While there have been many studies analyzing the ability of LLMs to solve problems through reasoning, their application of reasoning in summarization remains largely unexamined. This study explores whether reasoning is essential to summarization by investigating three questions: (1) Do humans frequently use reasoning to generate new summary content? (2) Do summarization models exhibit the same reasoning patterns as humans? (3) Should summarization models integrate more complex reasoning abilities? Our findings reveal that while human summaries often contain reasoning-based information, system-generated summaries rarely contain this same information. This suggests that models struggle to effectively apply reasoning, even when it could improve summary quality. We advocate for the development of models that incorporate deeper reasoning and abstractiveness, and we release our annotated data to support future research.