The distinction, work vs “work” is necessary to stress that the beneficial results of nonviolent action often lie in the future. “Work” means the immediate and obvious effects, while work without quotes designates the resulting underlying and fundamental shifts brought about by nonviolence; in other words, it means ‘does good work’ not ‘got what we wanted’.  All action has consequences on various levels; a nonviolent actor always takes into account the intended long-term objectives and consequences and not just the more expedient or visible results.  Because nonviolence can take time to address root causes of violence or injustice, people seeking immediate objectives often reject it on the grounds that nonviolence doesn’t “work”. Often they embrace violence because it satisfies an immediate need, while ignoring the long-term adverse consequences, thus lurching from crisis to crisis instead of improving things.

One can characterize the difference as follows:

Violence sometimes “works” but never works; while
nonviolence sometimes “works“ and always works.

A classic example of the difference is provided by the Gandhi-led Salt Satyagraha of 1930. At the cost of much suffering, the campaign produced virtually no change in the hated salt laws — but has been identified by historians as the turning point that lead to the independence of India 17 years later.

Reference: The Search for a Nonviolent Future, Chap. 4