It's definitely captive depending on who leads the team. I've done it before. And it can be abusive if the CTO demands 100% code coverage. It gets to the point where writing any test, even a bad one is better than delaying a release just for the sake of "100% coverage". And that was at an early-stage startup where we had to move fast - and guess what, they went out of business in 6 months because we couldn't get any kind of product out. It was hilariously stupid to demand 100% code coverage on a startup without any product. TDD and testing isn't a cure-all, and in some cases it's a curse.
Your CTO was captive/abusive, not TDD. You're describing your own SS and trying to equate that with "all TDD is bad". I said nothing about 100% test coverage or poor management skills.
In my case, TDD was absolutely the problem with the dev team failing to be able to deliver in a timely way - it wouldn't have matter if the CTO mandated 100% test coverage or 75%. Anyone who thinks TDD doesn't slow a team down to a crawl is just fooling themselves, hence the Stockholm syndrome. In my view, TDD is bad for most projects, but tests are not. TDD is putting the cart before the horse. Tests should be written once the functionality is working well. Then write tests. There are very few kinds of development where TDD is the right way to go, and they involve launching space shuttles, designing medical equipment, and operating nuclear power plants. Launching a social media site? No, just no.
