I feel that the latter can convey a mental image of a person lounging at home in their pajamas, drinking a chai latte while ‘dabbling’ occasionally in work, while the former more accurately describes what I’m hoping the future of (former) office work will be: something not bound to a single, company-controlled, indoor location.
One thing I really love about working remotely is that I can maintain perspective. It's easier to take a step away and remember to see life for what it is rather than getting so caught up in the miniature worlds created by someone else who didn't necessarily have everyone's best interests at heart.
This is literally what a lot of people want though.
People act (on average) with a lot more good faith than most corporate entities.
If, as a manager, you are unable to infer that this is happening, then in all probability that person would be doing the same 'dabbling' if they were co-located. (Just with a higher effort of looking busier).
Old administration thought that wasn't good, because people were screwing around during the 8-5. I tried to explain that yes, that happened, but
a) that already happens in the office;
b) they're also working at night, on the weekends, and whenever the hell I need them to, and not complaining about it, or even being bothered by it
c) they're happier and MUCH more effective for the students.
No go.
That's why, despite having the choice to work from home, I am going to mainly work in the office.
At work = work mode, at home = home mode.
I will say when I used to just sometimes work from home, it was more important for me to do the usual morning routine, dress up in my usual business casual, and sit down in my office.
The last 10 years or so, when I've been increasingly working remote--and have been effectively full-time even within fairly easy commute of an office--I don't bother and will work anywhere in the house I want.
You can have a "fixed" work environment without it being a centrally managed office.
More reason why "work-from-home" is an under-efficient specifier on both sides for what people are often really asking for/what bosses really want. "Work-from-home-office" at the very least would offer a better impression to both sides, though I think the great-grandparent here's "flexible-location" is probably better still.
if a worker wants to slack off and post on HN (or watch netflix) during office hours it does not matter if they are "in the office" or at home....
When interviewing candidates and speaking about the company to current employees I make a conscious effort to say that we are a “remote” or “distributed” company.
Given the shitty internet situation (might just be here in Germany though) and background noise anywhere that is not the office or home (which seems to be still bad in a lot of cases), that doesn't seem too desirable of an image. Those factors are what cause the location in "flexible-location" to be home 99% of the time for me (and probably many other people).
"Flexible-location" implies that I might not live within commuting distance of one of my employer's offices.
"Work-from-home", so far, has been abused by employers who are hellbent a so-called "hybrid" model and still want to require that employees live within commuting distance. "Work-from-home", in any proportion less than 100%, is worthless for someone who doesn't want to live in the 'burbs.
We got home office laws, where the employer has to give you stuff to do you work from home.
And we got mobile work laws, where things are more flexible, and people are allowed to work in office if they wish, but can work from anywhere they like. This way the employer doesn't have to put effort into a potential home working environment.
Isn't what you do in the office except you don't wear pyjamas and have to look busy?