When Horst Kohler was at last confirmed as the new managing director of the IMF earlier this year, it must have crossed his mind that he was picking up the world's most toxic poisoned chalice. The appointment was the subject of bitter in-fighting between the IMF's shareholders, and was only secured for Mr Kohler after Gerhard Schroder, Germany's chancellor, staked his diplomatic reputation on it.

Mr Kohler arrived knowing that no-one really wanted him to do the job. He was not even the first choice for Germany, which had previously put forward Caio Koch-Weser. It is a measure of Horst Kohler's initial success that that raging controversy has been put behind him.

Almost all the comment since he took up his post in May has been favourable; his critics, if not necessarily won over, have at least been silenced.

The IMF as an institution is being questioned just as vigorously as ever, but Mr Kohler as an individual has at least been given a space to make his mark. Shoring-up his own authority was only the beginning, however. Now he has to do something with it.

The Prague annual meetings have been advertised as the chance for Mr Kohler to set out his vision, and governments, markets, investors and campaign groups will be scrutinising every word.

Mr Kohler's experience, in the German government, at the head of the association of savings banks and running the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, has had a largely European rather than a global focus.

Moving from the EBRD to the IMF might seem a logical progression in some respects, but it is a step up to a much larger stage. The key to how the IMF will be different under his leadership may lie in Mr Kohler's reputation as an able problem-solver, rather than a visionary. In handling the re-unification of Germany, or the Maastricht treaty that set Europe on the path to monetary union, or putting the EBRD's finances in order and bringing it back into profit, the successes of his career have been built on a practical approach and a firm grasp of detail.

What has been seen of Mr Kohler's ideas so far certainly seems to conform to that pattern, for example his proposals for sharpening the IMF's focus and simplifying its lending conditions. He has also appeared sympathetic to the idea of adjusting the IMF's shareholding structure to reduce European influence.

He made a point of visiting South America and Africa early in his directorship, to show that the concerns of developing countries will be taken seriously, but he has also been praised by commercial banks for his understanding of their interests. He has expressed reservations about ideas for "bailing-in" private sector lenders and investors so they share more of the pain in financial crises, which are backed by some European governments, and won some support from Michel Camdessus, his predecessor.

On a recent visit to London, he also impressed debt relief campaigners by talking about the need for a "bolder" step in writing off the debts of the poorest countries.

He also spoke up for what those countries see as their key interest, when he described rich country trade barriers to poor country imports as "the core problem in the fight against poverty".

The worry must be that what looks today like a sensible pragmatic approach for a newly-appointed managing director could eventually come to seem like an attempt to please everyone.

So far Mr Kohler has had an easy ride; the biggest announcement he has had to make since May has been the uprating of the IMF's forecast for global growth this year.

The economic and financial environment has been particularly benign. When times get harder, so will the job of running the IMF.

Issues such as debt relief and private sector involvement are highly controversial and cause deep divisions. An attempt to be all things to all men must be doomed to failure.

The joint statement from Mr Kohler and James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president, made earlier this month gave an idea of Mr Kohler's strategic thinking. He clearly hopes to try to redefine the Fund's responsibilities, to reduce what has often seemed a growing overlap with the work of the World Bank.

Their declaration said the two men had agreed that the Fund's core mandate was to promote financial and economic stability and growth, while the Bank's central responsibility was reducing poverty by supporting economic development.

Mr Kohler and Mr Wolfensohn added that growth of global financial markets and the size and volatility of private capital flows, meant that the IMF had to concentrate on systemic issues relating to the functioning of financial markets, and make crisis prevention a priority.

In a crisis, the IMF would be expected to take the lead in negotiating an economic and financial stabilisation and reform programme, but the design of structural reform should be left to the Bank.

These ideas should please the critics who have argued that the IMF has been too involved in long-term lending, and too involved in the micromanagement of economies that have run into difficulties.

What the world is waiting for now is a sense that this strategy stands a chance of restoring the legitimacy of the IMF, under attack from so many different directions, and a conviction that Mr Kohler is going have the determination necessary to carry it out.