Step 1: Recall the debate - is management a science or an art?
Management has features of both a science (systematic body of knowledge, principles derived from study) and an art (practical application requiring personal skill and creativity). The question asks what makes it an art specifically.
Step 2: Define what art means in this context.
Art involves the personalised and creative application of knowledge. Two artists given the same tools and techniques will produce different works. Similarly, two managers given the same principles will manage their teams differently based on their personality and intuition.
Step 3: Eliminate "Universal applicability of its principles".
This supports the science side - universal, objective principles are a hallmark of science, not art.
Step 4: Eliminate "Predictability of outcomes".
Exact predictability is a trait of pure sciences like physics or chemistry where cause and effect are fixed.
Step 5: Eliminate "Systematic experimentation".
Developing principles through research and experiment is how science builds its knowledge base, not art.
Step 6: Confirm "Reliance on creativity and personal skill".
Art requires the practitioner to draw on imagination, intuition, and unique personal ability. A manager does exactly this when applying textbook principles to unpredictable human situations.
\[ \boxed{ \text{(C) Reliance on creativity and personal skill} } \]