As a potential employee, should I frown on “zerg hiring”?

I must disagree with your observation. The lack of funds may explain why the startup did not hire earlier. I'm was in that case myself. Just got important fundings from VCs and I'm hiring the developers I need. I don't hire them because I can, but because I need them.

Don't forget time to market is one of the most important competitive advantage small startup have.

So don't be worry. Don't get away from them, seek for challenges and great work environment.

That said, I met a brilliant serial entrepreneur once that explained me he needed to hire 25 developer to look big because he was not credible in front of large US technology firms that asked him "how much developer you have?" in conferences. Saying "10" (the real number) would make him so not interesting. He solved the problem by opening an offshore office. One year later that guy sold his company for millions to one of the largest and most influencing technology company of US. Good chances he was pretty right...

When I hear startups say things like this, should I take points away from them?

No, but you should start thinking. Thinking about the startup's product, market and people. And start asking further questions to get more information.

The information you're looking for as a possible new employee isn't in the "hiring fast" part. It's in the:

• methods the company uses (development methodology fx)
• in the people (are they smart?)
• and especially in the "product/market fit" (do they know their customers needs, do they have data to validate their understanding, or do they seem like they'll get there soon?).

When I hear startups say things like this, should I take points away from them?

Generally yes, although it depends. Personally I try to hire a new person after I'm happy with the last hire and his/her relationship with the team.

If you are hiring 2-3+ programmers at a time in the middle of a project, there is a big chance that you are doing it wrong. If you are doing this to speed up in the short term or hit a deadline you definitely doing it wrong, and you should go and read a copy of Mythical Man Month.

They can have legitimate reasons but "we got money, we need to grow quick" hires are generally bad idea.

It's a problem if bottlenecks prevent you from using them effectively to complete large projects faster than you would have without them. You could have them tackle projects or address issues down the assembly line, but if that causes your startup to lose focus on clear goals, then reevaluate your decision.

"Zerg hiring" - What an apt analogy. The same is true for zerglings attacking a defensive wall in Starcraft. If the wall is too narrow (bottleneck), your zerg will fail to break through the wall and simply be picked off by marines on the other side.

Throwing people at a problem is a method as old as dirt. I've run operations in startups big and small. The bigger the company, the more likely they will be tossing some people to solve a problem. Rarely does it solve the issue. In my startup we don't hire in groups. We add one at a time. Once we have "indoctrinated" one employee in that functional area, only then do we think about hiring another one.

That said, if you like the people and you believe in the idea + execution, join them. Just make sure to value options and/or stock grants at ZERO. If monetary compensation and benefits meet what you think you are worth to this company (and what they think you are worth too) - join them. You might just get lucky.

Endemic in developer-driven startups is the attitude that says - we have some unsolved problems, so the next dev we hire can solve them. But if we keep doing what we're doing (only faster), we'll likely keep getting what we're getting (only worse).

You're right to be watching out for that. And at the same time, when things start working, this could be a sign of success.

So look at the team. What skills, expertises, contacts etc are needed, and who's covering what? Is that leaving gaps? What's being done about those?

I have a bias towards startups that tackle the commercial questions early, and build learning.

And I have a bias against startups where the founding team delay hiring into their own areas of weakness.

So I'd suggest getting the best view you can of the whole enterprise - why not ask to see the funding document that got them through that last round, so you can see how they've been pitching to investors.

In the end it will come down to some objective factors and a whole lot of subjective ones. If you're in the happy position of being able to choose between a range of opportunities, try and optimise on both axes.

I second Pierre's answer. This outfit may have plans for staffing that required funding, and they just closed a round. Who is the development team right now? Are the executives doing it until the engineering team can be built? Should the CEO and CFO/CMO/VP Marketing be coding along with the CTO that you spoke with? (It's a team of three, right?) Aren't there other duties required of them as the company grows, such that they need others to take over on the coding?

Pardon me if this hits a nerve but I spent 15 months in a 'temporary' engineering role until we closed a round of funding. That's because an investor became a no-show right after I joined ... it took a lot longer than a couple of months (how long we figured I would be on the development team) to find their replacement. That meant 15 months of development by day and doing my 'real job' evenings and weekends with whatever energy remaining, taking only one weekend per month for downtime.