I’m not saying it was a great movie, but in college I used to love She’s the One. The movie juxtaposes two brothers, Mickey (Edwards Burns) and Francis (Michael McGlone). Mickey is a taxi driver who eventually marries a cheery, carefree waitress. Francis is a wealthy stock investor who is married (Jennifer Aniston) but having an affair (Cameron 
Diaz). The movie opening includes the following exchange:
Mickey: …I’m happy right where I am.
Francis: Big deal. You’re happy. You’ll never make any real money.
Mickey: So? You make a pile of dough and you’re miserable. What’s that matter?
Francis: I’m not miserable–I’m dissatisfied. That’s what makes me a success.
Francis claims that happiness stifles success. There are a number of ways we use the word ‘happiness’ (see my recent YouTube videos at The Philosurfer channel), but here I think Francis means the happiness of Life Satisfaction Theory (LST): Mickey is happy because his life has enough of what he cares about. LST is attractive to many people because it gives you control of your happiness in circumstances you can’t control. Imagine a prisoner in the Soviet gulag that is tortured, underfed, and overworked, but at night has incredible philosophical conversations with other prisoners. If that’s what matters to her, then she can be happy even in the bleakest circumstances.
Given this theory, however, Francis has found a bizarre problem. Assume LST. Then happiness is just life satisfaction, which is just having what you care about. Now, if we set our bars low enough, we can be happy with pretty deplorable circumstances. So, if happiness is what we aim at, we could be demotivated to improve ourselves or our circumstances. Our gulag prisoner is happy, and if that is all she aims at, then even given the option to leave, she shouldn’t. Less 
dramatically, Mickey is satisfied–happy–with being a taxi driver. If he only aims at being happy, his low-bar will ensure he never improves his position (by the way, this is Francis’ perspective, not mine; I see nothing wrong with driving a taxi). This is a typical objection to LST: happiness is just resignation.
If you’re like me, however, you won’t feel comfortable with Francis’ conclusion: if happiness is satisfaction and satisfaction entails resignation, then we should stay perpetually dissatisfied so we can be successful. It seems to me that we should be satisfied and motivated. How? First, I think we must clarify what we mean by ‘success.’ A thing is successful only if it achieves the goal or purpose set for it. If that thing doesn’t have a purpose, then by definition there can be no such thing as success or failure. In the same way, if our lives have no purpose, they can’t fail or succeed. (You may ask, “Can’t I just set my own goals?” Sure! But see this article.) So, LST happiness can only be a problem if there is an actual goal or purpose for our lives, for then it can stymie our pursuit of that goal. It’s probably clear now, however, that this is not a problem so long as we take our life’s purpose and make it what matters to us. Then pursuing our happiness is exactly commensurate with our lives being successful.
Problem solved? Not quite yet, for there is still the lingering concern that although we will be aiming at happiness, we won’t achieve it until much later when we achieve that success. However, this is only a problem if our life’s goal is a distant target, and it might not be. For example, as a Christian, I believe our life’s purpose is to serve and enjoy God, but this is something done moment-by-moment, so it is something that can be achieved now. Further, this is often achieved by improving the lives of others and, through furthering our relationship with God, improving ourselves. Therefore, it avoids Francis’ concern of stagnation. Thus, Francis’ objection is, surprisingly, correct, but can be obviated so long as we have the right kind of success.