In the multi-agent community, the need for social deliberation appears contradictory with the need for reactivity. In this paper, we try to show that we can draw the benefits of both being reactive and being socially organized thanks to what we call “social reactivity”. In order to defend this claim, we describe a simulation experiment in which several sheepdog agents have to coordinate their effort to drive a flock of ducks towards a goal area. We implement reactive controllers for agents in the Classifier Systems formalism and we compare the performance of purely reactive, solipsistic agents which are coordinated implicitly with the performance of agents using roles. We show that our role-based agents perform better than the solipsistic ones, but because of constraints on the roles of the agents, the solipsistic controllers are more robust and more opportunistic. Then we show that, by exchanging reactively their roles, a process which can be seen as implementing a form of social deliberation, role-based agents finally outperform the solipsistic ones. Since designing by hand the rules for exchanging the roles proved dificult, we conclude by advocating the necessity of tackling the problem of letting the agents learn their own role exchange processes.