It's probably not true in the "rush to IPO" because I'm not aware of there being a "rush" when it comes to IPO. There are many, many regulations around that, and by the time a company is at that stage they have already attained a tremendous amount of users and revenue (if not profit!).
So it's unlikely that some new killer feature programming tool will be of any relevance in the timeline to IPO.
BUT as to growth hacking or, to put it more mildly, creating product-market fit, yes, you don't care so much about performance/security/architecture/extensibility/back-log.
Nor should you. Having a top-class IT team build a performant, scalable, secure system with beautiful design is just a waste of money if the system has no users/revenue.
On the flip side, having a wordpress site built in a week that shows that you have revenue/users is invaluable. It will help secure further funding. It will help determine if there is appetite for the product being built. It's the ultimate in agile development, really.
All that stuff - performance, security etc - is pointless if you have no users. Who cares if your database operates in O(n^n), you only have 10 users and 500 entries... same with security.
So it is common in the startup industry - in fact, it is almost necessary in the startup industry. The industry is now in a phase of low-funding (amazon secured half a million in funding from friends/family for an idea, good luck with that nowadays) and reliance on traction. There are arguments for/against this, but the reality for now is that this necessitates cut-down concepts over grand design.
This is not true, however, in established companies. If you're building software for a bank, for example, then security, performance, architecture - testing - these are all central concepts. After all, any software you build is going to be used - probably quite heavily and with need to be expanded in the future. In general, internal software for large corporates will need all the things that are considered best practices.