vol. 38, no 1, p. 24-59.
40. MCALLISTER, Daniel J. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of management journal, 1995, vol. 38, no 1, p. 24-59.
41. MÉRIADE, Laurent. L'hybridation des instruments de gestion. L'exemple du pilotage de la performance universitaire en France. Management Avenir, 2019, no 2, p. 13-42.
42. Messeghem K., Sammut S., Chabaud D., Carrier C., Thurik R.. (2013). " L'accompagnement entrepreneurial, une industrie en quête de leviers de performance ? ", Management International, vol. 17, n° 3, p. 65-71.
43. Minot V.E. (2016). État des lieux et perspectives du marché des cessions-transmissions de PME en France, Thèse professionnelle, HEC.
44. MITRANO-MÉDA, Stéphanie et VÉRAN, Lucien. Une modélisation du processus de mentorat entrepreneurial et sa mise en application. Management International/International Management/Gestión Internacional, 2014, vol. 18, no 4, p. 68-79.
45. MORGAN, Robert M. et HUNT, Shelby D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 1994, vol. 58, no 3, p. 20-38.
46. MORGAN, Robert M. et HUNT, Shelby D. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of marketing, 1994, vol. 58, no 3, p. 20-38.
47. N'GOALA, Gilles. Une approche fonctionnelle de la relation à la marque : de la valeur perçue des produits à la fidélité des consommateurs. 2000. Thèse de doctorat. Montpellier 2.
48. PEZET, Éric et LE ROUX, Annaïg. La nébuleuse de l'accompagnement : un palliatif du management ? Management Avenir, 2012, no 3, p. 91-102.
49. RICE, Mark P. Co-production de l'aide aux entreprises dans les incubateurs d'entreprises : une étude exploratoire. Journal of business venturing, 2002, vol. 17, no 2, p. 163-187.
50. RING, Peter Smith. La confiance fragile et résiliente et leurs rôles dans l'échange économique. Business & Society, 1996, vol. 35, no 2, p. 148-175.
51. ROUSSEAU, Denise M. Le "problème" du contrat psychologique considéré. Journal of organizational behavior, 1998, p. 665-671.
52. SAMMUT, Sylvie. L'accompagnement de la jeune entreprise. Revue française de gestion, 2003, no 3, p. 153-164.
53. SCHMITT, Christophe et GRÉGOIRE, Denis A. La Cognition entrepreneuriale. Enjeux et perspectives pour la recherche en entrepreneuriat. Revue de lEntrepreneuriat, 2019, vol. 18, no 1, p. 7-22.
54. SINGH, Jagdip et SIRDESHMUKH, Deepak. Mécanismes d'agence et de confiance dans les jugements de satisfaction et de fidélité des consommateurs. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 2000, vol. 28, no 1, p. 150-167.
55. SMITH, J. Brock et BARCLAY, Donald W. The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of marketing, 1997, vol. 61, no 1, p. 3-21.
56. SMITH, J. Brock et BARCLAY, Donald W. The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of marketing, 1997, vol. 61, no 1, p. 3-21
57. ST-JEAN, Etienne and AUDET, Josée. Factors Leading to Satisfaction in a Mentoring Scheme for Novice Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 2009, vol. 7, no 1.
58. ST-JEAN, Etienne and AUDET, Josée. Factors Leading to Satisfaction in a Mentoring Scheme for Novice Entrepreneurs. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 2009, vol. 7, no 1.
59. ST-JEAN, Etienne and AUDET, Josée. The effect of mentor intervention style in novice entrepreneur mentoring relationships. Mentoring & tutoring: partnership in learning, 2013, vol. 21, no 1, p. 96-119.
60. ST-JEAN, Etienne, LEBEL, Luc, and AUDET, Josée. Entrepreneurial orientation in the forestry industry: a population ecology perspective. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 2010.
61. ST-JEAN, Etienne. Accompanying the transmission/takeover: the example of mentoring at the Fondation de l'entrepreneurship. Entreprendre Innover, 2012, no 2, p. 67-73.
62. VALÉAU, Patrick. Supporting entrepreneurs during periods of doubt. Revue de lEntrepreneuriat, 2006, vol. 5, no 1, p. 31-57.
63. WILLIAMS, Raymond. The long revolution. Broadview Press, 2001.
64. Wolff D, Cuénoud T. (2017). " Pour une approche renouvelée de l'accompagnement des créateurs et des repreneurs d'entreprise : le coaching entrepreneurial ", Vie & Sciences de l'entreprise, vol.2, n°204, p. 146-163.
65. WOLFF, Dominique and CUENOUD, Thibault. Pour une approche renouvelée de l'accompagnement des créateurs et des repreneurs d'entreprise: le coaching entrepreneurial. Vie sciences de l'entreprise, 2017, no 2, p. 146-163.