Thomas (2003) believed management as an essential art. As such, management practice is unacceptable to situations in the form of rules and procedures which might be derived from rigorous theorization and experimental research. He further states that effective managers cannot be made, they are born. They have innate qualities which enable them to ‘get result’ at the workplace, and it is not possible to describe or measure that innate qualities. Because of that Thomas (2003) said it is impossible to transfer their skills to others, although it is possible to learn through experience at work. Shipman (1972) cited in Thomas (1993) states that in natural science scientist try to invent medicine they do not have pressure upon them, but in social science managers always have pressure upon them to produce result and produce in an unambiguous form. Thomas (2003) further states that medical science does an enormously better job today than it did before the development of medical science, if management is social science then why does it not give perfect result as natural science, for example medical experts who do research and find new ways of treatment, all doctors use the same method and cure patients, in the same way why do not all managers find solution like natural science. He further states that science involves a commitment to generalized knowledge which can be use universally whereas art view declares this to be an unrealized aim. A natural science is effective because nature cannot be influenced by human beings as human beings do not have the power to change natural things. However, it is clear that management as art and management as science is entirely opposed to each other.